What I then laid hands on, something terriblr and dangerous, a problem with horns, not neces sarily a bull itself, but at all events a new problem : I should say to-day it was the problem of science itself—science conceived for the first time as prob lematic, as questionable. But the book, in which my youthful ardour and suspicion then discharged themselves—what themselves—what an impossible book must needs grow out of a task so disagreeable to youth. Con structed of nought but precocious, unripened self-experiences, all of which lay close to the threshold of the communicable, based on the groundwork of art —for the problem of science cannot be discerned on the groundwork of science,—a book perhaps for artists, with collateral analytical and retrospective aptitudes (that is, an exceptional kind of artists, for whom one must seek and does not even care to seek . . .), full of psychological innovations and artists' secrets, with an artists' metaphysics in the background, a work of youth, full of youth's mettle and youth's melancholy, independent, defiantly self-sufficient even when it seems to bow to some authority and self-veneration; in short, a firstling-work, even in every bad sense of the term ; in spite of its senile problem, affected with every fault of youth, above all with youth's pro lixity and youth's " storm and stress": on the other hand, in view of the success it had (especi ally with the great artist to whom it addressed itself, as it were, in a duologue, Richard Wagner) a demonstrated book, I mean a book which, at any rate, sufficed " for the best of its time." On this account, if for no other reason, it should be treated with some consideration and reserve; yet I shall not altogether conceal how disagreeable it now appears to me, how after sixteen years it stands a total stranger before me,—before an eye which is more mature, and a hundred times more fastidious, but which has by no means grown colder nor lost any of its interest in that self-same task essayed for the first time by this daring book,— to view science through the optics of the artist, and art more over through the optics of Life. . . .
Typos are from the transcription/ocr, I assume. I have no idea what "pro lixity" is supposed to be.
1. Seems fond of run on sentences.
2. He didn't like The Birth of Tragedy all that much anymore?
3. Sound and fury signifying nothing (for instance, "for the problem of science cannot be discerned on the groundwork of science" makes no sense to me), or maybe the phrases he was using were references (e.g. To past philosophers' works) which I didn't get, with implied meanings.
4. Pretentious much?
Author
Topic: Things that made you go "WTF?" today o_O (Read 14840331 times)