Nietzsche and eternal recurrence?

Question

can someone help explain to me how Nietzsche's eternal recurrence can be applied to life-affirmation and not just scientifically

Answer 1

Nietzsche discussed it conceptually, but I don't believe he submits the concept as an objective truth. Rather, I think Nietzsche was trying to say that one could visualize himself taking several different directions in a iterative manner. I see this as a method for self improvement, being able to conceptualize yourself given an infinite number of choices and visualizing outcomes

Answer 2

Much of Nietzche's worldview was mythological in its scope and the idea of eternal recurrence is evidence of this strange dynamic. In my estimation, it seems a to indicate Neitzsche's hope for some kind of metaphysics that was beyond modern rationalism. Like Nietzsche, I don't think that it should be taken all that seriously.

Answer 3

I think the locus classicus here would be "The Gay Science", section 341-- but you also probably want to tie in the related notion of "amor fati", in which case section 276 would also be relevant.

Answer 4

It seems to me philosophers and scientists get us and themselves confused. Why can't we also be taught how to think and not just what to think that someone else thought. I would rather think of it as "What goes around comes around." no matter what he precisely thought, since that's up for conjecture also. Nihilists say there is no purpose to life and if we have no fixed purpose then that's true. The word life in the equation is a purpose, if we mean life as humans we start having parameters to measure. People can't agree because they use different words, different meanings to the same word and words are only frozen while life has time, feeling and other factors. If life is a circle then what you do may affect you eternally, but does that seem likely, since you make so many decisions and it seems you can change them. We are programmed by our education, but we can change the programming too, through various means. If we eternally suffer from a decision we eternally are rewarded for another so where's the beef. He says, the best I can tell, that morality counts because bad decisions come back on us, but they are bad in the context of wanting a pleasant life so it's life affirming, ours and others, as presumably we want to live and not in pain and suffering. Nihilism is, or is not, life affirming depending on how one thinks of it so it's all an intellectual excersize. The same with karma. Every philosophy is good to a point, for a while in a certain configuration. Life situations are a little easier as their concrete and given enough information we can make a relatively good decision for that time and improve it the next time we have a similar occurence if we don't want the pain. I do believe the've lost their common sense trying to be right and sell a book. Can you really describe the universe in words. The next occurance may only seem to be similar, but fall into a different category and in some sense no category at all or several. You can say tree but who has seen all of them or could possibly. Anyhow, in an ancient way from the perspective of his time, knowing that something could come back on you that would harm your life could be construed as life affirming if you relate no pain and life as values you want to maintain. If you don't who wins the arguement? There are too many variables in real life. A vengeful God is life affirming to some, nihilistic to others. The world in thinking backwards so how can we put ourselves in that mindset, figure out what they are saying and then use it except in reverse, if that is really what they meant. It is so much reference point and today we have one that has long since changed. Study of it teaches us how to think, gives us words and then we have to put life into them. The responsibility is so much ours. What goes around does come around and we suffer the most from our actions and thoughts, conscious or subconscious, that's true, whether we enjoy suffering or not. Nihilism says we must think for ourselves and that is right too so we know who's responsible. Once you put truth into words you objectify it, as if life wasn't fluid and didn't require judgment. "The letter kills..." It's like dissecting a frog, ultimately it kills the life. That's true from my point of view at this time by what I was trying to say and probably not so true in a few weeks to me. I think that life is made up of seeming contradictions and absolutes, it's just that abstractions are rather fluid, is an acorn a tree. Facts are better, but still undergoing understandings probably forever to one extent or another. I don't think that leaves us in a fog, just that it takes the other niney percent of our brain to get the picture as it thinks in images. We can't even understand very well without the intuition because the whole brain can image and manage vast amounts of data. We have to mostly trust ourselves more and get in touch with our inner being an reframe the question in words we can understand, stand and watch it all change before us. We are not so feeble. Faith includes faith in ourselves. You know. I don't think that will help much on a test, but I had to rant. Truth is like food, you don't want to hang on to it too long and you have to keep getting more every day.