A jab by a sore loser.
The sad thing is you could have been a winner if you weren’t too vain to learn anything from other students of Nietzsche (note that I have demoted you to the rank of “Learner” at my forum site).
That you are confused is due to a lack of spiritual discipline on your part (ibid.).
Is this (your quoting this at this point, without explaining why) supposed to be profound?
typical, as usual; i address the content of the thread, in general, and you address the person, me, and make ad hom personal attacks on my “spirituality”– by far more of a “jab”, even under your own definition, than anything i have written here thus far.
the last one to realise he is the hypocrite is himself; the greater his ego-blindness, the longer it will take for him to come to this realization, if indeed he ever does.
…and, wow, 
im curious if you think i care at all about your Temple of Worship to your God [-o< ; i have made it very clear what i think about DESCIPLES of IDOLS such as you… Nietzsche himself has made his opinions of such “prophets” quite clear as well (the ultimate irony for you, im afraid).
as ive said before, i will take Nietzsche at his word, not “interpreted” by saintly metaphysicians masking as self-congratulatory scholars with nothing better to do than copy and paste from google or etymology dictionaries.
carry on. and good luck “interpreting” Nietzsche through a phenomenological metaphysicism-- see how far that gets you with someone like Nietzsche.
No, it was a playful way of drawing a conclusion from this thread.
You can replace ‘God’ with The Eternal Recurrence.
Scientifically it has here been demonstrated to be implausible, and as a psychological stimulus, you have not succeeded in explaining why it is more than a consolation for the fleetingness of life.
indeed.
eternal recurrence: for those of a (marginally) higher intellectual ability, but still insufficient integrity and strength of character, the afterlife of last resort.
there is no eternal life. it is a contradiction. life is the rare exception.
our life will end. we will die, never to return. there is no reason to believe otherwise.
facing that fact, head-on, without afterwordly shields and heavenly trenches, facing it HONESTLY, is the ultimate sign of strength; the ultimate sign of one’s “affirmation of life”, to use Nietzschean terminology.
believing in lies such as the eternal recurrence is nothing more than fantasy for the weak, just as is all religion. dressing it up in fancy words and confusing vague abstractions doesnt change the nature of the belief: the will to lies, to comforting delusions, false peace of mind.
strip yourself of this will to delusions. see what remains; it is all that we have. our strength, our true will. without lies and rationalizations. only there, bared in the open, naked, ruthless, triumphant, will we meet our true selves, will we stand facing the universe of magnificent and unbelievable wonder and truly SEE it-- life!– through our OWN eyes, and not through the eyes of “half-baked” mystics and pseudo-religious linguistic magicians, as plenty of those who “interpret” Nietzsche turn out to be.
who has the strength for this gaze, brutally honest with onesself, completely devoid of the will to the lie? who can stand in the awesome presence of our cold, immutable, unforgiving universe with the strength to endure it, know it, affirm it, love it?
can you love your own death? that you will die, never to return, gone forever? can you endure this, truly? or rather would you slip into delusion, call this love of death “nihilism” or “will to nothingness” as a mask to hide your own will to the lie? you think you understand? dig deeper. “The world is deep, deeper than day has been aware.”
who can know the truth? who can see what is, pure, serene, openness of a vast radiant wilderness, mighty Nature come to swallow us all, in the end, forever? who can see the truth?
only those who refuse to stare through false eyes. only those who see what IS, and not what they WANT to be.
Ah, so it was what I thought, a self-congratulatory jab.
“Scientifically it has here been demonstrated”—you mean that you, professor Jakob, have demonstrated that here? But you haven’t; all you’ve demonstrated is that it’s plausible that all other possible configurations of the universe will occur (or recur) first.
I have explained—quite inspiredly, I think—what’s the difference between the eternal recurrence and a “Heaven”.
The will to power (not the eternal recurrence) is a vindication of God, and the eternal recurrence is a glorification of the world as will to power. But the former’s not a vindication of the dead God, or a God like him—to the contrary:
[size=95]“What? Doesn’t this [that the world is the will to power, and nothing besides] mean, to speak in the vernacular: God is refuted, but the devil is not—?” On the contrary! On the contrary, my friends! And, who the devil forces you to speak in the vernacular!—
[BGE 37, entire.][/size]
Splendid! According to the great Three Times Great, Nietzsche had probably only a marginally higher intellectual ability than the average herd-man, and certainly insuffient integrity and strength of character! This unequalled Nietzsche-expert has exposed Nietzsche as only a (slightly) above-average thinker. But wait—this cannot be what he means; he must mean yours truly and those like him here (this is confirmed further on in his post). He cannot believe Nietzsche believed in the eternal recurrence. Therefore he must make unbelievable (in his own eyes) those who interpret Nietzsche in this way. Nietzsche cannot have believed such a thing, as Nietzsche—like Satyr and himself—was a free spirit!!!
Yes, and rare exceptions are improbable. But the point has been all along that, according to the finite matter in infinite time theory, even they must recur sooner or later.
Note, by the way, for the umpteenth time, that it’s not a question of eternal life (life without end), but of an eternal recurrence of life (beginning and end included).
Apparently, Nietzsche disagreed with you on that.
[size=95]To determine: whether the typical religious man [is] a form of decadence (the great innovators are one and all morbid and epileptic); but are we not here omitting one type of religious man, the pagan? Is the pagan cult not a form of thanksgiving and affirmation of life? Must its highest representative not be an apology for and deification of life? The type of a well-constituted and ecstatically overflowing spirit! The type of a spirit that takes into itself and redeems the contradictions and questionable aspects of existence!
It is here I set the Dionysus of the Greeks: the religious affirmation of life, life whole and not denied or in part[.]
[WP 1052.]
We few or many who again dare to live in a dismoralized world, we pagans in faith: we are probably also the first to grasp what a pagan faith is:—to have to imagine higher creatures than man, but beyond good and evil; to have to consider all being higher as also being immoral. We believe in Olympus—and not in the “Crucified.”
[WP 1034, entire.]
Oh, those Greeks! They knew how to live. What is required for that is to stop courageously at the surface, the fold, the skin, to adore appearance, to believe in forms, tones, words, in the whole Olympus of appearance. Those Greeks were superficial—out of profundity. And is not this precisely what we are again coming back to, we daredevils of the spirit who have climbed the highest and most dangerous peak of present thought and looked around from up there—we who have looked down from there? Are we not, precisely in this respect, Greeks? Adorers of forrns, of tones, of words? And therefore—artists?
[Nietzsche Contra Wagner, Epilogue, 2.][/size]
It is evident from this last passage that our great Nietzsche-expert is still lacking in profundity. Has he already climbed the highest peak of present thought?
Our true will, the will to power, is the will to delusion: see WP 853.
This “will we” suggests (as do other clues) that this Nietzsche-expert has yet to arrive there. Will he dread the nihilism? Or will he be protected by sufficiently strong illusions not to see anything dreadful at all? It certainly seems that way, as phrases like “our OWN eyes” suggest that these “eyes”, these views, will be basically the same. Not a hint here of the absolute solitude integral with such truthfulness!
Yes; and “woe says: Perish! But all joy wants eternity, wants deep, deep eternity”…
Only priests like this “Trismegistos”, of course…
And what is what is? Is it not—the will to power? And is this not an Imposing on “what IS”, in the-ory (“see”) and in practice?
P.S.: If there was anyone who used ad homs, it was Nietzsche. Ultimately it all comes down to who one is—what one is.
run along back to your Temple, big guy, play time is over.
i think i hear your alter-boys calling you, dont forget its Prayer Time at the Idol of Nietzsche Forums, you go have fun now.
and remember, if you hit your required 10 quotes a day of the Scriptures and Texts of the Holy One, youll get to go to eternal heaven to be with your God forever and ever, Amen.
better hurry and get started.
I have explained that ‘in infinity’ doesn’t mean anything. It does not matter if by infinity you mean a straight line of a circle. Both are non-existent. From that follows that there is no necessity for the present combination of particles to recur. It seems that this is difficult for you to understand. You refuse to step out of the abstract.
The outcome of your assertions vs my criticism is that in abstraction, you might recur. With the added note that you don’t exist in abstraction.
The idea that the ER is a consolation came from Nietzsche, in the quote about the emperor which you produced.
You have distanced yourself from the self-knowledge Nietzsche demonstrates there, but what is that to me?
Nietzsche invented the ER, and he explains it there as being a product of his weakness. If you want to re-interpret it you’ll have to work harder, be better, give more thought to the criticism your arguments meet, and be more critical of Nietzsche.
[…]
my post from a different thread here explains why physically, recurrence is impossible, even given infinite time:
"Poincaré’s Theorem violates the second law of thermodynamics, because it does not take entropy into account properly.
closed systems tend over time to increase total entropy. TOTAL entropy is always increasing, because every interaction between matter-particles or particle-groupings represents a loss of order: some energy is always lost as a cost of work performed in the interaction, usually as heat or other light-based energy (photon emission). since no action is effortless, it is this tiny cost of the effort which subtracts from the available energy for structure-ordering, and thus causes their complexity to decrease naturally over each interaction with additional structures.
total energy is never lost, but it is always, AS A WHOLE, converted into states of progressively higher and higher entropy. thus, a new state can NEVER return to an exact previous state (the entirety of all states, i mean here by “state”, i.e. the universe as a whole); thus, recurrence is impossible, because in order to recur the universe would need to lose some of the entropy that it gained as a whole since the previous state occured, which cannot happen unless energy is introduced to the system from outside, which is impossible since we defined the universe properly as a closed system. re-define the universe as open to some external system or meta-universe, and perhaps recurrence can occur, HOWEVER then the impossibility of recurrence merely now applies to the new totality…
in short, Poincaré was wrong that the totality of a closed system will recur to exact or near-exact previous states… in addition, this is also why Nietzsche was wrong about his concept of eternal recurrence (who it seems Poincaré likely ‘borrowed’ the idea from and attempted to mathematize it). no system can recur unless it is an open system, i.e. unless entropy can be reduced by the influx of additional energy into the system itself, over time.
"
in addition to the above post i made, modern physics agrees that entropy will eventually get the best of our universe, as the “Big Rip” eventually causes all matter to dissipate and vanish as energy “stabilizes” and completely homogenizes across all spacetime (i.e. as all energy leaves the ordered structural state of particle matter and assumes a less-ordered amorphous state of disperse field energy).
recurrence is simply a flawed idea, one that is believed in because of an ignorance about entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, and the nature of closed energy systems.
eventually, in a trillion years or whatever (i dont remember the estimates at the moment), the universe will attain a state of “matterlessness” or highest possible entropy, as all energy assumes a non-ordered form… after this, well, as long as the system remains closed, it will continue in this state indefinately. there is no known principle or reason, naturally or otherwise, which would account for the system suddenly jumping into a lower entropy state-- an increase of total energy would be needed for this to occur, and since the system is closed, this is impossible.
Nietzsche was wrong, but its ok, since back then he is mostly excused for not knowing about physics in the more advanced understandings that we have today… however, anyone who actually still believes his idea of eternal recurrence (an idea which undoubtedly, were Nietzsche alive today, he would have rejected out of hand) in light of our modern knowledge, is comparable to someone who still thinks the Sun moves around the Earth.
there is just no excuse for holding such out-dated beliefs anymore.
No, you have only said so.
Within time they are; but then, they represent time as a whole. Ever heard of block time?
According to your reasoning, then, it must also “follow” that nothing need follow the present combination, as that present combination is all that exists (i.e., past combinations don’t exist, so future combinations may not exist, either)…
Well, enlighten me then! You can begin by explaining how I am “in the abstract”.
Where does he mention “his weakness” in that passage?
I will here reproduce something I posted on my own site yesterday—in my “Basic Nietzsche Forum”:
Both at the beginning and near the end of his philosophical career, Nietzsche spoke of “consolation” (Trost):
[size=95]The metaphysical solace [Trost]—with which, I wish to say at once, all true tragedy sends us away—that, despite every phenomenal change life is at bottom indestructibly joyful and powerful, was expressed most concretely in the chorus of satyrs, beings of nature who dwell behind all civilization and preserve their identity through every change of generations and historical movement.
[The Birth of Tragedy (1872), chapter 7.]
A certain emperor always bore in mind the transitoriness of all things so as not to take them too seriously and to live at peace among them. To me, on the contrary, everything seems far too valuable to be so fleeting: I seek an eternity for everything: ought one to pour the most precious salves and wines into the sea?—My consolation [Trost] is that everything that has been is eternal: the sea will cast it up again.
[WP 1065, entire.][/size]
As you can see, these consolations are very much alike: they both consist in the idea that, despite its apparent fleetingness, everything is at bottom eternal. And though one may regard the Overman as a satyr celebrating his Becoming, his lack of Being, in the faith that it will eternally recur, one might also interpret the first quote in the sense that there are satyrs who have eternal Being beyond the Becoming of the rest of existence. If one interprets it in this last way, the second quote stands diametrically opposed to it: it’s not about a Being beyond Becoming, but about the eternal recurrence of the same Becoming, the same cosmic process.
One may ask: Is not the need for consolation a sign of weakness? Is it not essentially un-Nietzschean? But the Nietzschean consolation is the opposite of the Christian consolation: it is not faith in an end of the “vale of tears” that is this world and this life, not faith in an eternal humanitarian world and life after this inhuman one, but faith in the eternal recurrence of this world and this life, the eternal exact repetition of the macro- and microcosmic process.
Empty assertions. It seems all the things you imply here are subpar in me are really subpar in you (though you should replace “Nietzsche” by “yourself”).
You seem to be rapidly going the path of your idol, Satyr…
Your presumptuous “scientific” posts that follow this one are especially laughable if one considers that you haven’t even read The Will to Power. Nietzsche’s argument, that the universe logically cannot reach a state of equilibrium because it’s not in such a state right now, refutes the theory of any such equilibrium.
Last night, I came up with a new argument. You said:
There is no reason to believe that, either…
If we compare the idea you express here, my idea of eternal recurrence, and, say, the Christian idea of Heaven, we shall see that my idea is the only idea for which there is any evidence. Though we don’t know if the Christian idea is false, we have no notion of such a “better” life, only of this life. Though we don’t know if we will ever return, we have no notion of our non-existence, only of our existence. The eternal existence of the process that is my life is suggested by the very existence of that process… This is what exists; your idea of a heat death of whatever of the universe is merely a theory…
By the way, I wanted you to read another passage:
[size=95]Such an experimental philosophy as I live anticipates experimentally even the possibilities of the most fundamental nihilism; but this does not mean that it must halt at a negation, a No, a will to negation. It wants rather to cross over to the opposite of this—to a Dionysian affirmation of the world as it is, without subtraction, exception, or selection—it wants the eternal circulation:—the same things, the same logic and illogic of entanglements. The highest state a philosopher can attain: to stand in a Dionysian relationship to existence—my formula for this is amor fati.
[WP 1041; cf. WP 55 and BGE 56.][/size]
It does not matter whether this eternal circulation is probable according to current scientific opinion… Philosophy is above the fashions of the day. You say:
You are wrong to think that the eternal recurrence was acceptable to the science of his day; check out Lou von Salomé’s book on him.
Your attempts to excuse Nietzsche from your criticisms are laughable: be a man and admit that the eternal recurrence is the turning point in your estimation of Nietzsche.
I said infinity is not a state, like zero. That is a very clear explanation.
You completely misinterpret this ‘eternalism’ if you think this warrants an infinite timeline.
in fact infinity and block time are mutually exclusive, since to regard something as a whole it has to be finite.
What kind of nonsense are you putting in my mouth now? “past combinations don’t exist”?
You are not in the abstract. But you must see yourself as such, since you think you are ‘in infinity’.
He can’t accept it to be so fleeting. The wines are too precious to be spilt into the sea. it is too hard, too cruel, too senseless. He has to invent a better more acceptable reality.
Granted, the Christian need for consolation is even weaker.
I’ll keep that in mind. You might want to consider showing me the respect of properly reading my posts. Or not - suit yourself.
This correspondence is closed.
Then again, that’s not what I meant. I meant within the infinite timeline as a whole.
Exactly. That’s why I called infinity a bullshit concept. As you referred to that concept, however, I chose to address your points on your terms.
Block time may well be regarded as ring, though…
I will repeat what you yourself quoted: “block time” is the idea “that future events are “already there”, and that there is no objective flow of time.” That also means that past events are still there. But then you apparently dismiss block time, which suggests that according to you, neither past combinations nor future combinations exist…
Too hard, too cruel, and too senseless? But these “precious wines” he mentions are precisely the hard, cruel, and senseless things that constitute existence!
eternal recurrence wasn’t to be interpreted literally folks
nietzsche made no claim about how the world actually is with this idea
it represents the ultimate affirmation of life, the proverbal YES to all of existence (past, present, and future)
when one affirms one’s eternal recurrence, one affirms everything - amor fati
that’s it
Can you back that up? What about the last chapter of The Will to Power, for example?
nietzsche didn’t even publish the will to power, dude
his nazi sister did
and it wouldn’t even make sense for him to assert such a thing - in fact, it would be laughable
but believe what you want, i couldn’t care less
This is not about believing. It’s about you making ungrounded assertions.
Yes, Nietzsche did not publish The Will to Power. I was not referring to the publication by his sister, however (and I don’t see what the assertion that she was a “nazi” or, as Wikipedia says, anti-Semitic, adds to your argument), but to the publication by Walter Kaufmann (who was a Jew, by the way).
Regardless of whether Nietzsche published the material contained in it (and one might argue that his going insane prevented that publication), Nietzsche evidently sought to present a scientific case for the eternal recurrence (WP 1057, 1059, 1062-63, and 1066-67. Note that there is more like this in the Nachlass).