Nietzsche and the eternal return.

[Dubious]

There are still so many misconceptions regarding Nietzsche, that he was a proto-nazi and anti-semitic, that he hated or disliked women and died of syphilis begotten of a prostitute plus a host of other stupid BS still found on philosophy forums. Those who dislike him through hearsay or bad press because much of what he wrote was misunderstood, are more than happy to believe that a prostitute killed him.

Sorry to implode one's preferred myth but modern research makes this highly questionable since the symptoms Nietzsche manifested makes syphilis extremely improbable as cause. Of course for those who prefer the 19th century diagnosis, which was even then questioned by some, they remain in their own private tertiary state of prejudice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1708 ... t=Abstract
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/33 ... hilis.html

[Dalek Prime]

There are still so many misconceptions regarding Nietzsche, that he was a proto-nazi and anti-semitic, that he hated or disliked women and died of syphilis begotten of a prostitute plus a host of other stupid BS still found on philosophy forums. Those who dislike him through hearsay or bad press because much of what he wrote was misunderstood, are more than happy to believe that a prostitute killed him.

Sorry to implode one's preferred myth but modern research makes this highly questionable since the symptoms Nietzsche manifested makes syphilis extremely improbable as cause. Of course for those who prefer the 19th century diagnosis, which was even then questioned by some, they remain in their own private tertiary state of prejudice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1708 ... t=Abstract
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/33 ... hilis.html

Let's do an autopsy to make sure. Otherwise, its all speculation. Anyways, who cares. He certainly doesn't, unless he has to do it all again. Someone should warn him to stay out of Italy though.

[Bernard]

Nietzsche had tremendous will - there is no doubt - but this ultimate amour fati idea of his is the most unwilling of any of his ideas - yet he presents the ER as the central pivot of his greatest mouthpiece: Zararthustra. What would happen if we took his will and reconstructed the idea with will as the full protaganist, rather than the half baked way it exits within the eternal return manifesto? Will occurs within it only as will to affirm and acknowledge fate, rather than to alter it. Surely if will exists for anything it is to somehow alter fate... ?

If a person believes that they will have to go through all the same struggles again unless they apply greater focus and rigour to their activities, then that might affect their performance in a number of ways. Some excel under pressure while others are distracted by it, and it also depends on the kind of pressure.

Wouldn't a simple maxim like "Do it once, do it well" achieve a similar function without the pressure or metaphysics? Perhaps it would instill less drive in those who thrive under pressure than the implied threat of recurring struggles, but it also lacks the anxiety downside, not to mention the arguable metaphysical claim.

[Bernard]

BTW Hi Arising. Long time no yack. Whatever happened to that nutcase that was here? Remember him? He contested someone to a duel which almost took place - from what I remember.

[Greta]

... , do it well ...

Is the issue.
p.s.
Although I take your points. My take was about your practicality issue with the maxim.

Yes. The point was worth making.

[Impenitent]

Nietzsche had tremendous will - there is no doubt - but this ultimate amour fati idea of his is the most unwilling of any of his ideas - yet he presents the ER as the central pivot of his greatest mouthpiece: Zararthustra. What would happen if we took his will and reconstructed the idea with will as the full protaganist, rather than the half baked way it exits within the eternal return manifesto? Will occurs within it only as will to affirm and acknowledge fate, rather than to alter it. Surely if will exists for anything it is to somehow alter fate... ?

why alter that which you love?

-Imp

[Nick_A]

IMO in order to understand the theory of ER at least intellectually, a person has to first define what a moment in time is. This isn't easy. But if time repeats in ER, then a moment must repeat. But if we don't know what a moment in time is, how can we know what a repeating moment is or the basis of ER?

[Greta]

The metamorphosis of reality over time could be thought of as a series of seemingly "eternal returns". The same dynamics repeat over and over, always a little differently to the time before (ie. not a true "return", just as you cannot cross the same river twice).

No matter what the scale, eventually homogeneity will always break down into particulates and relative space. Examples: star formation in gas clouds, planets forming from protoplanetary disc, atom and molecule formation, microbial and animal colonies, distribution of wealth, and so on.

These new particulates - stars, planets, colonies and companies - create new relatively homogeneous "playing fields" at a larger scale. So chaotically distributed emergent stars cluster into galaxies, bacterial colonies organised into eukaryotes, companies merge to form mega-corporations. Ad infinitum, or until natural limits are reached.

So history does repeat, but only metaphysically/phorically.

[Bernard]

Nietzsche had tremendous will - there is no doubt - but this ultimate amour fati idea of his is the most unwilling of any of his ideas - yet he presents the ER as the central pivot of his greatest mouthpiece: Zararthustra. What would happen if we took his will and reconstructed the idea with will as the full protaganist, rather than the half baked way it exits within the eternal return manifesto? Will occurs within it only as will to affirm and acknowledge fate, rather than to alter it. Surely if will exists for anything it is to somehow alter fate... ?

why alter that which you love?

-Imp

By altering it you may love it more. (that applies to fate in itself as much as more specific things that one loves) All things change anyway, so would it be more a matter of staying with what you love as much as possible by willing oneself along the path of the changes occurring with what one loves, aligning those changes to suit oneself more closely?

[Bernard]

IMO in order to understand the theory of ER at least intellectually, a person has to first define what a moment in time is. This isn't easy. But if time repeats in ER, then a moment must repeat. But if we don't know what a moment in time is, how can we know what a repeating moment is or the basis of ER?

A moment in time is a divison or multiplication we create to make things more convenient for ourselves. Ultimately, time is indivisible and impossible to multiply which leaves us with only time itself as a moment. This is exactly what Nietzsche does with his eternal return; he forces us to view time as one moment - he does this by positing it as one lifetime. No one can argue with that as it is experientially the ultimate measure for anyone (one lifetime). Time then repeats infinitely.

[Bernard]

The metamorphosis of reality over time could be thought of as a series of seemingly "eternal returns". The same dynamics repeat over and over, always a little differently to the time before (ie. not a true "return", just as you cannot cross the same river twice).

No matter what the scale, eventually homogeneity will always break down into particulates and relative space. Examples: star formation in gas clouds, planets forming from protoplanetary disc, atom and molecule formation, microbial and animal colonies, distribution of wealth, and so on.

These new particulates - stars, planets, colonies and companies - create new relatively homogeneous "playing fields" at a larger scale. So chaotically distributed emergent stars cluster into galaxies, bacterial colonies organised into eukaryotes, companies merge to form mega-corporations. Ad infinitum, or until natural limits are reached.

So history does repeat, but only metaphysically/phorically.

Nietzsche explicitly refused this in his ER proposal, ie: that there is not even slight alteration. This is the most intellectually untenable side to ER. Sheer observation tells any one of us that successful change is constant but is also, as a rule, gradual and orderly .

[Nick_A]

Does the process of going around in a circle really change anything? ER is a very hard concept to introduce to anyone who is unfamiliar with esoteric ideas pertaining to consciousness so I can see why there is so much confusion.

I don’t know if anyone here has seen the movie “Groundhog Day.” It is about eternal recurrence. The idea here is that our lives in eternity repeat. Our lack of conscious awareness keeps us unaware of this repetition. As our hero in the movie begins to become aware of Groundhog Day repeating for him his attitude begins to change. He becomes conscious of his situation. ER is far deeper than this but the movie is a good introduction to the question. A serious person can explore the idea in the context of time and dimensions not to mention the modern idea of parallel universes all in eternal repetition. Getting a glimpse of ER has been a mind blowing experience for me. There is so much to existence that I was completely oblivious of even in theory..

[Bernard]

Does the process of going around in a circle really change anything? ER is a very hard concept to introduce to anyone who is unfamiliar with esoteric ideas pertaining to consciousness so I can see why there is so much confusion.

I don’t know if anyone here has seen the movie “Groundhog Day.” It is about eternal recurrence. The idea here is that our lives in eternity repeat. Our lack of conscious awareness keeps us unaware of this repetition. As our hero in the movie begins to become aware of Groundhog Day repeating for him his attitude begins to change. He becomes conscious of his situation. ER is far deeper than this but the movie is a good introduction to the question. A serious person can explore the idea in the context of time and dimensions not to mention the modern idea of parallel universes all in eternal repetition. Getting a glimpse of ER has been a mind blowing experience for me. There is so much to existence that I was completely oblivious of even in theory..

Yes,I have seen Groundhog Day. Life can be incredibly repetitious - to the point where we wonder if it is all just a closed circle. Revisiting this forum yesterday after a long hiatus is evidence enough to me of that. It can't be any other way though as this is the payment for all the wonder and majesty of life. In the end it is a miniscule payment. There is a chink in the most repetitive of occasions, even in the eternal return. Zarathustra HAS to will, Has to alter things and does this by willing the eternal return itself. This breaks the cycle - because previously the eternal return had all been proposition to him

What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.'

But once he owns the eternal occurence he dissolves the thought of it and can move on, he can keep willing.

[Greta]

Does the process of going around in a circle really change anything?

It changes everything.

The Earth circles the Sun, and each orbit brings ever more change. There have been apparently approx. 4.6 billion orbits since the Earth aggregated to planet size. During that inaugural orbit as a full-fledged planet (and no doubt long before) the Earth was a ball of hot rock. By contrast, during the Earth's current orbit, some four and a half billion orbits later, we beings of water and carbon bubbling on the planet's surface are discussing these phenomena - at a distance of 10,000 kms via symbols transmitted in data streams.

[Bernard]

There is also the ideological cicle which has no natural reality as it is a theoretical device or projection - a perfect circle. There is no escape from such a circle and no possibility of anything else entering it in order to change its nature. This is The ER circle that binds Zarathustra, imprisoning his will.

We see that Zarathustra breaks the spell (symbolized in Thus Spake Zarathustra as a shepherd biting off a snakes head - it is the overcoming of the nausea that the ER creates in Zarathustra) but he doesnt acknowledge it in any overt way, instead Zarathustra seeks out 'higher men' in a need to overcome his pity for man who is trapped in the false conception of circular time.

Nietzsche himself retreats into concerns about morality and into overviewing his own philosophy rather than creating new formulations, that could have been more realistic... better thoughts, or even explanations, of the big questions: what are we? How did we get here? Where are we headed?