Nietzsche (1844-1900) wanted to make of the philosopher an artist. It judged that philosophies like that ofPlato (428-348 front. J.-C.) led to the hatred of oneself and the nihilism, because they invite to be detached from sensitive and to control passions with an aim of giving a bottom to the form of the life.

This is why it proposed "to reverse" the platonism, by rehabilitating the form against the bottom and, generally, passion in the sensitive one.
From where importance at his place of the art, symbolized byDionysos, the god of the wine and the poets, in opposition to the truth and with science, symbolized byApollo. This praise of art does not go however without raising a number of interrogations.
Because can one make thought a pure business of form without killing it?
How can one say that it is enough for him to be well structured to be?
This is not the intention to put forward a direction which gives price to the words and not simply the arrangement of those, like said itSocrate (470-399 front. J.-C.) ?
In the same way, if the ascetic mortification which is a form of self-destruction is indeed nihilist, who to say of the control of the esthètes, the seducers and the players in general?
Isn't it the fruit of a despair and does not result it in making fun of while rejecting all with its way?

To be and manner of being

Without denying the existence of these drifts, excesses of art do not have therefore gumming this last. Because, as Vladimir Jankélévitch (1903-1985 ) shows it, art is related to the life.
The fact of being master key by a manner of being.
Without form, its bottom is nothing any more but brutality and violence. Also the form is not it surface. Redoubling the life, it is what gives to be it to the being by highlighting the effort of this one to be.
Indeed, isn't this this effort testifying to a desire to be and a love which makes its depth?
When one likes, one "puts the form", like one says, to testify to his love with delicacy.
Isn't this the direction which it is advisable to give to art?
With the obviousness, food with love and food with art form a whole. It is to give care so that one makes and thus to like. AsPlato recalls it as the beautiful one is the form of truth, in order to stress that to think truth, it is to like truth and to like truth, it is to have care of it by putting the forms at it.

Generally, all the philosophers who criticized the esthetism of less did not rehabilitate art and the beautiful one. Thus,Plato, in the Banquet, fact of the contemplation of the beautiful bodies the footboard to rise towards the harmony and, by là-même, towards the unit characteristic of the reason. On its sideKant (17241804), which distinguishes science from art and the art of science, less did not show of them two things inCritique of faculty to judge (1790): firstly, that esthetics is the field of a new report/ratio to the universality in the form of the judgement of taste, which manages to create an agreement between the men in front of a work of art, without passing by the reason.
Secondly, that nature, in the outburst sublimates its elements, is the inspirer of the highest virtues morals, as if there were in her spirit with work in significant form.
From where importance of philosophy.
To save the esthetics of the esthètes!