Thus Spoke Zarathustra: a question

[Heloise Wild]

Hi to everyone!
I have just read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche, and there are two ideas that I cannot reconcile. Nietzsche is talking about the Superman, and how man must be overcome. Apparently, this must happen sometime in the future: with time, people will come closer and closer to Nietzsche's ideal. However he is also talking about eternal recurrence... To my understanding, this means that everything in the universe repeats in almost identical form. But how can any ideal be reached, how can anything be altered or impoved, if this same world is "eternally recurring"?
Thank you if you can help. :)

[billl]

Eternal Recurrence (as I understand it) isn't about how things seem to repeat over time--it is about how the entirety of existence gets repeated over and over (e.g. when you die, your life will again be lived, somewhere else down the line, with the experiences of the same successes and failures.). It's basically a way of amplifying the importance of our actions (and inaction). If one behaves cowardly now, recognize that it will be repeated again and again--so live life in a way you'd llok forward to having it repeated over and over...

It's based on his cosmological speculation that, in an infinite universe, every combination of particles would get repeated, and so our current life would get repeated. Looking at Wikipedia's explanation of his views, I see that it is said that he himself eventually realized that this was a weak basis for believing in eternal recurrence (because particles would organize in different ways and lead to all sorts of infinite different experiences and life-pathways as well, not *just* eternal recurrences of *this* life--and that isn't the ONLY objection one could have to the idea, either...), and so he eventually dismissed the cosmological angle, and just used it (eternal recurrence) as a sort of psychological tool for promoting the Superman lifestyle, heh.

[billl]

To my understanding, this means that everything in the universe repeats in almost identical form. But how can any ideal be reached, how can anything be altered or impoved, if this same world is "eternally recurring"?
Thank you if you can help. :)

To more directly address the question, I think the ideal is something in the future, and that it (like everything leading up to it) will eternally recur after that. Heck, maybe it has already happened somewhere in the past (in some distant galaxy), and will eventually recur here. And, again, I think eternal recurrence isn't meant to refer to "almost" identical experiences/lives/histories, but to completely identical repetition of the experience/life/history (given an infinite universe). The thought that our actions will be eternally repeated is supposed to spur us on to reaching the ideal of the Superman.

[Theunderground]

Billl has answered very well to the post.
I will add that in Nietzsches last testament (Ecce Homo) he clearly states that the eternal reccurence is an idea,not a literal reality. (though he does have sympathy with the heraclitan and stoic conception of eternal reccurrence of events in terms of birth then death,followed by birth then death,etc.etc.)
I think the bottom line is that Freddie wants the superman to pursue his personal goals with the thought that they are eternally valid. One can think of it as an alternative to the 'afterlife values' of christianity like punishment and reward from god,ie you create your own eternal recurrence or 'afterlife' by your own choices,actions and values NOW on planet earth.

[Jack of Hearts]

Eternal recurrence is a device for presenting for the concept of life affirmation. It's not a literal element of Nietzsche's cosmology.





J

[libernaut]

I always saw the Eternal Return as a sort of rational for Carpe Diem, seize the day.

[G L Wilson]

The Superman is a form of dynamite which explodes the simpleton.

[Jack of Hearts]

Hardly, Wilson. The simple are the gifted. Who suffered degeneration via over abundance of consciousness? The first rationalist himself, Plato. Isn't that the first part of Twilight of the Idols? You imitate Nietzsche, surely you're familiar.





J

[G L Wilson]

I am familiar with the materiial, and you can't tell me that Nietzsche would reject Plato for a peasant.

[Jack of Hearts]

Eternal recurrence is a device for presenting for the concept of life affirmation. It's not a literal element of Nietzsche's cosmology.

After further research, this reader retracts this statement. It seems it couldn't have been anymore wrong (and sadly it is being taught this way at a university level...).

At least three pre-eminent scholars believe that Nietzsche intended eternal recurrence to be quite literal (one of whom is Walter Kaufmann).






J

[YesNo]

At least three pre-eminent scholars believe that Nietzsche intended eternal recurrence to be quite literal (one of whom is Walter Kaufmann).

I found the Wikipedia article on eternal return interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

In the 19th century, I can see how Nietzsche would have thought that the universe we live in was temporally eternal and that complete determinism was possible. Today, things look different. Now we have a beginning to the universe as well as an end. And determinism was eliminated with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. For our current universe there can be no eternal return.

In the Wikipedia article, Walkter Kaufmann presents a refutation of eternal recurrence using three wheels that are aligned at a single point. One of the wheels moves 1/pi the rate of the others. Because pi is a transcendental number (it does not repeat its pattern--that is, it does not experience itself "eternal return"), the three wheels will never line up the way they did initially, no matter how much time is provided.

Of course that assumes space and time can be reduced to points, which I think quantum theory would reject.

[prickly_pete]

temporally eternal

Do you know what you're talking about?

[YesNo]

Do you know what you're talking about?
Yes, I think so, as much as anyone here. The "temporally eternal" refers to time not having a beginning nor end. In our universe, based on current evidence, that is not the case. I can imagine an idea of "eternal" that is outside of time.

[Panglossian]

After further research, this reader retracts this statement. It seems it couldn't have been anymore wrong (and sadly it is being taught this way at a university level...).

At least three pre-eminent scholars believe that Nietzsche intended eternal recurrence to be quite literal (one of whom is Walter Kaufmann).

I'm not sure about this. Nietzsche may have initially *intended* the Eternal Recurrence to be taken literally, but surely in the writing of Thus Spoke Zarathustra it becomes clear that he means it as a psychological theory - the Superman is so strong and sure of himself that he would wish the exact existence over and over again.

[prickly_pete]

I can imagine an idea of "eternal" that is outside of time.

Sorry, but no you can't.

[Jack of Hearts]

Nothing becomes clear in Thus Spake Zarathustra. For as much as is written about the ubermensch, for as much as freshmen in a survey course talk about it, remarkably little is provided about it (and, after speaking with a Nietzschean scholar, this reader was told most of it comes from Nietzsche's incomplete and deteriorated notes rather than a published work).





J

[logophile]

I read it quite recently. I found it fairly interesting as a book, but as a philosophical text, found it fairly unenlightening. I find myself distanced from Neitzsche's views on the philosophical spectrum, but I don't honestly feel that if I was an existentialist I would find the book any more enlightening.

[Panglossian]

Nothing becomes clear in Thus Spake Zarathustra. For as much as is written about the ubermensch, for as much as freshmen in a survey course talk about it, remarkably little is provided about it (and, after speaking with a Nietzschean scholar, this reader was told most of it comes from Nietzsche's incomplete and deteriorated notes rather than a published work).

Okay, I agree, I used the wrong word, nothing becomes *clear* in Zarathustra. It's quasi-religious text, an outburst of elaborate prose-poetry, wisdom rather than philosophy; but surely Nietzsche realised that his theory of Eternal Recurrence could never be nothing more than a subjective-metaphysical ideal/notion.... I suspect he fell in love with the idea then gradually realised he could go nowhere with it philosophically. I reckon he cunningly knew that the ideas/beliefs that prove to be the most successful are the ones which cannot be verified as being either true or false. Reincarnation, eternal recurrence - they're in the same league.

[Jack of Hearts]

Apparently it's in the research that he intended eternal recurrence to be cosmological, that he saw space not as empty but as an expression of action, positively curved and therefore cyclical- this according to many sources, not the least of which is Walter Kaufmann... it seems his cosmology borrows heavily from pre-Socratic philosophy (especially from Heraclitus and Anaximander).


Beyond that, this reader doesn't have any knowledge to comment on the rest of your post. Except, perhaps, to say lower division philosophy does treat eternal recurrence (and teach it) in the way you've presented it, for better or worse, at every university this reader has been at.




J

[Theunderground]

In Ecco Homo Nietzsche confirms the eternal recurrence is an IDEA,his real idea form the abyss. In other words its a tool to give meaning to his life whatever suffering he has to bear within it. Nietzsche understood as well as anyone that its not always what is real that matters but what is believed... As pilate said to jesus 'And what is truth'?

[G L Wilson]

In Ecco Homo Nietzsche confirms the eternal recurrence is an IDEA,his real idea form the abyss. In other words its a tool to give meaning to his life whatever suffering he has to bear within it. Nietzsche understood as well as anyone that its not always what is real that matters but what is believed... As pilate said to jesus 'And what is truth'?

If eternal recurrence is from the abyss, it is a true monster.

[Gouragopal]

Ps how would a society be like full of supermen, if they are, as portrayed, solitary, anarchic and wild, dionysiac; then again about the apollinian and dionysiac balance presented in the birth of tragedy, i did or could not see the balance, even those wild passions of nietzche went mad in furies and frenzies, so i dont see his philosophy meant for "healthy" people, eventhough he mentions it continually with his adoration of sex, his view of freedom and as i see positive possibilities of man, but the "shadow" that follows the traveller becomes him....

[G L Wilson]

Ps how would a society be like full of supermen, if they are, as portrayed, solitary, anarchic and wild, dionysiac; then again about the apollinian and dionysiac balance presented in the birth of tragedy, i did or could not see the balance, even those wild passions of nietzche went mad in furies and frenzies, so i dont see his philosophy meant for "healthy" people, eventhough he mentions it continually with his adoration of sex, his view of freedom and as i see positive possibilities of man, but the "shadow" that follows the traveller becomes him....

Nietzsche is a devil, now that's new, not.

[Panglossian]

Ps how would a society be like full of supermen, if they are, as portrayed, solitary, anarchic and wild, dionysiac;

Yes, Nietzsche's attempt to conceptualize an ideal version of man shows to me that he lacked wisdom and became intoxicated with his own self-importance and creative verve.
He flamed idealism and then tried to create his own ideal vision with the ubermensch. He should've jacked in when he arrived at his ultimate nihilism - "Regarding life, the wisest men of all ages have judged alike: it is worthless."
But he couldn't resist being *the world-historic monster*. He knew only too well that people would take his philosophy and run with it into horror. I guess in the end he was *human, all too human*. He never truly rid himself of the religiousness he so vehemently attacked.

[G L Wilson]

Yes, Nietzsche's attempt to conceptualize an ideal version of man shows to me that he lacked wisdom and became intoxicated with his own self-importance and creative verve.
He flamed idealism and then tried to create his own ideal vision with the ubermensch. He should've jacked in when he arrived at his ultimate nihilism - "Regarding life, the wisest men of all ages have judged alike: it is worthless."
But he couldn't resist being *the world-historic monster*. He knew only too well that people would take his philosophy and run with it into horror. I guess in the end he was *human, all too human*. He never truly rid himself of the religiousness he so vehemently attacked.

Nietzsche flamed and never lied, which is more than can be said for some people.

[Panglossian]

Nietzsche flamed and never lied, which is more than can be said for some people.

He was a master manipulator of words ... that's fairly close to lying.

[G L Wilson]

He was a master manipulator of words ... that's fairly close to lying.

What is truth?

[Panglossian]

What is truth?

Clever lies.

[G L Wilson]

Clever lies.

Possibly.