Return to Saussure

Note: This text was originally written in Spanish and is presented here in English translation. Introduction Greek tragedy occupies a singular position in the cultural history of the West. Unlike other ancient genres, it seems not to have produced direct descendants capable of preserving its formal integrity. In The Birth of Tragedy , Nietzsche provocatively formulates this idea: tragedy dies, and its death is, paradoxically, tragic. Yet this disappearance does not imply conceptual sterility. This article argues that while tragedy ceases to exist as a literary genre, it survives as a structure of thought that migrates first to philosophy and later to psychoanalysis. Where it can no longer be staged, tragedy begins to operate as an interpretive principle for understanding human existence and psychic conflict. Greek Tragedy and Its Literary End Nietzsche maintains that Attic tragedy left no legitimate heirs. While epic, lyric poetry, and even comedy generated recognizable continu...

Introduction Nietzsche was not merely a philosopher; Thus Spoke Zarathustra constitutes a singular manifestation of psychic contents of extraordinary intensity. Jung, for his part, approached the work as a clinical and archetypal phenomenon in a seminar conducted between 1934 and 1939. For Jung, Zarathustra is not a conventional literary character but an irruption of the Self, capable of mobilizing unconscious energies that the author’s conscious ego cannot fully sustain. This article examines how Jung interprets the Dionysian eruption in Nietzsche, the attendant risk of psychic disintegration, and the symbolic function that makes individuation possible. The central thesis is that, although Zarathustra embodies a remarkable affirmation of life, its emergence without sufficient archetypal containment leads to a psychic danger that Jung analyzes with both clinical precision and philosophical depth. Nietzsche and the Archetypal Eruption Jung approached Zarathustra as a text in whi...

Jung and Nietzsche, Degas-inspired. AI-generated image. Objective To analyze Jung’s interpretation of Nietzsche as a paradigmatic case of interaction between archetype, consciousness, and psychic disintegration, drawing primarily on Nietzsche’s Zarathustra: Notes of the Seminar and other relevant works by Carl Gustav Jung. Introduction Over many years, Carl Gustav Jung devoted sustained and meticulous attention to Friedrich Nietzsche, regarding his case as one of the most significant for understanding the relationship between archetype, consciousness, and psychic disintegration. His most extensive engagement is found in the seminar Nietzsche’s Zarathustra: Notes of the Seminar (1934–1939), published posthumously in two volumes. In this work, Jung approaches Nietzsche neither as a philosopher nor as a literary figure, but as a psychological phenomenon in which symbolic expression reveals extreme tensions between the archetypal unconscious and the ego’s capacity to contain it. ...

Friedrich ’s  Übermensch . AI art Introduction When Friedrich Nietzsche published The Birth of Tragedy in 1872, its reception was swift and scathing. Fellow philologist Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff issued a blistering public response, deriding the work as “a new philology”²—a dismissive jab at what he saw as Nietzsche’s abandonment of scholarly rigor. But the backlash extended beyond disciplinary boundaries. Nietzsche’s vision of art, suffering, and vitality subverted not just academic conventions but the deeper cultural values shaped by Romanticism. At the center of this confrontation lies a bold and unsettling claim: great art does not emerge from despair, but from an excess of strength. The Romantic Ideal of Redemptive Suffering Romanticism, dominant in Europe from the late 18th to mid-19th century, privileged passion, subjectivity, and the sublime. Its central aesthetic conviction was that beauty arises through pain—that suffering is not only a catalyst for creatio...

AI art Abstract Nietzsche’s formula “Dionysus gegen den Gekreuzigten”¹ is among the most explosive binaries in modern thought. While it epitomises his critique of Christian morality and celebration of tragic vitality, the clash itself long predates him. This essay reconstructs its nineteenth-century pre-history in Heinrich Heine’s satirical theology ( Götter im Exil , 1836) and Robert Hamerling’s mythic epic ( Ahasverus in Rom , 1866). Both authors set Dionysian plenitude against Christian asceticism—Heine through carnivalesque irony, Hamerling through flamboyant spectacle. Nietzsche inherits their dramaturgy and lifts it to metaphysical height. Recognising this lineage shows that his slogan consummates, rather than invents, a Romantic polemic. Introduction When Nietzsche proclaims “Dionysus versus the Crucified,”¹ he is staging more than a mythic contrast; he is polarising two visions of existence itself. Dionysus embodies overflowing life, ecstatic joy, and tragic wisdom; the C...

F. W. Schelling. AI art Abstract This essay traces the metamorphosis of the Dionysian motif across three major moments in Western philosophy. Plato and Aristotle subordinate the god of frenzy to civic virtue and rational pedagogy; Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling reintegrates the same ecstatic energy within a dialectic of spirit; Friedrich Nietzsche finally releases Dionysus as a principle of ungovernable life. Reading these thinkers in sequence reveals a continuous yet evolving debate about the status of emotion, art, and irrational power in the cultivation—or critique—of reason. Introduction Dionysus—god of wine, dance, and dismemberment—haunts the margins of Greek myth as both intoxicant and interrogator. Philosophers have long wrestled with his implications: if all knowledge begins in wonder, what becomes of wonder once it turns rapturous? From antiquity to modernity the answer changes, but the question persists. This article reconstructs three decisive interpretation...