Would you recognize a loved one in another body?
What are the limits to our love of others? Below is an essay I wrote for Philosophy & Tragedy on recognizing the essences of those we love.
Nietzsche's Apollonian and Dionysian Dichotomy in Euripides' "Helen" (and Goosebumps)
In his work "The Birth of Tragedy," Friedrich Nietzsche introduced the concepts of the Apollonian and Dionysian forces as fundamental principles shaping Greek tragedy and, by extension, human existence. These opposing yet complementary forces represent the tension between order and chaos, reason and emotion, individuality and collectivism. I found that Euripides' play "Helen" serves as a compelling illustration of these Nietzschean ideas, offering a unique perspective on the interplay between rationality and irrationality in human experience. Further, I found that “Helen” offers insight to the Nietzschean question of whether or not truth can be personal.
Euripides' "Helen" avoids the traditional narrative of the Trojan War by presenting a scenario where the real Helen never went to Troy, but instead was transported to Egypt by the gods. In her place, a phantom Helen was sent to Troy, becoming the face that launched a thousand ships. This sets the stage for a profound exploration of appearance versus reality, truth versus illusion, and the limitations of human perception and reason. Through this lens, I want to examine how Euripides' "Helen" exemplifies the tension between Apollonian and Dionysian forces, illustrating Nietzsche's critique of rationality and the significance of the irrational in human experience.
The Apollonian elements in "Helen" are evident in the rational construct of Helen's identity and the structured plot that unfolds. The phantom Helen who went to war represents an Apollonian illusion–a perfect, idealized form of Helen that is only true only in appearance. This illusion is so convincing that it sparks a war and shapes the destinies of nations. The real Helen, hidden away in Egypt, embodies the truth behind this illusion, highlighting the Apollonian pursuit of clarity and individuation.
The play's plot, particularly Helen and Menelaus' escape plan, showcases the Apollonian tendency towards logical problem-solving. Their scheme to deceive Theoclymenus and flee Egypt is careful, relying on reason and strategy. This structured approach to overcoming their obstacles reflects the Apollonian desire for order and control in the face of chaos.
Counterbalancing these Apollonian elements are the strong Dionysian themes that run through the play. The chaotic nature of war and its consequences, especially the irrationality of fighting over a phantom or idea of a person, embody the Dionysian spirit. The entire Trojan War, in this context, becomes a manifestation of collective madness, driven by passion and illusion rather than reason. We can say with reason that it was not completely relevant whether the Helen the Trojan War was fought over, because it is impossible that the entirety of the war’s participants and victims knew either of the Helens.
The emotional turmoil experienced by the characters further emphasizes the Dionysian aspects of the play. Real Helen's guilt and despair over the destruction caused in her name, despite her innocence, reflect the overwhelming power of emotion over reason. Similarly, Menelaus' confusion and disbelief upon encountering the real Helen in Egypt highlight the Dionysian disruption of rational expectations and understanding.
The interplay between Apollonian and Dionysian forces is perhaps most evident in the tension between appearance and reality that permeates. The juxtaposition of the real Helen and the phantom Helen creates a scenario reminiscent of a Goosebumps episode, where reality is fluid and appearances are deceiving. This blurring of lines between truth and illusion challenges the characters' and the audience's perception of reality, echoing Nietzsche's ideas about the limitations of human knowledge and the importance of embracing both the rational and irrational aspects of existence.
While reading “Helen” I was reminded of two episodes of “Goosebumps” which aired in 1997, titled “The Perfect School.” The plot covered themes and events similar to “Helen”, where a boy named Brian is sent to boarding school for troubled children. Brian discovers that the school’s success is simply cloning the students’ bodies but with more obedient personalities, and sending them home to their families, while the real students are enslaved to help the cloning of students after them. In the main character’s case, his family notices that his clone is a bit too perfect and obedient. Their worries are assuaged after Brian pulls a prank on his family. It is revealed that Brian had posed as his clone and switched their places, locking the clone in a basement alongside the real students. Without overindulging in a Goosebumps analysis, recalling this episode offered an answer of sorts to the issue of real and clone Helens in “Helen.” I previously discussed the interplay between Apollonian and Dionysian forces in “Helen,” and the subsequent tension between what is real and what is fake. So how would we know what is real and what is fake? In Brian’s case, his family only had the slightest concerns that he might be different, but had no suspicions that supposedly-clone Brian is not real Brian or clone Brian. In the Goosebumps episodes, Brian is revealed to be real because even on his mission to destroy the school and clones, he manages to risk revealing himself to the wrong people with a prank. In
philosophical terms, Brian’s intentions to save his classmates (i.e. the purpose) are somewhat revealed because of his prank (i.e. his personality).
Helen's use of deception and manipulation throughout the play further illustrates this interplay we can observe in Goosebumps. Her clever schemes blend reason and instinct; it is an Apollonian strategy with Dionysian cunning. She navigates the complex web of appearances and realities, showcasing the potential power of embracing both rational and irrational approaches to life's challenges.
Euripides' "Helen" offers a powerful critique of rationality and highlights the significance of the irrational in human experience. Menelaus' initial disbelief in the real Helen, despite the evidence before his eyes, emphasizes the limitations of reason in understanding truth. In Goosebumps, this limitation is clear in Brian’s family’s inability to conclude what had happened to him. The play suggests that reality can sometimes defy rational explanation, requiring us to look beyond logic to grasp the full complexity of human existence.
I must also emphasize the role of divine intervention and fate in the play, which further emphasizes the power of the irrational. The gods' manipulation of events, from Helen's transportation to Egypt to the creation of the phantom, represents forces beyond human comprehension or control. This divine meddling in mortal affairs echoes Nietzsche's ideas about the importance of acknowledging and embracing the irrational aspects of life.
As a reflection of Nietzsche's philosophy, "Helen" challenges traditional values and beliefs, subverting the classic Helen myth and questioning the nature of truth and reality. By presenting a scenario where the cause of the Trojan War was merely an illusion or plot device, Euripides invites us to reconsider our understanding of history, identity, and the motivations behind human actions.
The play emphasizes the importance of embracing both rational and irrational aspects of existence. The characters must navigate a world where reason alone is insufficient (e.g. the struggle of identifying Helen on something other than appearance, for one), where emotion and instinct of characters play crucial roles in understanding and overcoming challenges. This balance between the Apollonian and Dionysian forces reflects Nietzsche's belief in the necessity of both order and chaos, reason and passion, in the full expression of human potential.
But most importantly, “Helen" highlights the personal nature of truth. Helen is an image, or a symbol, to those who go to war over Helen. It's impossible that they could all know her personally, yet they fight and die for an idea, an illusion. In Goosebumps, Brian’s personal nature becomes entangled with his goal, which endangers himself and his plan, but demonstrates the entanglement of personality and truth. While both are much different characters, this entanglement in both plots raises profound questions about the nature of truth and perception in human affairs.
In conclusion, Euripides' "Helen" serves as a powerful illustration of Nietzsche's concepts of the Apollonian and Dionysian forces. Through its exploration of appearance versus reality, the limitations of reason, and the power of illusion, the play offers a nuanced perspective on the human experience that resonates with Nietzsche's philosophical ideas. It challenges us to consider the complex interplay between rationality and irrationality in our lives and our understanding of the world. As we reflect on the themes presented in "Helen" and their relevance to Nietzsche's philosophy, we are left with a provocative question: Can truth be personal, and should it be? This inquiry invites us to ponder the nature of reality, the limits of human perception, and the role of individual experience in shaping our understanding of the world around us.