>There is an old legend that king Midas for a long time hunted the wise Silenus, the companion of Dionysus, in the forests, without catching him. When Silenus finally fell into the king’s hands, the king asked what was the best thing of all for men, the very finest. The daemon remained silent, motionless and inflexible, until, compelled by the king, he finally broke out into shrill laughter and said these words, “Suffering creature, born for a day, child of accident and toil, why are you forcing me to say what would give you the greatest pleasure not to hear? The very best thing for you is totally unreachable: not to have been born, not to exist, to be nothing. The second best thing for you, however, is this — to die soon.”
What did he mean by this
pleasure is a distraction from the natural state of decay we experience in life
life is not worth living because it is pleasurable, it is worth living because it is interesting (and worth philosophising over)
everything decays so life only gets shittier, but that doesnt stop it from being varied and worthwhile
>>8261552
Interesting. I've been trying to read Birth of A Tragedy but most of this stuff goes way over my head.
>>8261540
This is a passage that has troubled me as well. With Nietzsche we are often asked to side with the demonic figures, even to hear N speak through them. But for him to ventriloquize this Silenus to tell us to not have known life at all is the greatest good is strange. It's hard to tell what category of value is being asked of by Midas—the best thing of all? Aesthetically? Morally? Hedonically? Some blend of all three? Or "value as such?" It seems in the last case N might be taking a shot at Platonism—since the Good is beyond life, the best thing would be to have never been lowered into it. N and Silenus would then clearly be mocking Midas, whose lust for gold could be seen as a similar transcendent nihilism. On the other hand it seems valuable to read this passage in comparison with his first developed treatment of the eternal return, somewhere I think in book 4 of Gay Science, but I haven't got it ready to hand. Also, Silenus's friendship with Dionysius seems worthy of note, but I'm not sure how.
This isn't really a full analysis, just the first steps toward one; maybe a smarter and more patient anon can tie together these fragments.
>>8261552
>it is worth living because it is interesting (and worth philosophising over)
this is the hedonism of the impotent, aka the 20 yo rationalist.
Once you stop taking your thoughts seriously, you stop being an hedonist through what you think, stop being an hedonist through what you feel and become happy
>>8261552
I think its a little hasty to assume we're dealing in pleasure here
>What did he mean by this?
You act as if Nietzsche came up with this. It's an ancient Greek anecdote, Nietzsche is just quoting it.
>>8261591
fine, but to what end?
>>8261552
Or maybe its just not worth living, obscurantist philosophical woo notwithstanding
>>8261620
well I would say it's a mistake to say Nietzsche (at this stage of the text, at least) is promoting Dionysius over and against Apollo. remember, this is the birth of tragedy, not of the Dionysian as it would evolve in his later works.
that said, I think it's very smart to see Silenus as a character that is "uncannily close" to Dionysius, a faux ami of sorts, who shows the consequences of on
the one hand, injecting the Dionysian with an Apollonian-depressive fatalism, while on the other hand, of rejecting Apollo completely or subordinating him to Dionysius.
>>8261628
"those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who couldn't hear the music"
>>8261540
life sucks
>>8261682
Okay, great, more woo. Likely misattributed woo at that. And what is the argument here? I am supposed to just deplatform myself taking it on good faith everyone else has a piece of the puzzle I am missing? I am just supposed to defer to king subjectivity and relinquish my agency to have a perspective on anything? Fuck you, you pedo by proxy.
