Look what a study was finally done on in the current year
Scholars tend to lump these two texts into the “late period” with Twilight of the Idols, the Antichrist, etc. when they’re standalone works on their own.
I think this is a good point from the outset
Why have philosophers since the time of Nietzsche found it necessary to take him on? These become very interesting questions in their own right, for what they seem to suggest is that Wagner’s art, not only as a creative deed, but also in terms of the historical and philosophical exegesis in which he contextualised it, really might have exposed some kind of raw nerve when it came to the relationship between philosophy and art.
He did he did! I showed you the other day that Adorno was using him as his foil. And Heidegger doesn’t have the nicest things to say about him either. He f&*%ed with their minds, that’s why. Not like a musician has ever f&*%ed with my mind, so I wouldn’t get it. Wagner has lesser known writings of a theoretical nature though so don’t think these philosophers are responding to his dramas plain and simple. Both Wagner and Nietzsche focused on philosophy and art, the difference is, Wagner wrote like 5 Zarathustras so to speak, and Nietzsche wrote 5 Art and Revolutions.
Does this make anyone else melt?
Wagner’s arguments that connect life and art as the conditio sine qua non of a flourishing culture and thus make the creative deed the genuine metaphysical activity of human beings
Nietzsche just copied this right from him, insulting him the whole time he did it. Very disreputable if you ask me.
Nothing too serious going on here
a very real duel with Wagner over the final meaning of culture
Everything is subjective, right? So why even have this discussion? -echoes of retard groans-
The irony is that we’ve gotten to this relativistic stance in the first place because both the arts and the sciences ganged together to mesmerize the population into believing it.
Yeah just pointing you to an interesting new study.