/lit/ - Literature

>>17710928
This tranny butchered Nietzsche and pozzed him so lefties could read him too don't care about what he has to say

>Conflating reality with wheels
>Using mathematical notions only provided by our current universe and assuming they wouldn't change even though this contradicts the initial statement.
>Taking the eternal recurrence seriously as if Nietzsche wasn't saying it as an ethical allegory similar to how Plato uses the cave shadows vs reality.
>Penis

>>17710959
>Taking the eternal recurrence seriously as if Nietzsche wasn't saying it as an ethical allegor
Kaufmann insists that Nietzsche was in fact not being allegorical and struggled extensively at the existential horror of a recurrence he felt was inevitable. On what basis u disagree?

>>17710959
>Using mathematical notions only provided by our current universe and assuming they wouldn't change even though this contradicts the initial statement.
Brainlet here. Could you explain further?

>>17710928
>Kaufmann
Read pic related

>>17710949
>>17711003
Alright I know he s a jew and a leftist yada yada. The point is not who he is but his refutation of Nietzsche's theory.

>>17710949
Neetch was a tranny.

>>17710968
Everyone agrees that eternal return was just a thought experiment.
And that was its shortcoming.

>>17710968
On what basis does he insist that Nietzsche was being literal? Nietzsche asks if a demon were to tell you that your life would reoccur over and over whether you would be happy or upset. How could you take that literally?

>>17710959
>>17711031
>>17711638
You guys are going to post the "I LOVE SCIENCE" meme in response to what I am about to post.
Scientifically speaking the eternal recurrence may be more literal than intended. Matter and energy is not lost, so if we agree that the universe is infinite then YOU (the human being "you") will come to be again after you have died. So I don't see why we should avoid from considering the hypothesis at face value.

Don’t read Kaufmann on Nietzsche, read Kofman on Nietzsche

>>17711755
The eternal reoccurrence might be literally true, and that’s something we can consider, but there’s nothing to suggest Nietzsche himself took it literally.

>>17711755
>so if we agree that the universe is infinite then YOU (the human being "you") will come to be again after you have died.
Non. Sequitur.

>>17711019
So am I

>>17710928
It doesn't matter whether it's feasible or not. It's what the Overman wants regardless. As Nietzsche said, the falseness of a statement is not a refutation of it (paraphrasing him)

Nietzscels pretending the eternal recurrence is just a metaphor as usual
Ignore the fact that Nietzsche was going around asking consmologists what scientific evidence was available to support his retarded theory

>>17711857
Because science creates evidence, it doesn't discover it. He wasn't looking for available evidence so much as looking for others who wanted the eternal recurrence to be a reality.

>>17710928
you cannot refute the eternal return, it has the indestructible logical armor of all theories of afterlife; cannot be proved, cannot be disproved. Kaufmann is a retard for thinking otherwise.
It's far and away the best theory of its kind. It is ultimately true, regardless of wether or not it is real. What we do in this life will always be what we have done.

>>17711832
>Non sequitur
Not really. The two theories (1.matter/energy is not lost, 2.universe is infinite) are very plausible. Combining them just makes sense

>>17711928
>What we do in this life will always be what we have done
Is this what Nietzsche meant? Or did he mean recurrence as a general framework where details are interchangeable?

>>17711031
Kaufmann doesnt and he was probably more of an expert than you unless you can show otherwise.

>>17711638
You're only referring to a single appearance of this strand of thought in his work and life, you should know there's far more he wrote about it than that one episode.

>>17712071
The non sequitur is a logical fallacy where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. So when you write:
>so if we agree that the universe is infinite
>then YOU (the human being "you") will come to be again after you have died.
^this is a non sequitur, you need to add more premises to derive that conclusion

I’m not that familiar with Nietzsche and I still don’t get what eternal recurrence is supposed to mean or why it’s so significant to him

>>17712091
Oh wow, a 4channer who's not arrogant and keeps it civil.
All jokes aside, I get what you mean, there are some steps I might have skipped in my logic

>>17710949
He's also responsible for popularizing Nietzsche in the west. Give the man some credit.

>>17710928
As far as I can remember, Nietzche never suggests the eternal recurrence to be real, only uses it as a thought experiment and litmus test for one's valuation of one's own life.

>>17712139
It's a Heraclitean idea that Nietzsche kind of uses as an ethical and political selective device, for separating the Overman and the hyperboreans from the herd-men. The Overman and the hyperboreans want the eternal recurrence to be true, while the herd-men hate the very possibility of it. Through the idea of the eternal recurrence we can better understand the Overman and the will to power because all three are intertwined.

In his review of The Birth of Tragedy he writes that the "doctrine of the 'eternal return' [...] is Zarathustra's doctrine, but ultimately it is nothing Heraclitus couldn't have said too" and he describes Heraclitus's philosophy as one that affirms "passing away and destruction" along with saying "yes to opposition and war, becoming along with a radical rejection of the very concept of 'being.'" In Philosophy of the Tragic Age of the Greeks when explaining Heraclitus's philosophy he writes that "the strife of the opposites gives birth to all that comes to be; the definite qualities that look permanent to us express but the momentary ascendancy of one partner. But this by no means signifies the end of the war; the contest endures in all eternity"

>>17712083
The eternal recurrence is meant to redeem the past while preparing for the future coming of the Overman. When the past it redeemed, one can rediscover the innocence of becoming and creating, like the child, the final metamorphosis of Zarathustra's spirit. In Ecce Homo he says that the eternal recurrence must be the "unconditional and infinitely repeated cycle of all things"

>>17712083
>where details are interchangeable
no. everything, all the minutia is the exact same. N says this explicitly.

>>17712340
Yep, and he thought this was a scientific certainty given an infinity of time. It was no mere thought experiment for him. He did not realize than an infinite series does not necessarily repeat.

>>17712357
>muh thought experiment
easiest way to identify a retard is if this is what they talk about in regards to eternal return. it doesn't matter whether or not he believed it was real, whether or not it is real, the idea is true.

>>17710928

Eternal recurrence isn't motivated by physics or physical thinking at all. It is motivated by an inner sense of the order of being; of the justice (or lack of justice) in the order of things. It's Nietzsche's whiny moodiness spread over metaphysics. I recommend Augustine for a better view.

>>17710928
Nice another person who takes Nietzsche completely literal, instaid of metaphorical. OP a question, did you cone from some radical protestant nest?