A discussion of Glenn W. Most’s
‘Nietzsche gegen Aristoteles mit
Aristoteles’
Nietzsche-seminar
2nd October 2009
A reflective report
By Bas Nabers
Introduction
During the Nietzsche-seminar on October 2 2009, Glenn W.
Most presented his text ‘Nietzsche gegen Aristoteles mit
Aristoteles’. In it, Most analyses the relation between
Nietzsche’s use of the word ‘Entladung’ in Die Geburt der
Tragödie, and Bernays’ interpretation of the Aristotelian
concept katharsis.
The text was primarily written within the context of a
series of conferences on katharsis. According to Most, Bernays
made a crucial contribution to our understanding of katharsis
on which Nietzsche was to draw. By explaining Aristotle’s
notion of katharsis in medical instead of moral terms, Bernays
raised a whole series of issues which are still relevant today.
Moreover, he translated katharsis with ‘Entladung’, and
‘Entladung’ is a key word in Die Geburt der Tragödie.
In this reflective report, I will first give a summary of
the text. Then I will give an account of the main issues that
were raised during the discussion. Finally, I will conclude with
a critical reflection on both the text and the discussion.
1
1. Summary of the text
Most’s analysis of the relation between Nietzsche’s use of the
word ‘Entladung’ and Bernays’ interpretation of the
Aristotelian concept katharsis starts with the observation that
Nietzsche rarely uses the word katharsis; even at those places
where one would expect him to do so, the word is lacking (51).
In order to explain this absence, Most draws attention
to §22 of GT, where Nietzsche joins the recent philological
debate, taking implicitly position against Bernays. Bernays had
rejected Lessing’s moral interpretation of katharsis, as well as
Goethe’s aesthetic one, and offered an understanding of
Aristotelian katharsis in medical terms. Nietzsche argues
against both moral and medical interpretations of Greek
tragedy. Doing so, he leaves it unclear which position recent
scholars have adopted, thereby adding to the impression that
there is confusion among them. Neither the struggle of the
hero with his fate, nor the victory of the moral order, nor the
‘Entladung von Affecten’ can define the tragic (52-53; GT 22).
With Goethe Nietzsche argues that the tragic should be
understood as an aesthetic phenomenon. According to Most,
Nietzsche deliberately uses Bernays to argue against the moral
interpretation of Greek tragedy, but only before rejecting
Bernays’ position as well (53-54).
However, against whom does Nietzsche argue here?
Against Aristotle? Or against a specific interpretation of the
Greek philosopher? This is not altogether clear according to
Most (55). He writes that no satisfactory explanation of Greek
tragedy has been given since Aristotle, leaving it unclear
whether ‘since’ includes or excludes Aristotle. Further, it
remains obscure whether Nietzsche found it important that the
recent philological theory of katharsis is conceptualized in
moral or medical terms. Only years after Die Geburt der
Tragödie Nietzsche takes an unambiguous position against
Aristotle. In 1888 he writes that tragedy is life-enhancing,
whereas tragedy appears to be life-negating if we follow the
Aristotelian interpretation. But Most doubts whether we
should understand Nietzsche’s position in Die Geburt der
Tragödie simply in terms of this self-understanding (56). Is
there really such a strong opposition? Most will argue there is
not.
As a student Nietzsche already tried very hard to
oppose Aristotle’s theory of katharsis. For, refuting the great
thinkers of the past would make him famous. With respect to
content, Nietzsche’s early struggle with Aristotle mainly
concerns the role of the choir, which is crucial for Nietzsche
but ignored by Aristotle. When Nietzsche does value
Aristotle’s theory of katharsis, he does so merely because
Aristotle’s analysis indicates that the Greeks were deeply
touched by the tragic music (56). In all his published works
Nietzsche’s critique of Aristotle, Most states, often remained
2
somewhat superficial. In the Nachlass, however, Nietzsche
takes Aristotle more seriously. In one of his notes Nietzsche
writes about the necessity of ‘Entladung’ or katharsis, which
was characteristic of the Greek soul (57).
In Die Geburt der Tragödie itself Nietzsche differs
mainly from Aristotle with regard to the role of the choir and
the nature of the mimesis in tragedy (57). In Most’s view this
suggests that Nietzsche tries to replace rather than to
invalidate Aristotle’s position. And this seems to be the reason
why Nietzsche suppresses the presence of Aristotle in GT (58).
However, Nietzsche’s own position is characterized by
a very active, even energetic ‘Aristotelismus’ (59). Indeed,
Nietzsche does oppose Aristotle, in so far he rejects pity, fear
and morality as crucial in an explanation of tragedy, but there
remain many traces of Aristotle in Nietzsche’s own ideas (59).
This especially holds true with regard to the Bernaysian
interpretation of Aristotle’s concept of katharsis. Bernays had
translated katharsis with ‘Entladung’, which Nietzsche takes
over, bringing the whole Aristotelian conceptualization of
katharsis into play (61). In a Dionysian phase emotions are
stimulated and reinforced; and after their intensity has reached
a certain height, there is an ‘Umschlag’ in a totally different
dimension, one of apollonian visualization and vision. In other
writings (like Nietzsche’s lecture about the ‘Geschichte der
griechischen Literatur’) other ideas related to ‘Entladung’ and
katharsis pop up again and again (60).
Most argues, then, that the central idea in Die Geburt
der Tagödie could only have come into existence out of Bernay’s
concept of ‘Entladung’. Only by paying attention to Bernays’
understanding of katharsis as the background of Nietzsche’s
own views on Greek tragedy, can Die Geburt der Tragödie be
properly understood (62).
3
2. The discussion of the text
2.1 Katharsis and Entladung until Bernays
In order to sketch the background of the views presented in
the text, Most first elaborates on his own understanding of
katharsis, and the development the notion has undergone.
According to Most the history of the notion can be divided in
four phases. During the first Plato set the problem, by posing
the question why people derive pleasures from the horrible
scenes of tragedy. Plato’s answer has to do with his idea that
our emotions are always trying to get control of us, putting
our reason to the test. Now, in tragedy our emotions get so
strong that we get insane. The pleasure we derive from
tragedy is the pleasure we derive from the total victory of one
part of the human psyche over the rest.
Aristotle’s account of tragedy, indicating the second
step in the development of katharsis, was still confined within
Plato’s framework, but also gave a twist to Plato’s account. By
means of the imitations of actions where pity and fear are
involved, tragedy aims to realize a katharsis of these feelings.
Tragedy stimulates emotions, making them stronger and
stronger, in order to realize a turning point, after which the
reason is clarified. Since these observations lack a well defined
theoretical basis (at least in the texts we have today),
interpretations of Aristotle’s katharsis remain hypothetical
reconstructions.
Until Bernays katharsis was understood in moral terms.
Tragedy taught people to be better by showing bad things. The
purification of immoral emotions which katharis was assumed
to imply was part of this process.
Bernays offered a new interpretation of Aristotle’s
katharsis. He adopted a medical approach and drew attention
to Aristotle’s comparison between katharsis and female
menstruation. According to Aristotle, the female body is wet
and cold and, therefore, produces too much blood. By means
of katharsis or menstruation the female body gets rid of too
much blood, allowing her to be healthy again. In a similar way,
emotions would increase while attending a Greek tragedy,
leading to a turning point (Bernays uses the word ‘Umschlag’).
Professor Most is asked whether this intensification of
emotions is for Bernays, as it is for Nietzsche, not only a matter
of quantity, but also of acceleration. Most states that this
acceleration is not particularly thematized. But the fact that
Aristotle emphasized that tragedy takes place in a one day
time might point into that direction.
It is asked why the word ‘Umschlag’ is applied to
Nietzsche’s notion of ‘Entladung’. In Nietzsche’s account
‘Entladung’ entails the recreation of an older substance into
something new, whereas Bernays, when using the word
‘Umschlag’, does not speak of recreation, but of the sudden
4
loss of feeling. Most states that he used the word ‘Umschlag’ in
order to indicate the suddenness of the ‘Entladung’ in
Nietzsche.
After having clarified the history of katharsis, Most
turns to the meaning of the word ‘Entladung’. He discerns
four basic meanings before Nietzsche. First, ‘Entladung’ was
used with respect to a weapon which discharges itself.
Secondly, it related to sexual energy, which is frustrated and
‘entlädet’ itself in an orgasm. Next, it could describe a sudden
discharge of some electrically charged body. And finally, it
could refer to unloading a boat or truck. Most emphasizes that
Bernays used the term in order to oppose the moral
interpretation of katharsis, and drew especially on the scientific,
electric, but also on the sexual meanings of ‘Entladung’.
2.2 A critical discussion of the text
2.2.1 Nietzsche’s and Aristotle’s use of ‘Entladung’
Most questions focus on the relation between Nietzsche’s use
of ‘Entladung’ on the one hand, and Bernays’ on the other. Is
Nietzsche’s use of the term ‘Entladung’, in this case, not far too
small a basis for the similarity claimed in the article? In
Nietzsche’s work ‘Entladung’ has to do with production.
Aristotle’s account of katharsis, on the other hand, only focuses
on the perception of tragedy. The fundamental role which
music played in Nietzsche’s account of Greek tragedy, driving
passions to an overflowing abundance, rather than his
discussion with Aristotle seems to be the motivating ground
for Nietzsche’s usage of ‘Entladung’. Is the BernaysianAristotelian account of tragedy not far too psychological to be
the framework for Nietzsche’s metaphysical account,
involving the expression of Dionysian energy in visual images?
And does not Nietzsche’s description of this process in terms
of ‘Entladung’ owe more to Schopenhauer and Wagner than to
Bernays? And if so, does Nietzsche really use the word
‘Entladung’ as an interpretation of katharsis?
A similar remark draws attention to a passage in
Götzendämmerung (‘Was ich den Alten verdanke’). In this text
Nietzsche uses the word ‘Entladung’ to describe Aristotle’s
view, while defending an account of Greek tragedy, which is
expressed by means of the word ‘Entladung’ elsewhere. This
suggests that Nietzsche consciously uses ‘Entladung’ in at least
two very different ways. One usage is associated with the
‘Reinigung’ of dangerous or disturbing emotions, which is
judged to be necessary by an outside rationality. The other
usage connotes fullness, ‘überfliessen’ and an inner, creative
necessity to express feelings.
Nietzsche’s diverse use of ‘Entladung’ is stressed in an
even stronger way. In Nietzsche’s ‘Lesung zur griechischen
Literatur’ the word seems to pop up everywhere. Can all these
5
usages be covered by the meaning Bernays ascribes to
‘Entladung’? From still a different angle, it is stated that
‘Entladung’ can relate to both positive and negative freedom
(as a freedom from…, and a freedom to…), or as a means to
loose yourself and find yourself. All these remarks tend to
revolve around the same basic question: can’t ‘Entladung’ be a
keyword in Die Geburt der Tragödie, without forcing it to work
within the constraints of a Bernaysian-Aristotelian framework?
To these questions Most replies that Bernays was so
central a figure in Nietzsche’s days that we should assume that
Nietzsche was working with Bernays’ interpretation of
Aristotle. And while responding to him, Nietzsche, like
Bernays, assumed that emotions, through Greek tragedy, get
stronger and stronger until they reach a point where they are
being replaced by Apollonian visions. Nietzsche wanted to
develop an interpretation of tragedy superior to Aristotle’s,
but he could do this only by adopting the word ‘Entladung’ as
a translation of katharsis and using Bernays’ interpretation of
Aristotle. In that sense Nietzsche was writing ‘gegen
Aristoteles, mit Aristoteles.’
In response to this explanation of the title, it is again
argued that Nietzsche uses the word ‘Entladung’, but in a very
different way. The word may be the same, but the attached
concept is totally different (as is the case in §22). This would
mean that Nietzsche is only in a very weak sense ‘mit
Aristoteles’ in GT.
Nonetheless, Most argues, it is important that
Nietzsche used Bernays’ term, and developed it in his writing.
The interesting thing is that he could not have written his
treatise without Bernays’ influence. In order to fully address
Nietzsche’s relationship to Bernays, two things have to be
done: to show that the text could not have been written
without Bernays, and to reveal the differences between them.
In the article the first aim is realized.
Again it is stressed, however, that the accumulation of
Dionysian energies, according to Nietzsche, leads to a
transformation in images. This move has nothing to do with
Bernays. Most argues, on the other hand, that Nietzsche’s
account is similar, insofar he applies the word ‘Entladung’ to
Greek tragedy. Most claims to reveal nothing more than a
hidden discussion between Nietzsche and Bernays. Though he
admits that it may be possible to find other influences on
Nietzsche’s use of the term, Most argues that this still has to be
done and that this was not his aim.
This reply seems to be unsatisfactory, since the
question is rephrased: what needs to be explained is how
images are born out of emotional intensity; what needs to be
clarified is the significance of ‘Entladung’ in Nietzsche. In
addition to this question, it is argued that Nietzsche’s view
about an excess of pain (and not only of emotion) producing a
6
state of harmony and pleasure can not be derived from
Bernays. Where, then, does it come from?
Most agrees that this latter idea does not seem to stem
from Bernays, though one should keep in mind that the Greek
word for emotion could also mean pain. As for the first
objection, Most argues that Nietzsche might well have read
Bernays and interpreted the word in another way, inspired by
Schopenhauer. Nietzsche surely read Schopenhauer, but it is
also interesting to read Nietzsche as someone who has read
Bernays.
The influence of Bernays is again challenged, by the
remark that Wagner also used the word ‘Entladung’. Most
replies that he does not deny other influences on Nietzsche’s
use of the word, but emphasizes that Bernays’ influence
should not be overlooked either, since he applied ‘Entladung’
specifically to Greek tragedy.
With respect to the question about Nietzsche’s focus
on production, opposing Aristotle’s focus on the spectator,
Most stresses that exactly the creative aspect of the reception of
Greek tragedy is central in Nietzsche’s aesthetics.
Another question concerns the notion of ‘Umschlag’ in
the article. Is this a term of Bernays? And can it be applied to
Nietzsche’s views, in the sense that Dionysus ‘entlädt’ itself
into a different, Apollonian realm? Wouldn’t this mean that
Apollo is of less importance than Dionysus?
The term is indeed from Bernays, but Most states that
he used the word ‘Umschlag’ in order to indicate the
suddenness of the ‘Entladung’ in Nietzsche. And while
addressing the question whether this would mean that
Appollo replaces Dionysus (that is, whether we should speak,
in Most’s view, of replacement instead of recreation), Most
argues that Nietzsche himself is ambivalent on this point. At
least at some points Nietzsche suggests that Apollo has won in
a work of art (becoming too Apollonian, therefore, is the
permanent danger for art).
2.2.1 Aristotelian katharsis as life-negating and rationalistic
Some of the questions concern Nietzsche’s view that
Aristotelian katharsis was life-negating and rationalistic. Why
did Nietzsche think so?
Most explains Nietzsche’s negative view on Aristotle’s
analysis of tragedy, by stating that Aristotle saw emotions as
unhealthy, as something you have to free yourself from,
whereas Nietzsche judged them to be vital. And Aristotle
turned out to be too rationalistic for Nietzsche, because he,
unlike Plato, thought it was easy to deal with them.
7
2.2.3 Nietzsche’s act of concealment
Questions are raised concerning Most’s suggestion that
Nietzsche was deliberately suppressing Aristotle in his
published work. In his text Most argued that Nietzsche took
Aristotle more seriously in the Nachlass, while concealing his
influence elsewhere. The implicit way of referring to other
authors, however, is a much used strategy in Nietzsche’s work.
Is there any ground for suspicion in this specific case? Did
Nietzsche misuse Aristotle in any sense whatsoever? Were
Nietzsche’s views less different from Aristotle’s than
Nietzsche himself made us deliberately believe? Did Nietzsche,
in his published works, pretend to say more than he was
actually saying?
In general, Most argues, Nietzsche was not trying to
interpret Aristotle, but was trying to pose a counter model
based on the scholarship back then. Nietzsche, in this sense,
uses (the Bernaysian interpretation of) Aristotle in order to
interpret tragedy anew. But this is not to say, Most continues,
that he tries to attack Nietzsche or that he sees any reason to be
suspicious of Nietzsche’s writing in particular. Nietzsche is not
deliberately concealing something, there is no dishonesty in
Nietzsche’s style of writing. It is rather a procedure of
rewriting texts which deserves attention here. In a draft for
Unzeitgemäße Betrachtungen, for example, Nietzsche quotes
Leopardi; in the next version the quotation is still there, but
Leopardi’s name is gone; in the published text only a
rephrased version has remained. This is no example of
plagiarism, but the product of a process of reworking an idea
over and over again, until Nietzsche made these ideas his own.
Most explains that he is merely suspicious about how a text
comes about generally. And Nietzsche is especially interesting,
since he was a brilliant writer and a tactical reader, and,
secondly, much material has survived which enables us to
intercept this process in action.
2.2.4 Concluding remark
At the end of the discussion Most once more stresses that he
only added one more ingredient to the analysis of Nietzsche’s
view on Greek tragedy. When it is asked whether
Schopenhauer had a greater influence than Bernays, Most
replies that both Bernays and Schopenhauer were important,
and that the article was primarily meant to add to our
understanding of katharsis, and did not aim at a full
understanding of Nietzsche’s account of Greek tragedy.
8
3. Critical reflection on the text and the discussion
Given the emphasis laid by scholars on Wagnerian and
Schopenhaurian elements in Nietzsche’s Die Geburt der
Tragödie, Most’s approach to this work is an interesting one.
The author sheds light on unknown influences, by drawing
attention to Nietzsche’s implicit discussion with Bernays and
to Nietzsche’s interpretation of Aristotle in Bernaysian terms.
The discussion, moreover, revealed that katharsis or
‘Entladung’ in both Nietzsche and Aristotle does not have a
single or clear cut meaning.
Most’s position, however, remains problematic. What I
find most striking is the difference between the author’s
defense of the text on the one hand, and the view expressed in
the text itself on the other. To put it more critically: the author
avoided some of the critical questions by adopting a different
position.
As has already been noted, Nietzsche uses ‘Entladung’
in different ways, of which at least two are crucial here. When
he uses ‘Entladung’ to express his own view, the term mainly
has to do with the creative side of tragedy. Music drives to an
overflowing abundance of Dionysian energies into Apollonian
images. Nietzsche sees this process of overflowing as the
expression of a fullness of life, which enjoys life even in its
absurd and painful aspects. This fullness is associated with
health. In the Bernaysian-Aristotelian view on katharsis or
‘Entladung’ in Greek tragedy the focus lies on the reception of
tragedy, which is then performed in order to get rid of
unhealthy emotions.
Now, while defending his article Most said only to
shed light on the facts that Nietzsche understood Aristotle in
Bernaysian terms, and that Nietzsche used a word developed
by Bernays in order to express his own view on Greek tragedy.
As I will argue below, Most tried to make a much stronger
claim in his article. Besides, the fact that Nietzsche adopted a
word from Bernays in order to express his own view on Greek
tragedy may not be as interesting as Most suggests. Why
would we trace the words used by Nietzsche back to their
origins, if this does not reveal anything about the meaning of
these words in Nietzsche’s text? Nietzsche’s adoption of a
word is only interesting if it either carries some conceptual
content with it (in which case the analysis reveals strong
conceptual similarities), or implies an important shift of
meaning brought about by Nietzsche (in which case the
relevant analysis reveals important dissimilarities). During the
discussion Most admitted that the similarities are minimal,
while still focusing on these minimal similarities.
Most states that the article has originally been written
in order to add to our understanding of katharsis as such. But
then it remains equally unclear why so little attention is paid
9
to dissimilarities. Besides, as the title clearly suggests, the
article turned out to be an article on the meaning of
Nietzsche’s text.
The author, however, does argue (in his article at least)
that there is an important Bernaysian-Aristotelian conceptual
framework at work in Nietzsche’s use of
‘Entladung’.
According to the article, Nietzsche’s refutation of Aristotle did
not merely make use of a ‘word’ derived from Bernays, nor
did Nietzsche solely interpret Aristotle in Bernaysian terms.
Rather, Nietzsche partly adopted the conceptual framework
which he sought to reject (or rather, which he sought to
replace).
‘Gegen wen kämpft Nietzsche eigentlich in diesen
vielen Äußerungen zu Katharsis und Aristoteles? Gegen
Aristoteles selbst?’ (55) At first this remains unclear. Nietzsche
often adopts a polemical tone against Aristotle, but he takes
Aristotle in the Nachlass more seriously according to Most.
Why? Because Nietzsche argues that ‘die Notwendigkeit der
Entladung, der Katharsis, ein Grundgesetz des griechischen
Wesens ist’. (57) So, while using the term ‘Entladung’
Nietzsche takes Aristotle seriously, that is, partly works within
an Aristotelian framework.
Most does mention several important dissimilarities
between Aristotle’s and Nietzsche’s view, but these do not
receive the main attention. Moreover, Nietzsche’s critique of
Aristotle, which suggests strong dissimilarities, is described as
‘bisweilen oberflächlich und manchmal etwas simple.’ Most
argues, on the other hand, that we find in Nietzsche ‘einen
zwar verschwiegenen aber dennoch durchaus aktiven, ja sogar
virulenten Aristotelismus.’ (59) And again, one of the main
arguments for this view concerns ‘Spuren des aristotelischen
katharsis-Begriffs in der Interpretation Jacob Bernays’. Der
Beweis liegt in Nietzsches merkwürdig auffälliger und
häufiger Verwendung des Wortes ‘Entladung’ als deutende
Übersetzung für den aristotelischen Terminus katharsis.’ (60).
Most quotes several passages of Nietzsche’s works, and argues
not only that Nietzsche uses the word ‘Entladung’, ‘sondern
auch, daß dabei die ganze Begrifflichkeit der aristotelischen
Katharsis mit im Spiel ist.’ (61) In a concluding remark, Most
states that the ‘Grundidee von Nietzsches Buch nur aus
Bernays’ Begriff der ‘Entladung’ heraus entstehen konnte und
erst vor dessen Hintergrund voll verständlich wird.’ (62)
So, the author clearly argues for a strong conceptual
similarity between Nietzsche and (the Bernaysian) Aristotle.
The whole point of the article seems to be that, though
Nietzsche seems both to ignore and to replace Aristotle’s view,
and refuses to use the word katharsis in GT, he does make use
of the Bernaysian-Aristotelian framework, because of his use
of the word ‘Entladung’ (as a translation of Aristotelian
10
katharsis). The questions mentioned above tend to undermine
such a position.
Secondly, one cannot measure the influence of Bernays
on Nietzsche’s use of ‘Entladung’ in isolation of other
influences, as Most suggests. One cannot simply add one more
ingredient to our understanding of Nietzsche, without
considering how other ingredients determine its scope. Most
argues that the Aristotelian framework is to some extent at
work in Nietzsche’s work, because Nietzsche derived the word
‘Entladung’ as a translation of katharsis from Bernays. If
Nietzsche, in contrast, derived the word from Schopenhauer or
Wagner this does not follow. Even the weak similarities Most
defended during the discussion (Nietzsche derived a ‘word’
from Bernays) could then be undermined. During the
discussion Most stated that ‘Nietzsche might well have read
Bernays and interpreted the word in another way, inspired by
Schopenhauer.’ Even if Nietzsche originally derived the word
from Bernays, what this means depends on the way
Schopenhauer influenced Nietzsche in using the word.
Thirdly, Most said he is only suspicious about how
texts come about generally. However, in the article, Most does
seem to argue that Nietzsche deliberately hides his
Aristotelian perspective. He takes Aristotle more seriously in
his unpublished works. Moreover, Most writes: ‘Denn man
verdrängt nur, was einem wichtig ist, und je mehr man die
Geburt der Tragödie studiert, desto mehr entdeckt man in dieser
Abhandlung einen zwar verschwiegenen, aber dennoch
durchaus aktiven, ja sogar virulenten Aristotelismus.’ (59) It is
not altogether clear in what sense Nietzsche suppresses
Aristotle in his work, but he does suppress him, and not only
‘im psychoanalytischen, metaphorsichen Sinne’. (58)
Aristotle’s absence in Nietzsche’s writing, then, is the result of
an act of concealment, and this act does not seem to be
performed wholly unconsciously.
Most offered an original approach to Nietzsche’s text
and many interesting insights in the problem of katharsis in
general. However, it remains unclear what precisely Nietzsche
owes to Bernays or Aristotle, and how exactly Nietzsche’s
critique of Aristotelian katharsis relates to his own view on
Greek tragedy and his use of the word ‘Entladung’. In order to
fully address Nietzsche’s relationship to Bernays’, according to
Most, two things have to be done: to show that the text could
not have been written without Bernays, and to reveal the
differences between them. But these issues cannot be
considered separately. Or rather, the question to what extent
Bernays enabled Nietzsche to develop his own analysis of
Greek tragedy involves the question to what extent he did not,
that is, to what extent the two frameworks differ.
11