Eternal Recurrence

branie

Ever hear of this idea put forward by Nietzsche, that when we die, we live life over and over again

18AD

Yup.

It's not quite that simple. He says that we have to live the exact same life forever again, over and over again.

You can take it to be a test of strength of whether you would live this exact life again or whether you would quit in the face of that difficulty all over again. (I think he's challenging the Christian idea of eternity as bliss and replacing it with life instead. Eternal bliss is the justification for existence on the Christian view. We live because what comes after makes life worth it.)

Or you can take him to be actually saying that recurrence is the structure of time itself. He did try and work this out in some unpublished documents, which is worth bearing in mind. It's pretty damn interesting when you try and think it through, circular time that is.

"The greatest burden. - What would happen if one day or night a demon were to steal upon you in your loneliest loneliness and say to you, “You will have to live this life - as you are living it now and have lived it in the past - once again and countless times more; and there will be nothing new to it, but every pain and every pleasure, every thought and sigh, and everything unutterably petty or grand in your life will have to come back to you, all in the same sequence and order - even this spider, and that moonlight between the trees, even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence turning over and over - and you with it, speck of dust!” Would you not cast yourself down, gnash your teeth, and curse the demon who said these things? Or have you ever experienced a tremendous moment when you would reply to him, “You are a god; never have I heard anything more godly!” If that thought ever came to prevail in you, it would transform you, such as you are, and perhaps it would mangle you. The question posed to each thing you do, “Do you will this once more and countless times more?” would weigh upon your actions as the greatest burden! Or how beneficent would you have to become towards yourself and toward life to demand nothing more than this eternal sanction and seal? -"

- Nietzsche The Gay Science



What do you make of it all?

Priori

Eternal Recurrence I don't find to be one of Nietzsche's more timeless ideas...

18AD wrote:

You can take it to be a test of strength of whether you would live this exact life again or whether you would quit in the face of that difficulty all over again.

I'm not sure how it could be construed as a test of strength? I mean, if it is the exact same life over and over again, we wouldn't have the foggiest notion of this. It's not like we could ever say "well, here I am reliving this humdrum existence for the 1,457th time - a measure of my Sisyphus-like endurance"... More likely, we might endlessly encounter the idea of Eternal Recurrence, and each time we do, we might say "Now there's a novel idea!"...

18AD

Priori wrote: »

I'm not sure how it could be construed as a test of strength? I mean, if it is the exact same life over and over again, we wouldn't have the foggiest notion of this. It's not like we could ever say "well, here I am reliving this humdrum existence for the 1,457th time - a measure of my Sisyphus-like endurance"... More likely, we might endlessly encounter the idea of Eternal Recurrence, and each time we do, we might say "Now there's a novel idea!"...

As a test of character strength I think it is contrary to the idea of eternal existence (in the Christian sense) where the afterlife is justification for this life of suffering. This blissful afterlife is how some people endure this life, because they know it will be better after. So Nietzsche comes along and says, "eh no", you have to live the exact same life again. So there is no justification beyond life except life it self, again and again and again.

In fact, he is clearly saying that it is some sort of test of strength in the passage above. "Would you not cast yourself down, gnash your teeth, and curse the demon who said these things?" Or etc... Nietzsche wants to see what your reaction to it is moreso than whether you think recurrence is an interesting idea. Maybe a test of will is a better word.

There are two ways of looking at it. Some peopple have interpretted it as saying that we do know, and that we know through each and every repetition. Some have gone as far as to say that you know which repetition you are on. As though you retain memories from past recurrences.

As an aside to me the idea of numeric differentiation doesn't even make sense here, but anyhow. You can't think of there being repetitions of cycle, because it's cyclical. I haven't really worked that through yet.

Priori

18AD wrote:

So Nietzsche comes along and says, "eh no", you have to live the exact same life again.

Although I've really enjoyed reading a lot of Nietzshe's works, the main problem I've had with him is his over-reactivity. His passion can be his greatest strength, and his greatest weakness. His idea of Eternal Recurrence I've never had much time for (pun not intended on this occasion ).

I think Nietzsche makes the case for life-affirmation very well without resorting to any sort of repeated cycle, which, without numerical differentiation, makes absolutely no sense to me.

18AD wrote:

You can't think of there being repetitions of cycle, because it's cyclical. I haven't really worked that through yet.

So if a wheel turns, it doesn't turn a specified number of times? I can't see how this one can be worked through!

18AD

Priori wrote: »

Although I've really enjoyed reading a lot of Nietzshe's works, the main problem I've had with him is his over-reactivity. His passion can be his greatest strength, and his greatest weakness. His idea of Eternal Recurrence I've never had much time for (pun not intended on this occasion ).

I think Nietzsche makes the case for life-affirmation very well without resorting to any sort of repeated cycle, which, without numerical differentiation, makes absolutely no sense to me.

That may be very much the case. Most big interpreters however (Foucault, Heidegger, Deleuze) take it to be one of the most key things about Nietzsche, if not the key thing.

So if a wheel turns, it doesn't turn a specified number of times? I can't see how this one can be worked through!

One version has it that it is not a circle but a spiral, and so is ever evolving. It still revolves but doesn't need numerical differentiation.

Also, if you are making numerical distinctions, which repetition do you start on? And if it is infinite are you just at infinity +1. This seems ultimately arbitrary. What do you think?


My version however is this! I will try and explain this as best I can. It's rather preliminary at this stage.

Say for instance you know which cycle you're in. You know it is number one! Now, say you can see into the future. You will see yourself counting number one! because it's cyclical, exactly the same each time. Then you look into the past and you see yourself counting number one! because it's cyclical. Any way you look in time is exactly the same no matter what you do. It reminds me of standing between two parallel mirrors and gazing into infinity. You move, everyone moves the exact same way. You say five, so does every other version of yourself. You could count them, but you'd just be counting all the versions of yourself counting the exact same numbers as you are forever.

Again, not very thoroughly worked out! :pac:

Priori

18AD wrote:

which repetition do you start on? And if it is infinite are you just at infinity +1. This seems ultimately arbitrary. What do you think?

But how can you start on a repetition?

Is it like jumping into something that's already spinning around of its own accord?

And if so, wouldn't that completely derail the point of it, which I take to be that you would live your life (rather than a life) over again, infinitely, as the ultimate affirmation of existence?

18AD wrote:

It reminds me of standing between two parallel mirrors and gazing into infinity

I think I get a sense of what you're saying. Btw, I love doing that with mirrors. I've hooked up a camera to a tv just to record that effect (by turning the camera to the screen).

The thing is, insofar as philosophers betray no interest in whether Eternal Occurence may in fact be true, I can't fathom the fascination with the idea. I'll take much more seriously the claims of mystics based on hard-won personal experiences rather than theoretical fancies with no underlying phenomenological basis.

18AD

Priori wrote: »

But how can you start on a repetition?

Is it like jumping into something that's already spinning around of its own accord?

And if so, wouldn't that completely derail the point of it, which I take to be that you would live your life (rather than a life) over again, infinitely, as the ultimate affirmation of existence?

That's the whole point. If you are to begin counting each repetition, there's no reasonable place to start counting.

If I count this life as 1 I am ignoring the infinity that preceded it.

Well Nietzsche was against the idea of a self, so it may not exactly be yours.

But if it is your life, then still every repetition, back and forward, are you just as much as you are now.

The phenomenological basis for it might be this. All that really is, is becoming. There is no being, or metaphyscial static reality, i.e. what things "really are." So eternal recurrence is the infinite recurrence of becoming.

Change eternally recurs.

Priori

18AD wrote: »

The phenomenological basis for it might be this. All that really is, is becoming. There is no being, or metaphyscial static reality, i.e. what things "really are." So eternal recurrence is the infinite recurrence of becoming.

Change eternally recurs.

Could you really legitimately call that a phenomenological basis? Sounds to me primarily theoretical. I'm not taking phenomenology in the sense propounded by Husserl, but in the (unfortunately crudely corrupted) sense in which it is customarily understood in Anglo-American analytic philosophy, i.e. as a replacement term for first-person experience.

I suppose, though, that it could be just such a first-person experience. Just wondering what you think.

Priori wrote:

But how can you start on a repetition?

18AD wrote:

That's the whole point. If you are to begin counting each repetition, there's no reasonable place to start counting.

Aha. A 'There Is No Spoon' moment...

18AD

Priori wrote: »

Could you really legitimately call that a phenomenological basis? Sounds to me primarily theoretical. I'm not taking phenomenology in the sense propounded by Husserl, but in the (unfortunately crudely corrupted) sense in which it is customarily understood in Anglo-American analytic philosophy, i.e. as a replacement term for first-person experience.

I suppose, though, that it could be just such a first-person experience. Just wondering what you think.

I would be talking in the Husserlian sense of phenomenology. To take Nietzsche's eternal recurrence in this sense, it would be the observation that no event recurs in exactly the same way. Not that events can't be similar, but they never recur. And that is what recurs eternally, non-recurrence. :P



As an aside, if events did reoccur in exactly the same way wouldn't we then think they were actually the same event? In a weird sort of deja vu sense. If I ate a delicious orange a week ago and found myself in exactly the same situation tomorrow, would I not think that either I had travelled back to (re-experienced) a week ago or that that past event had jumped a week ahead?

This is what happens when I'm tired. :P

looksee

If we are all re-living our existence over and over, how has the population increased?

18AD

looksee wrote: »

If we are all re-living our existence over and over, how has the population increased?

Because the population has increased, over and over. It has all happened before and will all happen forevermore.

looksee

18AD wrote: »

Because the population has increased, over and over. It has all happened before and will all happen forevermore.

How is that an answer? If each individual is continually recycling, where are the additional people coming from to increase the population?

MisterEpicurus

I've read this entire thread and still haven't seen a speck of evidence for this supposed eternal recurrence proposition?

Duggys Housemate

Science deals with the empirical provable stuff.

18AD

looksee wrote: »

How is that an answer? If each individual is continually recycling, where are the additional people coming from to increase the population?

They are born from their promiscuous parents.

Sorry. But I don't see what your objection is exactly.

The population is increasing. There are extra people coming into existence.

Eternal recurrence would say that they have lived their exact life infinitely beforehand and forevermore. In a different universe or alternate world.

Also, it's not clear if the idea is supposed to be taken literally or not. I tried to make that clear earlier in the thread. So I'm not sure why you're trying to disprove a probable allegory. Which is certainly possible anyway, but not with this argument.

MisterEpicurus wrote:

I've read this entire thread and still haven't seen a speck of evidence for this supposed eternal recurrence proposition?

That's cause there ain't any.

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

That's cause there ain't any.

Good - so why are people trying to iron out solutions to non-existent problems with not a shred of evidence.

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Good - so why are people trying to iron out solutions to non-existent problems with not a shred of evidence.

I don't know. You'd have to ask them.

I just think it's an interesting idea.

Also, as above, it is perhaps allegorical. Much in the same way you could discuss the ethical implications of a work of fiction.

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

I don't know. You'd have to ask them.

I just think it's an interesting idea.

Also, as above, it is perhaps allegorical. Much in the same way you could discuss the ethical implications of a work of fiction.

Ethical implications are based on the here and now so to speak.

This is in stark contrast to discussing a non-evidential eternally recurring proposition, then assuming it's true to subsequently rationalize why it's true.

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

This is in stark contrast to discussing a non-evidential eternally recurring proposition, then assuming it's true to subsequently rationalize why it's true.

Should non-evidential things not be discussed?

Yes I am assuming it's true, and then seeing what the implications are. What's the problem?

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

Yes I am assuming it's true, and then seeing what the implications are. What's the problem?

Because there is no positive reason to have such a discussion given the evidential vacuum it entails.

This is no positive reason to 'assume it's true'.

Thus, there is no positive reason to discuss the implications.

I find it a problem because I think it's anti-science to try and philosophize on questions which are non-evidential and then assume the answers can be gained from armchair philosophy.

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Because there is no positive reason to have such a discussion given the evidential vacuum it entails.

This is no positive reason to 'assume it's true'.

Thus, there is no positive reason to discuss the implications.

So only things that have or lead to evidence should be discussed?

I find it a problem because I think it's anti-science to try and philosophize on questions which are non-evidential and then assume the answers can be gained from armchair philosophy.

The irony is, Nietzsche held similar views.

I don't see how this discussion is anti-science. There are many various interpretations that have been explored. It is widely held (and for obvious reasons) that the eternal return is not a cosmological theory. Based precisely on our current scientific knowledge.

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

So only things that have or lead to evidence should be discussed?

Sometimes I think you overthink these thing 18AD.

Did I suggest that 'only things that have or lead to evidence should be discussed'? No. What I am saying is that trying to philosophize on bizarre non-existent problems like eternal recurrence is a waste of time. You'd spend your time much more profitably studying astrophysics and trying to do the maths. I fail to see what can be gained from such a discussion like this.

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

What I am saying is that trying to philosophize on bizarre non-existent problems like eternal recurrence is a waste of time. You'd spend your time much more profitably studying astrophysics and trying to do the maths. I fail to see what can be gained from such a discussion like this.

Woo, you finally just said it.

So you come on here and read this thread and then tell me how I should better spend my time? Thanks for that. You have nothing better to do than tell me that?

To be honest, I really enjoy philosophy and thinking. It's like chess or music, I do it mostly for the enjoyment. Admittedly, the idea of eternal return (as a cosmological argument) is pretty airy-fairy, and I hope it doesn't serve as an exemplar of what philosophy as a whole is doing. That would be naive.

It's also a valuable argumentative exercise to pick a position and try and defend it.

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

To be honest, I really enjoy philosophy and thinking. It's like chess or music, I do it mostly for the enjoyment. Admittedly, the idea of eternal return (as a cosmological argument) is pretty airy-fairy, and I hope it doesn't serve as an exemplar of what philosophy as a whole is doing. That would be naive.

It's also a valuable argumentative exercise to pick a position and try and defend it.

I'd agree with all of that. Despite being in the scientific field, I have an immense interest in the area of philosophy. However, the only contention I'd have is that I don't see the advantage of arguing propositions which have no clear benefits and are clearly imaginary (scientifically). There are a lot of areas in philosophy that are extremely valuable especially for thought exercises, however I don't believe that the purpose of this thread serves this reason.

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I'd agree with all of that. Despite being in the scientific field, I have an immense interest in the area of philosophy. However, the only contention I'd have is that I don't see the advantage of arguing propositions which have no clear benefits and are clearly imaginary (scientifically). There are a lot of areas in philosophy that are extremely valuable especially for thought exercises, however I don't believe that the purpose of this thread serves this reason.

Well that depends on what you mean by beneficial, and for whom.

Is fiction beneficial? Because it is certainly only imaginary. Maybe the imaginary has no place.

You are still only dismissing this thread as being a cosmological argument for the eternal return, which has been clearly stated many times as being only one interpretation of Nietzsche's work.

MisterEpicurus

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I don't see the advantage of arguing propositions which have no clear benefits and are clearly imaginary (scientifically).

18AD wrote: »

Is fiction beneficial? Because it is certainly only imaginary. Maybe the imaginary has no place.

I deliberately focussed on scientific. Fiction doesn't make scientific claims and act as though they are true in the real world.

Analogy fail.

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I deliberately focussed on scientific. Fiction doesn't make scientific claims and act as though they are true in the real world.

The argument is most likely a hypothetical. And, as I've said many times, the scientific limitations are abundantly clear if you read the argument as a cosmological argument.

Lets have a look at the original quote from Nietzsche: "What would happen if one day or night a demon were to steal upon you in your loneliest loneliness and say to you...."

If demons are lurking in your apartment. What claim do you think Nietzsche is making here?

My comment about fiction was related to this hypothetical nature, where it often assumes certain facts to be true and deduces the implications. Even of a completely fictional world.

face1990

It's just a thought exercise. It's something interesting to think about, see what your thought on it are, and maybe get some insight into the nature of the human mind or of your own mind in particular.

Let's say, hypothetically of course, that we did relive our lives again and again. Would you want to know this?
It could make you determined to enjoy your life more and make every day count. But could make you worry about every little thing you do, out of fear that you'll have to live with the consequences of every bad decision again and again. It think thats what he's getting at with this line:
"The question posed to each thing you do, 'Do you will this once more and countless times more?' would weigh upon your actions as the greatest burden!"