Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:55 pm
That's a thought. Bugger tho' as it means I might have already done it so no point in ER as a moral guide anymore.Impenitent wrote:...
deja vu
-Imp
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
That's a thought. Bugger tho' as it means I might have already done it so no point in ER as a moral guide anymore.Impenitent wrote:...
deja vu
-Imp
Nietzsche had no use for free willArising_uk wrote:That's a thought. Bugger tho' as it means I might have already done it so no point in ER as a moral guide anymore.Impenitent wrote:...
deja vu
-Imp
I agree. But that is why I said "AS IF you had to live your day recurrently"Arising_uk wrote:I agree with what you say about Nietzsche. The rest is just chatting.Not quite Nietzsche then as he gives you no second, third, ..., chances in his ER.Lev Muishkin wrote:...
Groundhog Day (the film) is the best explanation of the meaning of the ER.
...
The whole of the idea of ER can be encapsulated in a single idea: Live your life as if you did so with maximal knowledge. In the film Groundhog Day, Bill Murray lives a day again and again until he gets it right; flawless.Thats how I read it, i.e. act as tho' you WILL be doing what you are going to do eternally so choose wisely and it gave me one of the biggest belly-laughs I've had in Philosophy when I got to it. I also admired how it was the counter-point to Kant's universal categorical imperative. But then I had the thought, 'But how do I know if I'm on the first time around?'.Nietzsche uses ER to demands that we do not live life, like a pathetic Christian as if it were some sort of rehearsal. There is no heaven, no reward in Nietzsche's world, and when we live it had better be done right, as if we had to face the day eternally, as if we had to endlessly repeat that life the same way. He asks simply would you live your life again repeating the same dumb mistakes again and again?
No you must live your life the best you can.
There is nothing more to the ER.
No, "we" are not the atoms of which we are comprised. "we" are the unique physicalisation of the organisation of atoms in flux. When that structure stops, we end.Nibbana wrote:In terms of physics, yes we are all eternal. it's kinda like the cycle of water. we are just the forms of energy. energy always exists.
multiverse?
noun (plural multiverses)
- (philosophy) The world, considered as lacking in purpose, design, or predictability.
- (physics) The hypothetical group of all the possible universes in existence.
Our universe is a very small part of the multiverse.
I don't think multiverse is what you have said. you can do the shopping in UK and have sex with your lover in US.. at the same time? The concept of multiverse is not possible.
Do you speak English? We are kinda structure or something? Please explain.Lev Muishkin wrote:No, "we" are not the atoms of which we are comprised. "we" are the unique physicalisation of the organisation of atoms in flux. When that structure stops, we end.Nibbana wrote:In terms of physics, yes we are all eternal. it's kinda like the cycle of water. we are just the forms of energy. energy always exists.
multiverse?
noun (plural multiverses)
- (philosophy) The world, considered as lacking in purpose, design, or predictability.
- (physics) The hypothetical group of all the possible universes in existence.
Our universe is a very small part of the multiverse.
I don't think multiverse is what you have said. you can do the shopping in UK and have sex with your lover in US.. at the same time? The concept of multiverse is not possible.
The grammar is perfect, except the second 'we' ought to have a capital. My apologies.Nibbana wrote:Do you speak English? We are kinda structure or something? Please explain.Lev Muishkin wrote:No, "we" are not the atoms of which we are comprised. "we" are the unique physicalisation of the organisation of atoms in flux. When that structure stops, we end.Nibbana wrote:In terms of physics, yes we are all eternal. it's kinda like the cycle of water. we are just the forms of energy. energy always exists.
multiverse?
noun (plural multiverses)
- (philosophy) The world, considered as lacking in purpose, design, or predictability.
- (physics) The hypothetical group of all the possible universes in existence.
Our universe is a very small part of the multiverse.
I don't think multiverse is what you have said. you can do the shopping in UK and have sex with your lover in US.. at the same time? The concept of multiverse is not possible.
Lev Muishkin wrote:
The grammar is perfect, except the second 'we' ought to have a capital. My apologies.
You have the essence of the meaning.
What makes me is a unique and complex structure of matter. Not the atoms that form the structure.
Romeo and Juliet is not the Latin alphabet, but the order in which the letters of that alphabet are gathered. If you separate the words and letters - you just get a pile of nonsense.
Humans have the same atoms as a dog, a banana or a cat: mostly C, O, H, N, a little P and P, some Na and a few traces of other things.
We are not eternal, just because are atoms persist after our death. Death is the disorganisation of matter.
Okay, but why? We won't relive any days, so doing that does not reflect a real concern; and if we say that imagining it functions merely as an heuristic device (a way of getting information fictively that we could not get from realism, rather like the "categorical imperative" of Kant) then what line of argument shows this to be an accurate or useful heuristic?I agree. But that is why I said "AS IF you had to live your day recurrently"
Yes I know. And you point it out so elegantly. If one is not aware of it, then one does not experience it. And therefore, it might as well not even exist. Therefore, we are still at square I, the problem of removing existence itself. Anything else, is just counting on the roll of the dice, hoping death will do your homework for you.surreptitious57 wrote:One cannot remove the timeline although one can become unaware of its existence. This shall
occur at the precise point when consciousness becomes non consciousness. An eternity of that
state shall then commence though one shall not actually be aware of it. Death is the final and
permanent destination and one free from all suffering so why are humans so afraid of it. None
were afraid of it before they were born so why be afraid of it before they die ? Makes no sense
The problem here is that you missed the core point of my post. I see what you are saying, but do you see what I am saying? I think you do not yet. To think that this life's death would be the absolute death, wow. This life is nothing more than a pile of rubbish and broken parts. It's the equivalent of a lousy B movie, and you think this ending of this life is the ultimate death? Ha. Please go back and read my post above this one.surreptitious57 wrote:The problem here is that there is no way to remove existence other than by death so thinking about it is from a practical
perspective a tad superfluous to requirement. I myself have made peace with it and so it can therefore take me any time
I am actually looking forward to spending the rest of eternity in a state of permanent painlessness and non consciousness
I find it vey soothing philosophically speaking. So therefore what ever life throws at me I know it is but a temporary thing
so try not to let it affect me too negatively. Isolation is an excellent grounding mechanism I find though I can not actually
recommend it since it is only something one can decide for oneself not anyone else. As I get older I retreat more inside of
myself so just let it be and try not to focus that intensely up on anything but just let it flow with much fluidity as possible
I am merely passing through so try not to have too tight a grip on reality as that will at some point have to be relinquished