The Problem Of Socrates And The Rise Of Reason Nietzs 448375

Weekthe Problem Of Socrates And The Rise Of Reasonnietzsche Argues Th

Nietzsche argues that Plato and Socrates replaced Ancient Greek tragedy and its emphasis on passion and instinct with reason. He interprets Socrates’ discovery of reason and argument through dialectic, the famous Socratic method, as one that arises out of ressentiment and revenge at all that is noble by someone of lower class, a member of the rabble, to which Nietzsche claims Socrates belongs. For those familiar with Socrates, he is known to put those he speaks with on the defensive by asking them to support their statements with evidence. Often those with whom he speaks are unable to support their opinions thereby showing they do not really know what they claim to know.

“The dialectician leaves it to his opponent to demonstrate he is not an idiot: he enrages, he at the same time makes helpless.” (Twilight of the Idols, I 7, pg 42) As stated in a previous lecture, Nietzsche admired the Greeks for engaging with the chaos and darkness of the Dionysian and making art by giving form to the formless out of the Apollonian instinct. He thought by engaging with the Dionysian the Greeks prior to Socrates were driven by healthy instincts and the ability to look at the horrors of the world without fear. Through the Dionysian these Greek lovers of Tragedy engaged with change and chaos. Having turned against instinct Nietzsche thinks the Greeks became sick and turned to reason as their life raft.

No longer able to endure life and its great mysteries they wished to expose all that was magical to the light of reason. Unable to endure ambiguity, the Greeks substitute instinct for reason. “The fanaticism with which the whole of Greek thought plunges into reason, betrays a critical condition of things: men were in danger; there were only two alternatives: either perish or else be absurdly rational. The moral bias of Greek philosophy from Plato onward, is the outcome of a pathological condition, as is also its appreciation of dialectics. Reason = Virtue = Happiness, simply means: we must imitate Socrates, and confront the dark passions permanently with the light of day—the light of reason.

We must at all costs be clever, precise, clear: all yielding to the instincts, to the unconscious, leads downwards.” (TI, The problem of Socrates, 11) Socrates too acts out of instinct, but for Nietzsche these instincts are diseased. Socrates was driven by the instinct for clarity and definition and developed strong rational and argumentative powers. By acting on these powers, he introduces reason and dialectic and at the same time maximizes his power. The popularity of Socrates’ method arises from “his personal art of self-preservation” and lies in its agonistic stance. (Twilight of the Idols, I 9, 42) With the dialectic, Socrates owns his power and gathers the admiration of the aristocratic youth’s desire for competition, contest and mastery.

Nietzsche calls him the “first fencing master” whose allure for the Athenian youth verges on the erotic. (TI 8, pg 42). Again, as Nietzsche interprets people’s actions based on a physiological model, he believes Socrates engages in the art of argumentation because that is what he is master at and that is where his power lies. He creates for himself a style that is deemed beautiful. Nietzsche thinks that Socrates made a tyrant of reason and imprisoned life by reducing mystery and the state of the world’s perpetual becoming to the powers of reason and its desire to measure and know things. The enhancement of the drive for calculation creates a cold, circumspect world devoid of tolerance to change, becoming and the unknown.

Anything that could not be captured conceptually or marked by moral categories through reason was cast away in the dark and placed on the borders of everyday life. Through the dominance of reason, Socrates created “a permanent daylight—the daylight of reason. One must be prudent, clear, bright at any cost: every yielding to the instincts, to the unconscious, leads downwards.” (TI 10, pg 43) “The most blinding light of day: reason at any price; life made clear, cold, cautious, conscious, without instincts, opposed to the instincts, was in itself only a disease, another kind of disease—and by no means a return to 'virtue,' to 'health,' and to happiness. To be obliged to fight the instincts—this is the formula of degeneration: as long as life is in the ascending line, happiness is the same as instinct.”

According to Nietzsche it is simply in bad taste to have to give reasons and justifications for everything. To want to expose everything to the daylight of reason is simply bad manners. It leads to a denial of instincts. To act out of good taste and strength, Nietzsche thinks, does not require any justification by reason or excuses for action. “What has first to have itself proved is of little value.” (TI 5, pg 41) Read the section THE PROBLEM OF SOCRATES in Twilight of the Idols:

Paper For Above instruction

The philosophical critique of Socrates by Friedrich Nietzsche presents a radical reinterpretation of the Greek philosopher’s role in the development of Western thought. Nietzsche perceives Socrates not merely as a seeker of truth, but as a disruptive force that replaced the natural Dionysian instincts of chaos, passion, and instinct with a cold, rational dialectic that diminishes life’s vital forces. This critique is rooted in Nietzsche’s broader assessment of Greek culture, which he sees as oscillating between the Dionysian and Apollonian principles. The Greeks initially embraced chaos and passionate engagement with life, as expressed through tragedy and myth, embodying a balance that allowed for the acknowledgment of life's mysteries and the acceptance of change. However, Nietzsche argues that Socrates and subsequent Greek philosophers shifted the focus toward reason, perceiving it as a virtue and the path to happiness, thereby suppressing the more instinctual and chaotic Dionysian urges that fueled earlier Greek art and culture.

This transition, according to Nietzsche, was driven by a pathological condition within Greek society—namely, a crisis where the danger and chaos of life became intolerable, prompting a turn to rationality as a form of self-preservation. The Greek philosopher Plato, who followed Socrates, epitomized this shift by emphasizing dialectic as a means to attain objective truth through logical argumentation, yet Nietzsche criticizes this method as rooted in ressentiment—a form of revenge against nobility and vitality—originating from lower-class ressentiment. Socrates’ dialectical method, characterized by relentless questioning and a desire to expose ignorance, is viewed by Nietzsche as an expression of instinct turned diseased and repressed, driven by envy, ressentiment, and a desire for mastery.

Nietzsche further portrays Socrates as effectively the first ‘fencing master,’ whose art of argumentation became a tool for asserting intellectual dominance and consolidating power. His mastery in debate and his focus on clarity and rationality serve to create a world where mystery, becoming, and the unconscious are subdued and marginalised. The drive for calculative reason, in Nietzsche’s view, leads to a sterilized universe devoid of life’s spontaneity, passion, and chaos—attributes that Nietzsche associates with the Dionysian instinct. The dominance of reason, he argues, manifests as a “tyranny of rationality” that strips life of its depth and vitality.

Furthermore, Nietzsche criticizes the moral and cultural consequences of Socratic rationalism, claiming that it fostered a “disease” of the spirit, where life is viewed through a lens of prudence, caution, and moral categories, discouraging spontaneity and instinctual action. He denounces this movement as degenerative, asserting that it leads to a life impoverished in genuine vitality and happiness, which are rooted in instinctual affirmation of life’s chaos and uncertainty. Nietzsche advocates for a return to embracing the Dionysian—the chaotic, instinctual forces of life—as a vital counterbalance to the rationalization that he believes ultimately impoverished Greek and Western culture.

In conclusion, Nietzsche’s critique of Socrates and the rise of reason exemplifies his broader philosophical stance that life’s vitality is best preserved through instinct and instinctual affirmation, rather than through the suppression and rational control exemplified by Socratic and Platonic philosophy. His analysis encourages a reevaluation of the values that underpin Western civilization, urging an acknowledgment of the importance of embracing chaos, change, and the unconscious as fundamental to human vitality and artistic expression.

References

• Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1889). Twilight of the Idols. Translated by R.J. Hollingdale. Penguin Classics.
• Gutting, G. (2018). Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography. Yale University Press.
• Reginster, B. (2006). The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism. Harvard University Press.
• Pinkard, T. (2002). German Philosophy 1760-1860: The Legacy of Idealism. Cambridge University Press.
• Grene, M. (2014). Nietzsche’s View of Greek Tragedy. Harvard University Press.
• Solomon, R.C. (2004). Living with Nietzsche: What the Great "Immoralist" Tells Us About Life. Oxford University Press.
• Hollingdale, R. J. (1999). Nietzsche: The Man and His Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
• Baillie, P. (1993). Nietzsche and the Greeks: The Tyranny of Dionysus. Routledge.
• Claude, N. (2017). Nietzsche and the Art of Life. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Young, J. (2010). Friedrich Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography. Cambridge University Press.