Do you want eternal recurrence to be true? Or do you despise your own fate?

I just (again, as a teenager) found it intuitive and grounded it in that physical theory so when I found out about the accelerating expansion I was pretty bothered back then. It's just one of those things that made me rethink my position.

To answer more precisely, I think it would be comforting but I don't believe it's the case. Either way I don't despise my own fate and I'm thankful to live and experience life with all it's nuances.

Attached: banksy28.jpg (618x410, 97K)

acceleration doesn't really prove the big rip or big crunch, both theories are entirely up in the air, scientifically

Yaldabaoth I challenge thee,
surpass this corporeal ken;
release from your cage of reality
this vital spirit of men.
sever our chains of mortality;
Excritcate us in death

"no"

Based lynch

If you despise your own fate why not find meaning in your suffering? We're all dead anyway.

There are moments when I do and I strive to have more of those moments.

>calls someone NPC for thinking the universe exists
>the universe is infinite and everlasting
>the universe is
huh?

True? It is the highest true, that is to say, falsity: the delirious simulacrum of a doctrine...

Hehe I can see it.

so you haven't read much nietzsche. he says that it's a physical theory explicitly in will to power

Are these Morbid Angel lyrics?

Anybody interested in eternal recurrence should check out The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

There's so many annoying people around me, that's my main problem with eternal recurrence.

yes it is lmfao

Who cares? I wouldn't be aware of it.

reddit-tier answer

Nothing can ever return to the same point or state, even in a system that is only indefinite (and not infinite) or are we to argue, that Universe is not infinite, and has defined limitudes and borders so to speak?

In universal existence a return to a same state is an imposibility. In total Possibility the particular possibilities which constitute the conditioned states of existence are necessarily indefinitely multiple; to deny this is also to limit Possibility. This must be admitted on pain of contradiction, and suffices to establish that no being or creature, physical or spiritual, can pass twice through the same state.

>being this clueless
You don't understand what the eternal return is for. It's plausibility has no bearing on its use, which is as an ethical conundrum intended to make you reconsider certain unsatisfactory aspects of your life. It's not meant to be a metaphysical truth

So why call it eternal recurrence?

Returning to the multiple states of the being, we must make an observation that these states can be conceived as simultaneous as well as successive, and even that in their entirety their succession can be admitted only as a symbolic representation since time is a condition proper to only one of these states; even duration, whatever its mode, can only be attributed to something that has pre-existed; thus to call it Eternal Return would be an absurdity in itself.

If there would exist a causal chain between the various states of actions man lives through his lifetime to make those choices again; it would imply precisely simultaneity or the coexistence of those states of being itself.

>It's plausibility has no bearing on its use, which is as an ethical conundrum intended to make you reconsider certain unsatisfactory aspects of your life. It's not meant to be a metaphysical truth

The only logical conclusion one could make from such point on: all is ever as it was.

Whether it's plausible or not doesn't matter. What matters is your response to being instructed of such a premise. Do you hate the idea or love it? If you love it, you love yourself, and if you hate it, you hate yourself.

As I explained here

I can only come to a conclusion: all is ever as it was.

Well, it's a pretty stupid idea, so no. I would rather that the world would not be inexplicably and eternally stupid.

Do you want the theory of the multiple states of the Being to be true? Or are you too attached to your human state?

Attached: 592b10af974a45ac5bad5b851ae725bc.jpg (544x800, 50K)

Still missing the point. If eternal recurrence is true, then this is all there is. There is no afterlife, and there isn't even nothingness after death. More importantly, wanting to believe it is true indicates that you WANT this to be the case. It is a hypothetical that is supposed to reveal to you where you stand on the matter of life and death. Do you ultimately moralize in favor of life, or in favor of death?

hunan language is so wrapped in ontology as that is what language is : a compression algorithm of formless void. through this we convince ourselves form exists or anything is

yes i am an ontological nihilist, because i care about the truth

Attached: 636B9C2D-0FDF-4DE1-B3E5-418FFA8AAE73.jpg (638x544, 43K)

>There is no afterlife, and there isn't even nothingness after death.

If that is/would be/we suppose to be the case: then I personally would come to a conclusion that life itself, would be a Great Parody.

> Do you ultimately moralize in favor of life, or in favor of death?

If given the conditions and considerations given above: then even Death would be not a be anything else but the end of an Illusion.

>I personally would come to a conclusion that life itself, would be a Great Parody.
So would I. It would be nothing more than a gigantic playground for me to exercise my will over then. And if the belief turns you into a fat sloth that sits around and jerks off all day, that's on you — that's who you really are.

If you hate the idea and don't want it to be true, then you moralize in favor of death. In eternal recurrence, there is no "death" as it's typically understood.

>will to power
It was written by his sister and her antisemitic fiancee

It was compiled by them from his notes, not written by them, retard

lol, sure bud.

le troll faec

One would have to be an idiot to think that Will to Power is genuinely one of Nietzsche's works...
The divergence from his previous works, the fact that his bitch sister 'compiled' his notes, and the fact that Nietzsche himself was certifiably insane at that point of his life as stand testament to the ridiculousness of such an assertion.

Nietzsche reader here. Point me to a passage from it that you think is incompatible with his philosophy, and I will explain to you how you're wrong.

don't take his bait, bro

he mentions it elsewhere.

>Nietzsche reader
Watch out, folks!

Nietzsche reader of 10+ years*

No worries. I have trained for this.

Attached: 1326247677765.gif (200x150, 290K)

Attached: 1546287909988.jpg (497x371, 37K)

I sense much fear in this one

these are the brainlets you are browsing with

Attached: 1503865835182.jpg (960x720, 109K)

Things exist because I say they do.

>What is good? - All that heightens the feelings of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? - All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? - The feeling that power increases - that a resistance is overcome
>They all want to get to the throne: this is their madness—as if happiness were sitting on the throne! Often it is mud that sits on the throne—and often the throne also sits on mud.
Two fucking minutes on google.

What are you trying to prove here?

glad some zoomers have common sense
just reviewed the fourth part of will to power. never really liked it since it was likely to be fan service but whatever, some of it was legit

Attached: 1545739260138.png (889x478, 331K)

See

Eternal recurrence is just an abstract idea that push you to develop good habits.
He never said it's something really happening.

"When you do something, do it like you want it to happen the same for the rest of your life".
It's exactly how the brain works en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement.

Also read the Gay Science again it's clearly explained.

To he who would ponder the question of eternal recurrence: has it not occured to you but once that rather you are a faggot? That many things might return seems less becomming than your own faggotry being so immense as to be singular, a monolith, a monument built from time, never to be matched in this world or another. Yay, what vain repitition might escape the shadow of that towering strength? None, not one. Such are the proportions of your pretension, la la homo man you.

Do brainlets unironically believe eternal recurrence is actually a thing or is it a meme I'm not aware of?

Attached: 1551727277837.png (742x742, 326K)

Some things do, like your words and stuff...

First of all, the second quote is from On the New Idol in TSZ. He explicitly mentions that he is talking about "the state" in that part. He is not refuting or negating will to power there; TSZ is him establishing his own will to power onto life (in an effort to secure the future of his philosophical descendants), which stood opposed to many things, the state and the culture it fosters being one of those things.

Further, his psychological assessment there isn't incompatible with the psychology found in his other books, including Will to Power, or that first quote above it. You have a perspective, and all so-called "knowledge" of other perspectives is merely your interpretation of them. This means that, regardless if we "agree" that words have certain definitions, they ultimately only mean what we want them to mean to ourselves. Nietzsche writes everything with this understanding in mind, about himself and also his readers. His philosophy isn't fact, it's an interpretation, like all other philosophies are. From his perspective, what we all find to be "good" is what increases the feeling of power in us, regardless of what other people say they think is "good."

So does Nietzsche want to clamber to the top, as the members of the state do? Nope... he never lived like that:
>You look up when you wish to be exalted. And I look down because I am exalted.

Stop reading Schopenhauer. He can't even write properly!