/lit/ - Literature

Look into cryogenics.

>My plan? To resent Socrates until the end of time. This I call the Eternal Recurrence.

>>18195672
It's 3 and nothing more complicated than that. Any unpublished notes where he tried to establish scientific validity for it was merely out of his strong desire for it, the real lesson there being that if you want something bad enough you will invent new logic and proofs to support it (which is how he viewed all of metaphysics and belief in general — as something made real in the human psyche out of desire alone).

>>18196405
How do I get to the point where I love my life enough to want ER to be real?

>>18196405
3 is amor fati. Eternal Return does act as an ethical imperative towards that, but it also has a metaphysical (ontological) meaning as well. Read Heidegger's lectures on N, Deleuze's book and Klossowski's work if you want to dig into explanations of its metaphysical role. Note that Deleuze seems to equate Will-to-power/Eternal Return with Difference/Repetition.

>>18195672
I think it means rigid determinism. Given the exact same conditions the event always repeates itself. The Universe is an endless space of endless continuity. Which means if something in it happenes once it will happen infinite times over again and has already happened infinite times. But the terms "will happen" or "has happened" lose its sense because in an endless repetition there is no future neither past, only the cycle or the running of the circle.

>>18197454
I've mostly stayed away from Heidegger and Deleuze because I'm not fond of the general attitude that comes from their readers to be honest. The idea that Nietzsche was proposing a new metaphysics to be examined is something I take issue with, and if those two think they elaborated on Nietzsche's ideas in any way, as if his ideas needed any elaboration, then they have deceived their readers into thinking their work was meaningful.

The profundity of Nietzsche's philosophy and the conclusions he drew earlier in his life fall by the wayside if these ideas are seen as a new metaphysics. Zarathustra's whole point was that everything is interpretation, that your life is about making it as aesthetic as possible, and that the overman is a natural albeit chance event who must learn this so that he may venture into the world as innocently as man and ape always have. Nietzsche's hyperboreans were not supposed to elaborate on his books with more books but were instead supposed to take up politics, the sciences, and the arts armed with his ideas which are deeper and more personal than mere facts and logic.

Eternal recurrence and amor fati are connected along with the overman and the will to power. It's the overman whose will to power is rich enough to embrace amor fati in all its tragic depth and which leads him to desire the eternal recurrence. Scientific examination is of a lower order of thought compared to where these ideas are stemming from. To impress these ideas into the realm of science is another thing entirely, not something Nietzsche was against doing but besides the philosophical point of his books.

>>18197694
I strongly suggest that you read both. Will-to-Power is Ontological (and Nietzsche himself makes this clear), and while Truth is interpretation it is only on the basis of this grander ontological fact. Will-to-Power lays the groundwork for a pure differential ontology and a radical break with the former traditions in philosophy by introducing a pure metaphysics of becoming (which in a way is anti-metaphysics). Nietzsche views all conceptualizations, truth-positings, values etc... as necessary errors because they take what is in process and solidify it, so to speak, with the use of categories. Bergson builds on this by saying that our Understanding is innately geared towards a sort of spatialized process of thought that takes the heterogeneous elements of pure duration (becoming) and makes them homogenous (thus the birth of language, conceptual thought, mathematics and categorical thinking). This is where I tend to side more with Deleuze who does not agree with Heidegger that Nietzsche is a thinker of the Subjectivist tradition, since N is really trying to break the idea of the Subject which is itself a product of extensive thought and abstracting as Bergson will say with his analogy of the Social Life and Social Self (very similar to Heidegger's They-Self and critique of Descartes!). Politics and Science miss Nietzsche's core critique, which is far more radical than you make it out to be, since both of these domains of knowledge rely on precisely this Essentializing of Consciousness through the Understanding - something which N himself attacks in his works. Eternal Return is tricky, and I kind of agree with you in that N may not have really meant it as a metaphysical principle, but as both Heidegger and Deleuze point out in their exegesis the concept is far too amicable to the Will-to-Power to ignore it as a merely ethical imperative. I'm not too sure why you are confusing the ontological interpretation of ER with impressing it into Science (whatever that would mean?). For Deleuze, WTP is the element of Pure-Difference and Eternal Return is Pure-Repetition, both of these are ontological concepts, not Scientific. I would rec you to read Heidegger's Nietzsche (specifically Volumes 3 and 4) as well as Deleuze's Nietzsche and Philosophy (short but packed with insights) even if you do end up dis-agreeing they offer a lot of depth in one's understanding of not only Nietzsche but also the course of 20th century Post-Structuralist thought.

>>18195672
>if infinity is not infinity
so deep

>>18197480
There is poincare recurrence theorem that says that system will return to the initial state in long but finite time. The problem is that I am not sure whether it applies to our universe or not. But anyway if it does this time is so long, that it doesn’t matter how to measure it in seconds or hundreds million years

>>18195672
A call to make the most out of the present moment, written by a guy who almost died and regretted missing out .

>>18199454
>written by a guy who almost died and regretted missing out
Come again?

>>18199542
Wasnt that in the Gay Science? And wasnt that because he was happy about not being sick anymore?