>>82I need some distinction. In the quote, when I was speaking about the Dionysian, I wasn't speaking in the framework that puts the Apollonian and the Dionysian side by side. It was in the context of a broadly comparative-mythology-oriented characterization of the Dionysian. I wasn't speaking about Nietzsche's distinction, since his concept of the Dionysian can only be understood in the tension that arises from the dualism of the Apollonian and the Dionysian - since
> Apollo's classic Greek power to create measured and harmonious beauty is endlessly assailed by the drunken frenzy of Dionysus threatening to smash everything the sheer, the sheer tension the energy the tinge of madness, the supernatural powers that emerge […]and this all presupposes that this drunken frenzy is happening inside a single individual, and further, in conflict with the Apollonian. It can be said that the Dionysian is like matter, substance, and the Apollonian bestows form to the matter.
For Nietzsche herd mentality was really what Kierkegaard criticized, it is, so to speak, Japanese mentality. Even if he thought about a violent mob, it wasn't his concern after all, since the world he was living in was so too superficially civilized. He thought this was due to the fact that there was no individual greatness, and for him Christianity was a religion for the weak, for those who want safety and comfort that a semi-Apollonian order (semi- since this order is a "community" one, an order that is formed by people mutually supporting each other in perpetuating their pitiful, boring life) provides. But as Goethe repeatedly pointed out, individual greatness presupposes the actual existence of an individual, which the Dionysian, without a strict Apollonian discipline, simply dissolves. Furthermore it is in the tension between the Apollonian and the Dionysian that greatness may arise, otherwise, with only the Dionysian present, it is pure chaos without any human significance; formless matter.