'Marx and Nietzsche\r'

'In these paragraphs Marx takes into consideration the first ‘ conjuring of German Ideology’ and questions it validity. German philosophy based its set forth ab come by human sentience on idealism whitheras Marx finds it from the corporeal earthly concern of humans.  He says that ‘[t]he premise from which we begin are non arbitrary ones, not dogmas, hardly real exposit…’ (Marx, p. 311), these exposit are based on â€Å"the real individuals, their activity and the substantive conditions under which they live” (p. 311) whereas German premises does not maturate from human existence barely is a payoff of affable exercise.\r\nMarxian method is historical physicalism but it does not fee-tail that it is not based on premises but distant German premises, it is based on real flavour. So Marx says; ‘In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what hands say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in array to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the buttocks of their real life-process we demonstrate the outgrowth of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process.’ (Marx, p. 315)\r\nMarx is of the suck that primarily human beings are deep as they must develop a system of production to comply with their means of subsistence and plainly hence they can take their solid needs. This necessity generates a chain reaction i.e. brand-new needs and new production. And these rich forces and processes develop the social existence of human being. So it is the material life that determines the social life of humans. So materialism directs the social and hence the human consciousness. â€Å" spirit is, therefore, from the very beginning a social product, and remains so as long as men exist at all.” (Marx, p. 3 17)\r\nAccording to Nietzsche, classic calamity was evolved from the traditional utter that was advance(a) and airal drama evolved from classic ritualism.—Nietzsche refutes  Aristotelian possibleness pertaining to origin of Greek cataclysm and rests his premises on the theory of Schiller. Schiller theory is of the view that chorus is a living wall that has enveloped the Greek tragedy in invest to detach itself from the real world and its realities. And thus it has retained its poetic autonomy and saved itself from reality. â€Å"The satyr, as the dionysian chorist, lives in a religiously acknowledged public under the sanction of fable and passion.” (Nietzsche, p. 322) Chorus, an epitome of myth and cult of religions becomes the basic of Greek calamity in opposition to naturalism prevailing in the personal mannerrn intellectual world. The tragedy chorus replicates this natural occurrence in an artistic way.\r\nNietzsche illustrates that tragedy as an art frame of reference is invaluable for humanity. In contrast to Schopenhauer, Nietzsche demonstrates that tragedy as the art form of corporeal recognition and approval of pathos and miseries of life and imperious in these harsh realities latria of pre-destination. Apollonian and Dionysian differences on cataclysm stem from their intellectual differentiations and mulish revelation of this form of art. Nietzsche is of the view that tragedy is endangered when medication is discarded. To Nietzsche, Apollonian music was â€Å"Doric architecture in sonic mode” but Dionysian music was of supreme kind with poignant power of sound and musical current. Nietzsche further points out the differences in the midst of the Dionysos and Socrates thematic expression. Overall, Nietzsche considers tragedy as beautiful fusion and manifestation of Dionysian astuteness and Apollonian art.\r\n'