/lit/ - Literature

I like it as well as a thought experiment, but it can be maddening.

>tfw you realise you're browsing /lit/ at 2 in the morning

If this is a repeating process where everything is the same wouldn't that imply that we all have a destiny or fate, and only the actions of the initial life we lived would have been free choice?

Also if you lived a shitty life
>tfw no praxis

>>3702241
Ignore Nietzsche, he is a fucking brony.

for everything to repeat exactly the same I also have to have the mental content be exactly the same

but if this was so then I would not know it was actually repeating because my mind would have to be erased for the repetition to be exactly the same each time

I would not be bothered by the repetition since I would not know it was a repetition

ergo eternal recurrence has no weight

>>3701812

Dementia.

Nietzsche underestimates that although I am disappointed with my life I would prefer that to death and so would choose to go round again and again happily.

>>3702332
Unless my life were just so horrible, I agree.

>>3702316
Fuck that dumb stupid thing

DUR HUR HUR NIETZSCHE IS DEAD GOD DURRRRRR

>>3702332
That may in fact be what Nietzsche has in mind! or at least what he's trying to get you to think through and cognize and recognize the stakes of.

>>3702276
lel

>>3702339

Somebody is edgy.

Does it hurt that not everybody follows you in sucking the cock of an overrated, flawed mortal with unoriginal thoughts and a crappy mental state which brought his demise?

I mean, if that floats your boat, Jimmy the bum in my neighborhood would love a groupie like you to suck his cock.

>>3702474
listen dude, be as negative about nietzsche as you want, but "Nietzsche is dead - God" is still going to be dumb as shit and you are going to be a dumbfuck for saying it

>>3702482

Not really. He is dead.

>>3702276
>mfw
I like Nietzsche, but that's a good one

>>3702213
> tfw I realize that browsing /lit/ at 2 in the morning is actually quite fun.

>>3702241
absolutely true! But please keep in mind that I´m not talking about whether life IS a repeating process or not, but rather about how one should act If life WAS repeating process (eventhough one realizes that - logically - this idea does not make any sense.

>>3702305
Yes, you would not be bothered...until you picked up a nietzsche book and read exactly this excerpt and thus start thinking about eternal recurrence.

>>3702316
shut the fuck up. Nietzsche did not kill god, mankind did. Nietzsche was rather an observer than a murderer. Religious retards who write "Nietzsche is dead" have no idea what they are talking about.

>>3703249
Nietzsche is dead though, both in the literal sense and literal, by which I mean figurative, sense.

>>3703252
Yes he is. But people who write this "Nietzsche is dead, God is dead", imply that it was Nietzsche´s intention to kill god, which gives god the justification to "kill him" in order to show that he is god.

As you can see, a pile of bullshit. Moreover Nietzsche was more alive than god would ever be because...well, you know, Nietzsche was real.

>>3701812
>One could view this nietzschean Idea pragmatically and thus form some kind of categorial imperative:

that would literally defeat the whole purpose of what nietzsche was saying.

>>3701812 (OP)
>One could view this nietzschean Idea pragmatically and thus form some kind of categorial imperative:


First of all, shit head, nietzsche's idea is all about being pragmatic and has nothing to do with whether its true or not.

Secondly, a categorical imperative is imperative by virtue of being true and rationally necessary, not because its pragmatic.

Thirdly, if we made any idea of nietzsche's a categorical imperative we would be missing the point of his philosophy

>>3703308

>op proposes thought experiment
>anon gets mad

You really don´t like to think philosophically, do you ?

>>3703348
>op posts thought experiment

It was a wrong thought experiment because it made 2 retarded assumptions followed by a retarded conclusion. Refer to my previous post.

>anon gets mad


0/10, I'm not even mad you shit head.

>>3701812

>hurr durr I read some notes on Kant and now I'm going to butcher Nietzsche's ideas

why are highschoolers posting on /lit/

Niiiice, I see a lot of edgy teens getting butthurt for being reminded that his idol was a demented, closet homo who had not a single original idea.

:D

I don't see how eternal repetition would change anything about my life. It would feel exactly the same. If I wanted to make an effort at life, making an effort once to achieve something once would be exactly as rewarding as making an effort infinitely repeated to achieve something infinitely repeated. The effort-success ratio is the same.

Eternal recurrence is the only logical conclusion you reach when you accept that time is infinite and matter is finite. Like how the monkeys write Shakespeare if you give them enough time, every formation of matter must be formed again and again.

>>3704098
Who ever accepted that time is inifinite? It's just some silly glitch.

>>3704098
That is so much bullshit...

>>3704098
except entropy

>>3704098
Eternal recurrence still needs an initial cause. All infinities start with 0.

>>3704123
Why? you could start at negative infinity. Or at 7. Doesn't really change anything.

>>3704133
Negative infinity is only existent in concept, it's not a real number. And anyway, imagine a Universe began from the point of negative infinity, that would be some obtuse shit.

>>3701812
Nietzsche isn't about that. It's about embracing the hard moments of life as if they were bad. Amor fati and all that jazz.

>>3704119

Which would mean that the universe, at its beginning, was much more ordered than it is now. How did it get so ordered?

>>3704140
>>3704119
>>3704110
>>3704098
>>3704133
>>3704123

Okay, shut up everyone, I got this:

If we assume the probability of something that has happened once (or is happening right now) is greater than 0, the infinity of either space or time would guarantee it happening again.

Okay, so probability is the likelyhood of an event in a certain context, right? And we arrived at such a probability by weighing every instance of such a context known to us in which the event occurred against those instances in which it did not.

>>3704166
cont.:

basically, the contexts have to be the same or somehow comparable.

now in the argument for eternal recurrance, one tends to accept the idea that the probability of an event that has actually happened has to be greater than 0, because if its probability was 0, it could not happen.

this however is a misconception.

I'm going to take the existence of life here as my event, because the arguments for aliens are similar, I guess

now we have one planet with life on it. If we find 9 planets which are like earth, but without life on it, the probability of life on an earthlike planet is 0,1. If we find 99 such planets without life on them, the probability is 0,01. Now, if we find infinite planets which are like earth but have no life on them, the probability of life on an earth-like planet is mathematically 0, although there actually is one planet which is earth-like, but with life on it. This is because two numbers are the same number unless you can point out one number which is greater than one but smaller than the other. Now if you take 0,01 and 0, you could point to 0,005. However, the assumption of an infinite number of planets makes it impossible to point to such a number

>>3704168
now what this means is this: The probability of life on a lifelike planet is only greater than 0 for an infinite number of planets if we in fact assume that there are an infinite number of planets with life on them

Or more practically: Probability probably does not work very well with infinity, or with intuition.

But I generally have my reservations about probability because it assumes that every instance is functionally the same as every other instance, basically shaving off the actuality of life in favor of normalizing abstraction

>>3701812
>Interesting thought, isn´t it
No.
Nietzsche was a douchebag.

Why? Like Marx, no good has come from his "philosophy".

>>3702339
>>3703249
Holy shit, the level of butthurt you guys have over a picture that is supposed to be funny is really quite hilarious.

>>3704200
That's not true. Some very pithy quotes have come from it.

>>3704200
>muh utility half outspoken pseudo-enlightenment liberal hegelismdmsm

>>3704225
because it's not funny and high schoolers & conservative christians have been saying it as though it's a telling point for years and years and years and years

>>3704228
lel

>>3704267
It actually is kind of funny. You're just a whiner.