Technology Rig Some days you wish had never started, then along comes one you hope will never end. Anything can happen in a day.

"'Good and Evil', 'Good and Bad'"

Nietzsche aims to show that the valuations "good/bad" and "good/evil" have distinct origins and that the two senses of "good" reflect radically opposed meanings. Originally, there were two kinds of people "the noble, the powerful, the superior, and the high-minded" and the "low, low-minded, and plebeian." Nietzsche calls this feeling of the superior over the inferior the pathos of distance. Each kind had his own moral codes. The first, “master” morality, comes from the early rulers and conquerors, "blonde beasts," as Nietzsche calls them. "Blonde" here is a reference to lions rather than to hair color, as Nietzsche bestows this name not only on Vikings and Goths, but also on Arab and Japanese nobility, who judged their own power, wealth, and success to be “good” and the poverty and wretchedness of those they ruled over to be “bad” so it gave the "good/bad" distinction. 

As is well known, the priests are the most evil enemies — but why? Because they are the most impotent. It is because of their impotence that in them hatred grows to monstrous and uncanny proportions, to the most spiritual and poisonous kind of hatred. The truly great haters in the world history have always been priests; likewise the most ingenious haters: other kinds of spirit hardly come into consideration when compared with the spirit of priestly vengefulness.

Then out of hatred for the powerful,a "slave revolt in morality" happened, and gave birth to the second kind of morality, "slave" morality, originating with priests who despise the warrior caste and condemn their lustful power as "evil", while calling their own state of poverty and self-denial "good" so it gave the "good/evil" distinction. Nietzsche associates this morality with Judaism, for it is the bridge which led to the slave revolt of Christian morality by the oppressed masses of the Roman Empire. Christian love is born from hatred. This slave morality turns master morality on its head. Nietzsche worries that it has rendered us all mediocre. Modern humans, who have inherited the mantle of slave morality, prefer safety and comfort to conquest and risk. The slave morality of the priestly caste focuses the attention on the evil of others and on the afterlife, distracting people from enjoying the present. But this kind of morality had its benefits  in allowing resentment and hatred to grow in him, In having to rely on patience, secrets, and scheming, the man of resentment develops an inner life and ultimately becomes cleverer than the noble man. This kind of morality was broken for a moment by the Renaissance, but reasserted by the Reformation (which, in Nietzsche's view, restored the Church), and refreshed again by the French Revolution (in which the "resentment instincts of the rabble" triumphed).

In support of his argument, Nietzsche remarks on the similarity between the German word for "bad" and the words for "plain" and "simple." By contrast, he notes, in most languages, the word for "good" derives from the same root as the words for "powerful" or "masters" or "rich." Nietzsche also remarks on how "dark" and "black" are used as negative terms, presumably because of the dark-haired peoples of Europe who were overrun by blonde, Aryan conquerors. He notes the association of "good" with "war" and "warlike.". Nietzsche notes that almost all the ancient Greek words denoting the lower orders of society are related to variants on the word for "unhappy." 

It is not surprising that the lambs should bear a grudge against the great birds of prey, but that is no reason for blaming the great birds of prey for taking the little lambs. And when the lambs say among themselves, "Those birds of prey are evil, and he who is as far removed from being a bird of prey, who is rather its opposite, a lamb, — is he not good?" then there is nothing to cavil at in the setting up of this ideal, though it may also be that the birds of prey will regard it a little sneeringly, and per-chance say to themselves, "We bear no grudge against them, these good lambs, we even like them: nothing is tastier than a tender lamb." To require of strength that it should not express itself as strength, that it should not be a wish to overpower, a wish to overthrow, a wish to become master, a thirst for enemies and antagonisms and triumphs, is just as absurd as to require of weakness that it should express itself as strength.

Nietzsche illustrates the contrast between the two kinds of morality by reference to a bird of prey and a lamb. Nietzsche imagines that the lambs may judge the birds of prey to be evil for killing and consider themselves good for not killing. These judgments are a mistake, since lambs do not refrain from killing out of some kind of moral loftiness but simply because they are unable to kill. Similarly, it is a mistake to hold beasts of prey to be "evil",it's as if blaming them for existing, for their actions stem from their inherent strength, rather than any malicious intent. One should not blame them for their "thirst for enemies and resistances and triumphs". Lambs have no right "to make the bird of prey accountable for being a bird of prey". We can only condemn birds of prey for killing if we assume that the “doer,” the bird of prey, is somehow detachable from the “deed,” the killing. 

Nietzsche argues that there is no doer behind the deed, taking as an example the sentence, “lightning flashes.” There is no such thing as lightning separate from the flash. Our assumption that there are doers who are somehow distinct from deeds in reality is simply a prejudice inspired by the subject–predicate form of grammar. Slave morality detaches subject from predicate, doer from deed, and identifies the subject with a “soul,” which is then liable to judgment. Slave morality assumes that "that the strong may freely choose to be weak". Frustratingly, for Nietzsche, it is very difficult to wrap our minds around this idea that there is no doer behind the deed because every written expression of this idea relies on grammatical structures that reinforce the contrary idea.

Slave morality depends on the belief in a subject (or a "soul" or a "free will") which is independent of its deeds, so that it can interpret its weakness as freedom, and its inaction as praiseworthy and as a result guilt is now associated with accountability and responsibility: you are guilty because you could have and should have done otherwise. At first glance, it might appear that Nietzsche is denying free will: which is a mistake, Nietzsche would rather claim that there is no bird of prey independent of its will. To talk about a bird of prey as "having" free will is again to make the subject- predicate error. Will is not a "thing" that one "has": a will is, essentially, what one is. The bird of prey is its will, and that will wills the death of the lamb. Not to kill the lamb would require a different will, that is, a different creature altogether. If we say the bird of prey should not have killed the lamb, we are saying that the bird of prey should have been a different animal. So in a sense Nietzsche says we can't be held accountable for our actions in the sense of law or morals, we are only accountable for our actions in the sense of the will that drives these actions. Thus, in Nietzsche's view, murderers who kill for the sake of money do not transgress any external moral code, but they allow themselves to be controlled by money and thereby show themselves to be weak-willed.

"'Guilt', 'Bad Conscience', and the Like"

That every will must consider every other will its equal — would be a principle hostile to life, an agent of the dissolution and destruction of man, an attempt to assassinate the future of man, a sign of weariness, a secret path to nothingness.

Once the slave morality prevails, By blaming the privileged people for their suffering, the descendants of the powerful classes begin to buy into the slave morality, accepting that exercising their power is a moral sin. They start to feel the 'guilt', they feel guilty for having the things that are (now) condemned, e.g., power, wealth, privilege, etc.

This concept of guilt (Schuld) derives from the concept of debt (Schulden) as it appears from the two German words, like when a debtor receives a loan from a creditor, the debtor is in debt now, the creditor receives the loan value with interest in return from the debtor, if a creditor could not have his money back, he could have the pleasure of harming his debtor by punishment. Same is the case in any crime, the culprit receives pleasure from a crime against the victim, the culprit feels the guilt, the victim receives pleasure from punishment as a compensation against the culprit  Punishment, then, is a transaction in which the injury to the autonomous individual is compensated for by the pain inflicted on the culprit. Punishment was not intended to make the debtor feel badly but simply to bring pleasure to the creditor. Punishment was cruel but cheerful: there were no hard feelings afterward. We find the origins of conscience, guilt, and duty in the festiveness of cruelty: their origins were "like the beginnings of everything great on earth, soaked in blood thoroughly and for a long time."

A society with laws is like a creditor: In a state when someone breaks the law, they have harmed society and society can exact punishment. The concept of justice in effect takes punishment out of the hands of individuals by claiming that, in a society, it is not individuals but laws that are transgressed, and so it is the laws, not individuals, that must exact punishment. Under such conditions, man who is by nature a nomadic hunter, find himself constricted, so in order to survive, he had to rely on his conscious mind rather than our unconscious instincts; so instincts that cannot be released outwardly must be turned inward. Instead of roaming in the wilderness, man now turns himself into "an adventure, a place of torture" where "man's suffering of man, of himself". In so doing, we developed an inner life and bad conscience. Bad conscience is thus man's instinct for freedom (his "will to power") "driven back, suppressed, imprisoned within". While this inner life led to the development of slave morality and bad conscience, Nietzsche also mentions some significant improvements: we became "interesting," we developed the concept of beauty, we distanced ourselves from other animals, we learned to control ourselves and understand ourselves. 

Nietzsche traces the development of the bad conscience beginning with the sense of indebtedness early tribe members must have felt toward the founders of the tribe. In a tribe, the current generation always pays homage to its ancestors, offering sacrifices to them as a demonstration of gratitude to them. As the power of the tribe grows the need to offer thanks to the ancestors does not decline, but rather increases as it has ever more reason to pay homage to the ancestors and to fear them. At the maximum of fear, the ancestor is "necessarily transfigured into a god". The Christian God also produces the maximum feeling of guilty indebtedness. This debt cannot possibly be repaid, and so we develop the concepts of eternal damnation and of all people being born with irredeemable original sin. Nietzsche suggests that not all Gods serve to reinforce bad conscience, the Greek gods for example serve as a celebration of their animal instincts, as a force to ward off the bad conscience.

Nietzsche proved that origins and utility are worlds apart. Anything that has existed for any length of time has been given all sorts of different interpretations, meanings, and purposes by different powers that master and subdue it. That something has a purpose or utility is only a sign that a "will to power" is acting upon it. Things and concepts have no inherent purpose, but are given purpose by the different forces and wills that act upon them. that's why he preferred the word "Genealogy" instead of origin. As Foucault in his essay "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History" said: "And this is what I would call genealogy, that is, a form of history which can account for the constitution of knowledges, discourses, domains of objects etc". So unlike an origin, genealogy has no fixed starting point and no essential features, just a gradual and often haphazard and sometimes contradictory progression from one state to another for subjects that "we tend to feel [are] without history". Therefore, all truths are questionable.

I will at this point give a scheme that has suggested itself to me, a scheme itself based on comparatively small and accidental material. — Punishment, as rendering the criminal harmless and incapable of further injury. — Punishment, as compensation for the injury sustained by the injured party, in any form whatsoever (including the form of sentimental compensation). — Punishment, as an isolation of that which disturbs the equilibrium, so as to prevent the further spreading of the disturbance. — Punishment as a means of inspiring fear of those who determine and execute the punishment. — Punishment as a kind of compensation for advantages which the wrongdoer has up to that time enjoyed (for example, when he is utilised as a slave in the mines) . — Punishment, as the elimination of an element of decay (sometimes of a whole branch, as according to the Chinese laws, consequently as a means to the purification of the race, or the preservation of a social type). — Punishment as a festival, as the violent oppression and humiliation of an enemy that has at last been subdued. — Punishment as a mnemonic, whether for him who suffers the punishment — the so-called "correction," or for the witnesses of its administration. — Punishment, as the payment of a fee stipulated for by the power which protects the evil-doer from the excesses of revenge. Punishment, as a compromise with the natural phenomenon of revenge, in so far as revenge is still maintained and claimed as a privilege by the stronger races. — Punishment as a declaration and measure of war against an enemy of peace, of law, of order, of authority, who is fought by society with the weapons which war provides, as a spirit dangerous to the community, as a breaker of the contract on which the community is based, as a rebel, a traitor, and a breaker of the peace. This list is certainly not complete; it is obvious that punishment is overloaded with utilities of all kinds.

Nietzsche identifies willing with meaning and interpretation. The will to power is the fundamental drive in the universe and it gives every action its meaning or interpretation. For example, my harming you might be an act of bullying or an act of self-defense. In the first case, there is a very crude will to power acting, where I harm you for the feeling of power it gives me. In the second case, I am acting out of an instinct of self-preservation. In both cases, the deed itself might be the same, but the will that drives me to act interprets the deed in very different ways. the act of punishing has always been the same, but the meaning of that act has been interpreted very differently over the years. The meaning is independent of and inessential to the act itself. We see the world in terms of things and deeds rather than wills as Nietzsche does, we are unable to separate the meanings of punishment from the deed itself, and assume that the deed has always had the same meaning. For instance, the act of punishment has been at times a celebration of one's power, at times an act of cruelty, at times a simple tit-for-tat. 

There is only a seeing from a perspective, only a "knowing" from a perspective, and the more emotions we express over a thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we train on the same thing, the more complete will be our "idea" of that thing, our "objectivity." But the elimination of the will altogether, the switching off of the emotions all and sundry, granted that we could do so, vvhat! would not that be called intellectual castration? 

According to Nietzsche, then, a belief in an absolute truth or an absolute anything is to give in to one particular meaning, one particular interpretation of a thing. It is essentially to allow oneself to be dominated by a particular will. A will that wishes to remain free will shun absolutes of all kinds and try to look at a matter from as many different perspectives as possible in order to gain its own. This doctrine that has deeply influenced postmodern thought is called "perspectivism."

"What do ascetic ideals mean?"

The ascetic ideal: this hate of the human, and even more of the animal, and more still of the material, this horror of the senses, of reason itself, this fear of happiness and beauty, this desire to get right away from all illusion, change, growth, death, wishing and even desiring — all this means — let us have the courage to grasp it — a will for Nothingness, a will opposed to life, a repudiation of the most fundamental conditions of life, but it is and remains a will! — and to say at the end that which I said at the beginning — man will wish Nothingness rather than not wish at all.

Ascetic ideals spring up spontaneously everywhere on earth, in every time and culture. There must be something desirable in ascetic ideals that it should be so universal although it is a contradiction: it is the will to stop willing, life turned against itself. Nietzsche says that ascetic ideals are born of spiritual sickness as result of a slave morality. The ascetic ideal among the masses is an expression of a sick will to power. The sick are suffering from life, seeing life as a misfortune, and in the ascetic ideal they find a means of asserting themselves. Any positive act of will (pursuing health, happiness, strength, etc.) is beyond their means, and so they cannot will these things. Instead, they will nothingness, the only thing they can successfully will. As Nietzsche claims at the beginning of this essay, "Man would rather will nothingness than not will". The ascetic has to contend with the fact that he secretly desires these things. After all, it was this fact that created such hatred and resentment towards the powerful who own those things in the first place. So the ascetic life, for the sick, is not a goal, but a path away from life toward something different and better, to get those things but in another life.

The will to power is the fundamental drive that motivates all things. This suggestion might contrast with the suggestion that our fundamental drive is the will to life. There are a number of reasons for seeing power as more important to us than life. For instance, the martyr who is willing to die for a cause is essentially saying "you can kill me, you can do anything to my body, but you cannot touch my principles because I am powerful enough to resist all your threats." This martyr clearly values that power of independence more than life itself. Nietzsche even suggests that acts of generosity are ultimately motivated by a will to power. If I do you a favor, I am essentially showing you that I have the power to help you, to put you in my debt.

The extinction of the will is mostly associated with Indian philosophy, and has come to the West largely thanks to Schopenhauer. The Hindu ideal of reuniting with Brahman and the Buddhist ideal of Nirvana both laud the extinction of the ego and the total disappearance of the distinct self into a greater whole. The water drop, so to speak, ceases to see itself as a water drop and comes to see itself as a part of the ocean. 

The sick are the greatest danger for the healthy; it is not from the strongest that harm comes to the strong, but from the weakest.

Nietzsche sees the majority of humanity as sick and from this sickness grows resentment  nihilism, and everything else Nietzsche despises.

It is certain that from the time of Kant every type of transcendentalist is playing a winning game — they are emancipated from the theologians; what luck! — he has revealed to them that secret art, by which they can now pursue their "heart's desire" on their own responsibility, and with all the respectability of science.

The resentment of the masses demands that they find someone to blame for their suffering, and this search for a scapegoat can be violent and dangerous. The ascetic priest serves the purpose of altering the direction of the resentment  by persuading the masses that they themselves, and no one else, are to blame for their suffering. The ascetic ideal because it explains life to them; it explains why they must suffer. This renders them harmless. However, the priest only serves to ease the suffering of the sick without trying to cure the sickness itself. Religion does not give the sick strength so much as it eases their sense of displeasure at life. It organizes them in herds where the individual will weakens by seeing itself in service of a larger community. The will becomes "tamer," less capable of asserting itself and dominating others. Thus, the ascetic priest does nothing to "cure" the "sickness" of the "herd". The herd doesn't have the option of being strong, and so for them, ascetic ideals may be the best alternative. Nietzsche's main objection at this point is that these ascetic ideals have become so dominant that they have poisoned our entire species and harmed some healthy spirits that have no need of slave morality.

Science itself now needs a justification (which is not for a minute to say that there is such a justification). Turn in this context to the most ancient and the most modern philosophers: they all fail to realize the extent of the need of a justification on the part of the Will for Truth — here is a gap in every philosophy — what is it caused by? Because up to the present the ascetic ideal dominated all philosophy, because Truth was fixed as Being, as God, as the Supreme Court of Appeal, because Truth was not allowed to be a problem.

Science and scholarship are not alternatives to the ascetic ideals of religion. They simply replace the worship of God with the worship of truth. A healthy spirit must question the value of truth. 

When the Christian Crusaders in the East came into collision with that invincible order of assassins, that order of free spirits par excellence, whose lowest grade lives in a state of discipline such as no order of monks has ever attained, then in some way or other they managed to get an inkling of that symbol and tally- word, that was reserved for the highest grade alone as their secretum, "Nothing is true, everything is allowed," — in sooth, that was freedom of thought, thereby was taking leave of the very belief in truth.

The death of Greek tragedy left a great void whose effects were felt profoundly, far and wide; as once Greek sailors in Tiberius' time heard the distressing cry 'the god Pan is dead' issuing from a lonely island, now, throughout the Hellenic world, this cry resounded like an agonized lament: 'Tragedy is dead! Poetry itself died with it! Away, away with you, puny, stunted imitators! Away with you to Hades, and eat your fill of the old masters' crumbs!'

Nietzsche states that the creation of art depends on a conflict between two opposing forces, each battling for control over the existence of humanity, the “Apollonian” and the “Dionysian”, yet neither side ever prevails eternally, a natural balance always occurs. Apollo is the Greek god of light and reason, characterized by a measured restraint which reinforces a strong form of individualization. Dionysus is the Greek god of wine and music, characterized by a frenzy of self-forgetting embracing its chaos and nihilism in which it dissolves in a primal unity with others and with nature. For example, the Promethean myth, with its theme of active striving against the bounds of natural law, is strongly Dionysian. However, in its yearning for justice, the Promethean myth is also Apollonian.

Wherever the Dionysian prevailed, the Apollonian was checked and destroyed.... wherever the first Dionysian onslaught was successfully withstood, the authority and majesty of the Delphic god Apollo exhibited itself as more rigid and menacing than ever.

Form is Apollonian, since form individualizes objects; thus, sculpture is the most Apollonian form of arts. Rational thought is also Apollonian since it is structured and makes distinctions, but those objects are a phenomena so they are the world as "representation" or illusion or a dream. Schopenhauer distinguishes between objects by his principium individuationis, which means that separate objects occupy discrete portions of space-time. And since the noumenal is beyond time and space it is therefore one and undifferentiable; plurality can't apply to it and this noumenal is the conception of the world as "will" or reality which is Dionysian. Drunkenness, madness, ecstasy and all forms of enthusiasm are Dionysian as they break down a man's individual self, for in such states man gives up his individuality and submerges himself in a greater whole. Since music appeals directly to man's instinctive, chaotic emotions and not to his formally reasoning mind, therefore it is the most Dionysian form of arts.

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 benothing. The second best thing for you, however, is this—to die soon.”

The combination of these elements in one form of art gave birth to tragedy. The Apollonian element gave form to the Dionysian rituals of music, dance and passion which manifested in the the chorus being satyrs, making it a coherent piece of art. 

"Here the illusion of culture was wiped away by the primordial image of man; here the real man revealed himself, the bearded satyr, who cried out with joy to his god."

The audience participated with and as the chorus. What the Greeks saw on stage was the incarnation of their united primal consciousness. The Apollonian element was found in the dialogue and actors so the audience have an Apollonian dream vision of themselves, of the energy they're embodying. The Apollonian appearances represent a vision that the chorus generates and then celebrates in song. For Nietzsche, the chorus is the only reality of the drama.

"Art approaches, as a saving, healing magician. Art alone can turn those thoughts of disgust at the horror or absurdity of existence into imaginary constructs which permit living to continue."

Appearance (Apollonian) is essential to shield them from the truth of human suffering (Dionysian) and save them from despair which otherwise would destroy them. The two main aspects of a tragedy are music and the tragic hero. The hero carries the suffering of the tragedy on his shoulders and thus absolves us from our burden of reality. By preparing himself for a higher existence through his own destruction, not his victories, The tragic hero serves as an example for us to accept our defeat because it is the only way to redeem ourselves. The Dionysian element of music, makes us realize that the hero is only a phenomenon, and that his existence cannot be destroyed by his death. Thus the Greek find self-affirmation not in another life, but in the terror and ecstasy of the performance of tragedies so man could live creatively in optimistic harmony with the sufferings of life. This relation emphasizes the harmony that can be found within one's chaotic experience. Art becomes a necessity for existence.
For Nietzsche, the golden age of Greek tragedy ended by Euripides and Socrates. Rather than presenting tragic heroes, Euripides reduced the use of the chorus and gave his characters all the weaknesses of ordinary human beings, making it more reflective of the realities of daily life. Socrates insisted that there must be reasons to justify everything and that reason opposed instinct. In his view, instinct is a lack of insight and wrongful acts are a lack of knowledge. 

But for Socrates, tragedy did not even seem to "tell what's true", quite apart from the fact that it addresses "those without much wit", not the philosopher: another reason for giving it a wide berth. Like Plato, he numbered it among the flattering arts which represent only the agreeable, not the useful, and therefore required that his disciples abstain most rigidly from such unphilosophical stimuli — with such success that the young tragedian, Plato, burnt his writings in order to become a pupil of Socrates.

For Nietzsche, rationality makes life meaningless because it does nothing to justify existence and the world. Life finds meaning only through art because it is the only thing that brings us to a deeper level of experience than rationality. The world is meaningful, not as objects of knowledge but as artistic experiences.

“it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified.”

Nietzsche describes the Naive Artist (the Apollonian artist) as the one who creates forms that have the most beautiful appearances; for example Homer is the greatest naive artist, but he is inferior to the tragic artist (the Dionysian artist), but also superior to the operatic artist (the Socratic culture artist). Opera is the greatest manifestation of art in the the Socratic culture in Nietzsche's opinion, because in opera speech is mixed with music to form a semi-song. However, because the singer is torn between speaking clearly and showing his musical talent as a singer, his art is neither Apollonian nor Dionysian.

Nietzsche calls those works of the Naive Artist “an illusion of an illusion”, the first illusion is the representation of our real world and the second one is the Apollonian element in the work of art itself. For example, Raphael's painting, "Transfiguration", represents two states of appearance. 

In his Transfiguration, the bottom half shows us, with the possessed boy, the despairing porters, the helplessly frightened disciples, the mirror image of the eternal primordial pain, the sole basis of the world. The “illusion” here is the reflection of the eternal contradiction, of the father of things. Now, out of this illusion there rises up, like an ambrosial fragrance, a new world of illusion, like a vision, invisible to those trapped in the first scene—something illuminating and hovering in the purest painless ecstasy, a shining vision to contemplate with eyes wide open.

Nietzsche distinguishes between three kinds of culture: the Alexandrian, or Socratic (rational thinking to save the world); the Hellenic, or artistic (mirroring beauty by illusion); and the Buddhist, or tragic (with its longing for nothingness and absence of will). We belong to an Alexandrian culture which makes us slaves of reason and so it's bound for self-destruction because it doesn't fulfill the chaos inside man. Man will remain eternally hungry until he revolts on those foundations of reason.

People should take note: Alexandrian culture requires a slave class in order to be able to exist over time, but with its optimistic view of existence, it denies the necessity for such a class and thus, when the effect of its beautiful words of seduction and reassurance about the “dignity of human beings” and the “dignity of work” has worn off, it gradually moves towards a horrific destruction. There is nothing more frightening than a barbarian slave class which has learned to think of its existence as an injustice and is preparing to take revenge, not only for itself, but for all generations.

The only way to rescue our modern culture from this destructive fate is to revive the Dionysian spirit. Nietzsche sees hope in Richard Wagner, because he creates music that expresses the deepest urges of the human will. For Nietzsche this is the first step in the rebirth of tragedy.

Freud

Freud believed that the principal driving force behind men and women’s activities (libido) was repressed sexuality which led to pathological conditions. Jung believed that sex constituted only one of the many things that drive humans. More importantly, humans are driven by their need to achieve individuation, wholeness or full knowledge of the self. Many emotions drive humans to act in psychologically unhealthy ways, but all these ways were a longing for the desire to feel complete. Unlike Sigmund Freud, Jung thought spiritual experience was essential to our well-being. The theoretical divergence between Jung and Freud on the nature of the libido led to a break in the friendship between the two men, both stating that the other was unable to admit he could possibly be wrong.

Freud believed that in dream analysis, the manifest content (i.e., what we would call a description of the dream as we remember it; the images and dialogue) should be studied to uncover the latent content (what the dream is "really" about). He believed that the symbols were personal, perhaps things a person saw and connected to an idea. Jung believed that dream symbols are universal. Thus, it is from his ideas that dream symbol books were created.

Freud spoke of the id (the will to pleasure and gratification in each of us), the super-ego (the rule based, "conscience") and the ego (the "self" as we understand the term -- a middle man for the will of the id and superego). Jung believed in arch-types. For example, his version of the id is the "shadow." Like Freud, he believed that conflicts arise because of these competing wills.

Examples on Freud's the Sexual Interpretation of Symbols

1. Freud provides a psychoanalytical interpretation of da Vinci's The Virgin and Child with St. Anne. According to Freud, the Virgin's garment reveals a vulture when viewed sideways. Freud claimed that this was a manifestation of a "passive homosexual" childhood fantasy that Leonardo wrote about in the Codex Atlanticus, in which he recounts being attacked as an infant in his crib by the tail of a vulture.Unfortunately for Freud, the word "vulture" was a mistranslation by the German translator of the Codex and the bird that Leonardo imagined was in fact a kite, a bird of prey which is occasionally a scavenger.
2. Ida a patient of his recounted two dreams.one of them was: a house was on fire. My father was standing beside my bed and woke me up. I dressed quickly. Mother wanted to stop and save her jewel-case; but Father said: 'I refuse to let myself and my two children be burnt for the sake of your jewel-case.' We hurried downstairs, and as soon as I was outside I woke up.Freud reads this dream as referring to Ida Bauer's sexual life - the jewel case that was in danger being a symbol of the virginity which her father was failing to protect from Herr K. 
3. Every clan has a totem (usually an animal, sometimes a plant or force of nature) and people aren't allowed to marry those with the same totem as themselves. Freud examines this practice as preventing against incest. 

Jung

Jung added to Freud's definition of the unconscious that each individual also possessed a collective unconscious, a group of shared images and archetypes common to all humans.

In Jung's psychological framework, archetypes are universal patterns and images that derive from the collective unconscious, Being unconscious, the existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by examining behavior, images, art, myths, religions, or dreams and being part of the collective unconscious means it is shared among all people and all cultures.Jung described archetypal events: birth, death, separation from parents, initiation, marriage, the union of opposites; archetypal figures: great mother, father, child, devil, god, wise old man, wise old woman, the trickster, hero, properties shared among humans in which a person becomes a certain archtype for a given part of his life.

Jung believed that this journey of transformation, which he called individuation, is at the mystical heart of all religions. It is a journey to meet the self and at the same time to meet the Divine. Jung considered individuation, a psychological process of integrating the opposites including the conscious with the unconscious while still maintaining their relative autonomy, necessary for a person to become whole.

Archetypes seek actualization within the context of an individual's environment and determine the degree of individuation. Jung also used the terms "evocation" and "constellation" to explain the process of actualization. Thus for example, the mother archetype is actualized in the mind of the child by the evoking of innate anticipations of the maternal archetype when the child is in the proximity of a maternal figure who corresponds closely enough to its archetypal template.

Psychological Interpretation of Myth

Because the unconscious “speaks” in another kind of “language” than the conscious, myth serves as an intermediary: a means for the unconscious to communicate its symbolic meaning.The whole of mythology could be seen as a sort of projection out of the collective unconscious. Jung then asserts that the similarities among myths are the result of the projection of the collective rather than the personal unconscious onto the external world. Finally, he comes to the conclusion that myth originates and functions to satisfy the psychological need for contact with the unconscious--not merely to announce the existence of the unconscious, but to let us experience it.

Psychological Interpretation of Dreams

Jung takes dreams as the analogue to myths; both myths and dreams arise from the collective unconscious, connect unconscious to conscious and encourage us to pay attention to what arises. Jung considers dreams a more pristine manifestation of the unconscious (coming from the personal unconscious, not ordered and generally unintelligible and irrational) and therefore their interpretation requires less reconstruction than the interpretation of myths. Only archetypal dreams, identified by their mythical content, originate from the collective unconscious as myths do. Myths however are closer to the unconscious than dreams.

Psychological Interpretation of Gnostic

Jung understands the emergence of the Demiurge out of the original, unified monadic source of the spiritual universe by gradual stages to be analogous to (and a symbolic depiction of) the emergence of the ego from the unconscious

Psychological Interpretation of Religion

For Jung all myths are psychological; many religious myths, for instance the Christian myth about Jesus, are about man’s life-long quest for individuation.

Psychological Interpretation of Alchemy

Jung asserted that the medieval alchemists were unaware of the natural process of psychological transformation which went on in their subconscious.  Therefore, they projected this process into their experiments as a science of the soul.  In other words, they projected an inner process outside of themselves.

In psychology the four-fold nature of the prima materia is expressed by the four functions which correspond with the alchemical elements: intuition (fire), thinking (air), feeling (water), and sensation (earth). In Jungian theory we have a dominant function and limited access to one or two others, but the fourth function is inaccessible, elusive, maladapted, or hard to integrate.  It is what keeps us from "getting it all together."  Thus, we are out-of-balance.Balancing the four functions means achieving an integrated personality, harmony and well-being.

The four major stages of the alchemical magnum opus, creating the Philosopher's Stone can be Interpreted physiologically also in which these four alchemical steps are be taken as analogous to the process of attaining individuation

1. Nigredo, or blackness, elements had to be cleansed and cooked extensively to a uniform black matter. In analytical psychology, the term became a metaphor 'for the dark night of the soul, when an individual confronts the shadow within'
2. Albedo or whiteness, the alchemist undertakes a purification by washing away impurities. In analytical psychology, the term became a metaphor for the unconscious contrasexual soul images; the anima in men and animus in women. It is a phase where insight into shadow projections are realized, and inflated ego and unneeded conceptualizations are removed from the psyche.
3. Citrinitas or yellowness. In analytical philosophy, citrinitas stood for the dawning of the "solar light" inherent in one's being, and that the reflective "lunar or soul light" was no longer necessary becoming the wise old man (or woman) archetype.
4. Rubedo or redness" signalling alchemical success, the merging of ego and Self , it is the Self archetype which has achieved wholeness.

Rosarium Philosophorum

In a study Jung employed the ten pictures illustrating the opus of alchemical transormation contained in a classic called Rosarium Philosophorum (Rosary of the Philosophers), where the dual powers of the "King" and "Queen" are shown to undergo a number of phases of their own mystico-erotic relationship and eventually unite in a new, androgynous being, called in the text "the noble Empress". The series of images begins with that of the mercurial fountain, symbolizing the aroused energy of transformation and continues with the meeting of the King and Queen, first fully clad and later having relinquished their garments. The lovers thus confront each other with their personae and defenses, but proceed to a meeting in "naked truth". The partners then immerse themselves in the alchemical bath, thus allowing the force of love to engulf their conscious egos, blotting out rational and mundane considerations. While in this state of passionate engulfment the psychosexual union (coniunctio) takes place. But, contrary expectations, this union, which initially brought forth a newly formed androgynous being, results in death. The spiritual result of love is not viable and, having expired, undergoes decomposition. It is at this point that the force of commitment to the process (though not necessarily to a particular partner) becomes all-important. By not abandoning the transformational work, the soul of the dead androgyne ascends to heaven, i.e., to a higher level of consciousness, while the body is washed in celestial dew. Soon the departed soul returns to its earthly body, and the reanimated corpse stands in its full, numinous glory for all to see. A new being is born which is the promised fruit of love, the transformed consciousness of the lovers, formed of the opposites, which are now welded into an inseparable imperishable wholeness. The alchemy of love has reached its true and triumphant culmination.

In The Psychology of the Transference, Jung has shared with the world his uniquely practical insight not only into the psychological mechanism of love but into the process of the reconciliation of all opposites - emotive, intellectual, physical, and metaphysical. At the root of all being, so he intimates, there is a state wherein physicality and spirituality meet in a transgressive union. Synchronistic phenomena The tensional relationship of the opposites remains the great operational mechanism of manifest life and of transformation, this relationship exists within the context of a unitary world-model wherein matter and spirit, King and Queen, appear as aspects of a psychoid realm of reality.

Unicorn Example

References to the cup made from the horn of the unicorn in Greek, Chinese, and Christian traditions are
presented. It is noted that the unicorn cup is related in some way to both the Eucharistic Chalice and the
vessel used in divination. The secret of the cup is also the secret of the unicorn horn and stands for the
essence of the unicorn as bringer of health, strength, and life. The dual nature of the horn is analyzed. As
a symbol of vigor and strength it has a masculine character; as a cup it is also a feminine symbol. Thus
the cup becomes a " uniting symbol" expressing the bipolarity of the archetype

The philosophical meaning of idealism here is that the properties we discover in objects depend on the way that those objects appear to us as perceiving subjects, and not something they possess "in themselves", apart from our experience of them.

Subjective Idealism

George Berkeley, which held that external objects have actual being or real existence only when they are perceived by an observer but since the mind is passive in perception, there are ideas which one’s own mind does not cause. Only a mind or spirit can be a cause. “There is therefore some other will or spirit that produces them”. As such, this is not an argument for the existence of God (see PHK §§146-149), although Berkeley’s further discussion assumes that at least one mind is the divine mind. He is now in a position to distinguish ideas of sense from ideas of the imagination: “The ideas of sense are more strong, lively, and distinct than those of the imagination; they have likewise a steadiness, order, and coherence, and are not excited at random, as those which are the effects of human wills often are”. This provides the basis for both the distinction between ideas of sense and ideas of imagination and for the distinction between real things and imaginary things. Real things are composed solely of ideas of sense. Ideas of sense occur with predictable regularity; they form coherent wholes that themselves can be expected to “behave” in predictable ways. Ideas of sense follow (divinely established) laws of nature.

Quantum Physics "physical idealism"

The behavior of sub-atomic wave-particles is dependent upon the consciousness of a human observer.

Transcendental Idealism

The external world, he writes, provides those objects - noumena, of "things in themselves", the supra-sensible reality beyond the categories of human reason - that we sense as a sensory input (experience) and it is our mind, though, that processes this information about the world by applying the categories of  understanding, such as substance, causality,space and time allowing us to comprehend the phenomena. But Critics said that the law of cause and effect only applies to the phenomena within the mind, not between those phenomena and any things-in-themselves outside of the mind. we can't have access to the "things in themselves" , so what causes the phenomena?

Fichte

Our representations, ideas, or mental images are merely the productions of our ego, or knowing subject. For him, there is no external thing-in-itself that produces the ideas. On the contrary, the knowing subject, or ego, is the cause of the external thing, object, or non-ego. The phenomenal world as such, arises from self-consciousness; the activity of the ego; and moral awareness.

Schelling's Identity

There is no subject without object, and vice versa. there is no difference between the subjective and the objective, that is, the ideal and the real. Schelling publicly expressed his estimation of Spinoza and declared that nature and spirit differ only in their quantity, but are essentially identical (Identitaet). According to Schelling, the absolute was the indifference or identity, which he considered to be an essential subject of philosophy.

Absolute idealism

Hegel asserted that in order for the thinking subject to be able to know its object at all, there must be in some sense an identity of thought and being. Otherwise, the subject would never have access to the object and we would have no certainty about any of our knowledge of the world. According to Hegel, the absolute ground of being is essentially a dynamic, historical process of necessity that unfolds by itself in the form of increasingly complex forms of being and of consciousness, ultimately giving rise to all the diversity in the world and in the concepts with which we think and make sense of the world. The objective world is only the external, phenomenal form of "the Idea" be it named Spirit.

Schopenhauer

He pointed out that anything outside of time and space could not be differentiated, so the thing-in-itself must be one and all things that exist, including human beings, must be part of this fundamental unity because time and space are just concepts from the mind. He answered Kant's critics saying that we are in the world as much as anything else; our bodies are objects. My willpower is the only thing that sets my body apart from any other object; the will manifests itself in my body. Therfore the "thing in itself' is a manifistation of its inner will and since we proved that all things are one, the entire world is the representation (phenomena) of a single Will, of which our individual wills are phenomena. The ultimate reality is one universal will. It is the "will to live" that perpetuates this cosmic spectacle.

At the very core of human beings stirs a power – the Will – which is the very stuff of their inner being, yet which is as unfeeling and anonymous as the force which stirs the waves. Subjectivity is what we can least call our own. We bear inside us an inert weight of meaninglessness, as if permanently pregnant with monsters; and this, which is the action of the Will within us, constitutes the very core of our selfhood. Everything is fraught with appetite: human beings are simply walking incarnations of their parents’ copulatory instincts,and the whole of this fruitless desiring is founded in lack. ‘All willing’, Schopenhauer writes, ‘springs from lack, from deficiency, and thus from suffering.’ Desiring is eternal, whereas fulfilment is scanty and sporadic. There can be no end to the fatal infection we know as desire as long as the self endures. Only the selflessness of aesthetic contemplation, along with a kind of Buddhist self-abnegation, can purge us of the astigmatism of wanting, and allow us to see the world for what it is.
For Schopenhauer, who is considered to be a pessimistic philosopher, the tragedy of life arises from the nature of the will, which constantly urges the individual toward the satisfaction of successive goals, none of which can provide permanent satisfaction for the infinite activity of the life force, or will. Things such as an interest in the Arts, and a moral life based on sympathy, tend to alleviate the suffering experienced in people's lives. A more telling alleviation is to be found through the denial, or suspension, of the will through asceticism.

Schopenhauer and Hegel both answered Kant's critics with the unity of the subject and object as Schelling said but differed in the type of unity, Hegel said the objective world is only the external, phenomenal form of "the Idea" be it named Spirit which is the collective consciousness rising above all limitations of nature,  Schopenhauer said the entire world is the representation of a single Will, of which our individual wills are phenomena.

The dialectic. First, there is a thesis about the world , every thesis contains an inherent contradiction, which thus gives rise to its antithesis which contradicts the thesis. Finally, the thesis and antithesis are reconciled into a synthesis, a new idea combining elements of both.For example the truth about this table, for Aristotle, is that it is a table. The whole truth, for Hegel, is that the tree became a table and will become ashes. Thus, becoming, not being, is the highest expression of reality when we know the history of its development. Consciousness of self is always consciousness of the other.

Hegel defines Spirit as "all reality. As such, Spirit has a physical side and a mental side. The physical side is all material "objects" in the universe. The mental side is the collective mind of all human beings (especial Hegel), not the transcendent mind of a supernatural God. Hegel called the "cunning of reason"; Another important theme of the text is the focus on world history rather than regional or state history.  The world spirit realizes itself in three increasing stages—in the individual it is the subjective spirit, in the community the objective spirit, and in art, religion, and philosophy it is the absolute spirit. Philosophy is the greatest form of knowledge because it involves the world spirit reflecting on itself.

In the Phenomenology of Spirit, Spirit is Hegel’s name for the collective consciousness of a given society, which shapes the ideas and consciousness of each individual, each successive Stage in History created problems and oppositions within itself, leading to tensions which could only be overcome by adopting a view that could accommodate these oppositions in a higher unity.This historical progression will finally conclude itself when the Spirit understands its own infinite self at the very end of history. Absolute Spirit will then be the complete expression of an infinite God.The Absolete Truth known by the Absolute Mind, the state in which mind rises above all the limitations of nature and institutions.Truth is collective and can't be completely attained except in the end of history. Bertrand Russell Contradicts this saying "If the above argument were sound, how could knowledge ever begin? I know numbers of propositions of the form "A is the father of B," but I do not know the whole universe. If all knowledge were knowledge of the universe as a whole, there would be no knowledge".

Hegel asserted that in order for the thinking subject to be able to know its object at all, there must be in some sense an identity of thought and being. Otherwise, the subject would never have access to the object and we would have no certainty about any of our knowledge of the world. According to Hegel, the absolute ground of being is essentially a dynamic, historical process of necessity that unfolds by itself in the form of increasingly complex forms of being and of consciousness, ultimately giving rise to all the diversity in the world and in the concepts with which we think and make sense of the world. The objective world is only the external, phenomenal form of "the Idea" be it named Spirit.

For Hegel, The State is the perfect social embodiment of the idea, and stands in this stage of development for God Himself and its final form was the Christian constitutional monarchy (which represents the reintegration of freedom in constitutional government). The constitution is the collective spirit of the nation and that the government and the written constitution is the embodiment of that spirit. Each nation has its own individual spirit.Hegel, who insisted on the role of "great men" in history, with his famous statement about Napoleon, "I saw the Spirit on his horse", These people know the "necessary next stage" into which the spirit would reshape mankind and other matter. They were the first to perceive the need for, and nature of, the required synthesis, and act on it. They were driven by a host of private reasons to uphold only one goal: bringing out the new, higher form and imposing it on human society. Since laws and institutions are only prior works of the spirit, the hero can ignore them as he imposes a higher "form" on the raw material around him. Hegel's idea of the ultimate goal of history was to reach a state approximating that of 1830s Prussia. Popper further proposed that Hegel's philosophy served not only as an inspiration for communist and fascist totalitarian governments of the 20th century were his so called heroes's immoral acts were justified.