The Eternal Recurrence

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
121

[size=95]Conviction as a means: many things are attained only by means of a conviction. Great passion uses and uses up convictions, it does not succumb to them—it knows itself sovereign.
[AC 54.][/size]

Of all those I have been discussing the eternal recurrence with in this thread, Jakob is the only one who has actually applied the above to this doctrine. And many things are indeed attained only by means of that conviction. Your passion for Nietzsche’s philosophy must cause you to convince yourself that everything recurs. Only then can you know if you are up to the doctrine.

122

No, this is about understanding (or in your case, misunderstanding) how the eternal recurrence fits and coheres with the rest of Nietzsche’s philosophy.

these ideas, amor fati and eternal recurrence? they’re sisters, chap

and you think he sought evidence for his philosophy in science? :laughing: =D>

you must be clueless

123

That (without the parenthesis) is indeed what this thread is about. So we have to study Nietzsche’s writings rather than make assertions we don’t back up.

Your parenthesis is merely another such assertion, by the way.

I have never denied that, or contradicted it.

At least I back up my assertions with evidence.

Nietzsche’s interest in science has been indisputable from the very beginning (see Whitlock’s publication of his lectures on the pre-Platonics, for instance; also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power#Background).

[size=95]The eternal recurrence. A prophecy.

  1. Presentation of the doctrine and its theoretical presuppositions and consequences.
  2. Proof of the doctrine.
    [WP 1057.][/size]
124

like i said, believe what you want

you either understand what he means, or you don’t

the fact that you seek evidence for whether or not ER is to be taken literally tells me you don’t

in fact, it tells me you aint got a clue, son

but carry on for another 15 pages, i don’t care :laughing:

125

But then, you may be misunderstanding him.

126

no, because the eternal recurrence makes perfect sense to me

it makes perfect sense along with the rest of his major ideas

this you don’t get - in fact, you probably don’t get much of what you think you do

cuz if you misunderstand this, you inevitably misunderstand him in other places

everything fits together when you really understand, really

but when you don’t, you’re more likely to prattle on for pages about nothing :laughing:

127

So it does to me.

Wow, someone who really understands Nietzsche! I bow at your feet.

Cut out the ridicule, time-waster.

128

af, thank you for your comments here. perspective is what was lacking thus far in this thread.

i started this thread because i could not understand how Nietzsche, in light of everything he said, could have actually believed a rediculous absurdity as eternal recurrence. i now have the properly subtle understanding of the difference between eternal recurrence as reality, as historical or physical fact, and eternal recurrence as a LOVE of life, affirmation of what one is, and consequently, all that is. that one loves life so much that he would will it all AS IT IS, no different, as it must be… this is the idea, the love, of which Nietzsche spoke. it is the love which can best, and perhaps only, find its expression as an amor fati.

i cannot yet say that i have reached amor fati, but nonetheless i am able to see it. i am able to see eternal recurrence as it is, within the entire picture. context-dropping is something that renders Nietzsche meaningless-- and this is something which you, sauw, do not understand.

i must thank you also, sauw, however. i now see what i was becoming. you. i now begin to understand why and how Nietzsche criticized human reason. a human abortion. such things were beyond my grasp, beyond my sight, until i came across one here: you.

to know everything, but to understand nothing… surely this would be the greastest curse possible upon man. i suppose, one cannot see this path unless he is confronted with it, face to face. through you, through your compartmentalized, overrationalized, ego-centered lack of subtlety, lack of DEPTH and COMPLETENESS of understanding, it becomes clear to me how one could take Nietzsche the wrong way.

trying to understand a picture pixel by pixel will never, ever give you the meaning inherent within.
with such an approach, the picture will remain invisible, forever.

and thus, i am off.

my thanks, again, to both of you-- such a confrontation is indeed quite rare, but be rest assured that it has not been wasted. to each, his own… as always.

fare well, to us all, on whatever paths we have chosen for ourselves.
may we find exactly what we set out for in the first place.

129

=D>

This is probably the most insightful post i’ve read from you here 3X. It has allways been apparent to me, not necessarily from the content of your posts, but especially from the way you write that you didn’t really get Nietzsche. Allthough in content you were gravitating towards Nietzsche, you seemed more of a Randian objectivist to me. That’s why I asked you how one could like both in that other thread, to get you to think about this. You probably see the unreconcilable difference now.

And off you go :smiley:

130

Which implies that you did get Nietzsche…

131

No not necessarily, it just means i can tell from the style that he probably didn’t get Nietzsche, and looked like a Randian. I’m struggling with overrationalism myself, which is a result of the life I live right now. I’m a legal counsel and have to think very precise and logical on the job, plus all the planning and scheduling a modern “life” requires… If it read Niezsche then, I’m thinking and struggling, and I just don’t get it. Sometimes if i’m in a particular more “flowing” relaxed mood, the parts that I read just make sense without having to mull over and compare all the details.

132

Thank you for a courteous reply.

One of my favourite Nietzsche-quotes is this:

[size=95]Whoever pushes rationality forward also restores new strength to the opposite power, mysticism and folly [Narrheit] of all kinds.
[WP 1012.][/size]

I don’t think this should be read as if Nietzsche despises mysticism and folly; Nietzsche would not despise a power now, would he!

In TSZ, he says about Narrheit:

[size=95]This wantonness and folly [idem] did I put in place of that Will, when I taught that “In everything there is one thing impossible—rationality!”
A little reason, to be sure, a germ of wisdom scattered from star to star—this leaven is mixed in all things: for the sake of folly, wisdom is mixed in all things!
[Before Sunrise.][/size]

And Zarathustra describes his own soul thus:

[size=95]The soul fleeing from itself, which overtaketh itself in the widest circuit; the wisest soul, unto which folly [idem] speaketh most sweetly
[Of Old and New Tables, 19.][/size]

Perhaps the eternal recurrence was Nietzsche’s great folly; but what a divine folly! Philosophy’s folly puts to shame all science’s wisdom.

But this is all just an introduction for something else I wanted to say.

Maybe the following picture will help you attaining the right state of mind for reading Nietzsche: which I think is a state of mind in which the right brain predominates.

With a little effort, you can change the direction in which the woman turns. When she seems to be turning clockwise, the right brain predominates; when counterclockwise, the left brain.

I love mysticism and folly.

133

heh, nvm