What did Nietzsche believe when he wrote "Time is a flat circle"? Does he believe in reincarnation like the Indians?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalachakra
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence

Are you referring to eternal recurrence? Because-get this-he wasnt being literal user...

I hope you realise how retarded this sounds. Do you really think that they came to the same philosophical conclusion? Perhaps my stoner neighbour is think the same thing when he says “you know we like all return to nature at one point man. It’s like inevitable but kinda beautiful, one big cycle of life”.

>Do you really think that they came to the same philosophical conclusion?
Yes. In Nietzsche's unpublished notes, he was beginning to outline the presuppositions needed for eternal recurrence to be the case. The idea was more scientific than you're letting on.

Attached: eternal_recurrence.jpg (359x69, 8K)

he wasn't vague at all lol

>time is a flat circle
Whoa. So this is the power of the Ubermensch.

Attached: 812L5zyAmpL._SX425_.jpg (425x425, 30K)

Read Kofmann, Magnus, Higgins, and Heidegger if you want to really understand eternal recurrence.

tl;dr it’s a value theory pump meant to supplement the weight of eternity formerly provided by various inept modes of morality (Platonic, Christian, etc.). the upshot should be either an outright denial of one’s life (think the worst despair fathomable, absolute stagnation, inceptive countermovement) or a total affirmation of it akin to the rapture of Dionysus prefigured in BT, outlined in TI, and consummated in WTP, but as mentioned, he died before he could clearly outline and harmonize ER with wtp. Heidegger translates this value principle into a metaphysical principle, and that’s where things get hairy.

Nice copypasta

It’s a thought experiment to make you think about how you could be making your life a literal hell by being a meek Christian.

Pretty sure its ironic OC

>but as mentioned, he died before he could clearly outline and harmonize ER with wtp.
But the point is that he was in the process of doing so, aka, it was completely possible, because the idea had a physical basis beyond mere abstraction. Heidegger "translates" i.e. just makes it fully abstract which means he failed to grasp what Nietzsche was going towards.

>Heidegger translates this value principle into a metaphysical principle, and that’s where things get hairy.

Wasn't Nietzsche just as metaphysic about it?

Was he deterministic? To me it sounds like he was saying that everything is constantly changing without ever becoming something eternal and fixed and that basically everything repeats ad nauseaum as if we where trapped inside a film or virtual reality. So in the end it seems for us beings trapped it seems as if there was no fixity but to some other perceptionally enhanced being outside our universe it's the same ultra-3d film repeating over and over.

Idk about all that user. That’s speculative at best, and sounds like a bit of a stretch logically, especially if you really do mean “physical” in the scientific sense. He also was gonna overcome nihilism, now how that would have some physical implication idk, for example. Even talking about ER “as physical” is deeply misguided given the original context. It’s clearly an adaptation of the Cartesian demon of canonical philosophy, so we’re moved to consider the metaphorical and hypothetical before we can even conceive of returning to “the real world” (which is a notion N would would be skeptical of for other reasons). And no. Heidegger doesn’t abstract ER. He simply incorporates it into his metaphysical system that prioratizes Being. One could see how this is just a variation off the more dynamic reading of wtp where the line between metaphysics, psychology, and affects get all muddled. But that would require an explanation of stuff from Being and Time that I’m not even convinced Heidegger was conpletely satisfied with. If you’re barking up the tree of mystical recursion, Nietzsche is not your man.

Just to address your first question, yes, in the string reading of wtp. Now as for the actual metaphysical primacy of ER? No. There’s only room for one metaphysical principle in Nietzsche's ouvre and that is will to power. I cannot stress to you how metaphorical ER is in every single context prior to the scattered notes found in the Nachlass.

>flat circle
I get eternal recursion but I don't see why the adjective is in here. What circle isn't flat? Is there some translation fuckery going on?

*strong. Just to briefly touch on your second point, yeah. I think that’s where there’s some correspondance with Heraclitus, but Nietzsche wasn’t really interested in that style of traditional Western metaphysics. My general impression is that he found it very boring and matter-of-fact after Kant.

i guess that flat moreso implies looping. on a circle there is only one forward and it will guarantee return you to to where you once were. what i'm trying to say is that it fits better with the human perception of time (single direction/path) while fitting it into the concept of eternal re-occurrence (circle)

You sound skeptical, but Nietzsche was not skeptical of it. He also was not just posing an alternative to the Christian afterlife with the same basis as they used (faith), he was in the process of demonstrating how everything the Christian believes is a lie through actually rigorous philosophizing and scientific analysis. Either the Christian is right or Nietzsche is right, in other words; if there is no afterlife like the Christian believes, then eternal recurrence is the case. There's no other possibility. The universe works either according to the Christian or to the Antichrist.

>And no. Heidegger doesn’t abstract ER. He simply incorporates it into his metaphysical system that prioratizes Being
As long as he wasn't trying to show that eternal recurrence had a physical basis in the universe, he was basically just making it abstract and missing Nietzsche's point.

No. Go re-read Will to Power. You’re placing emphasis in the wrong place. Don’t try to pass your shitty readings off as “the real Nietzsche” when this has all been worked over in the literature for decades longer than you and I have been shitposting. But if you want to overstep the clear boundaries of your reading of both N and Heidegger I will not hesitate to press how asinine and baseless a “physical” reading of ER is. You’re comments about Christianity are generally correct, though idk where you got that I said otherwise? Unless you’re just making the general point. Tbhq a thorough analysis of ER can be provided with the bare engagement with N’a stuff on Christianity just because Christianity becomes a placeholder for weak value systems where developing a strong value system is the point.

If you have a problem with my assertion that eternal recurrence wasn't just metaphysical for Nietzsche, explain to me what he meant by the quote here because everything else is irrelevant.

>everything else is irrelevant
What a bad way to read any philosopher, let alone an aphrositic philosopher like Nietzsche, especially when the quote you’re pulling from isn’t canonical proper. I’d a lot of things are relevant. And you know that. You wouldn’t be able to speak to ER based off that quote alone.

There is only one primary metaphysical position for N and that is Will to Power. That is indisputable and thereby rules out ER in that position (let’s not even engage with your gross misuse of physical and metaphysical). It’s funny you emphasize that quote, because it has an attached commentary from Kaufman and Hollingdale that pretty much sums up the scholarly consensus on it, as well as speaks to a general point to be maintained with dealing with the Nachlass or any of N’s unpublished material: he got it wrong. He absolutely did not mean it. His understanding of LoC was pisspoor and this is merely an example of a line of thought he pursued momentarily and immediately abandoned. Now, instead, I can ask you to reconcile GS 341, the Three Metamorphoses section of Z, or the final passage in WTP there clearly demarcates ER as a link to Dionysian Pessimism, which is literally an aesthetic claim.

Not him but I think the remainder of his body of work stands as evidence against the aphorism. He develops eternal re-occurrence as a concept to both introduce an alternative for christians platonism and as a hypothetical question to frame affirmation of life with.

>explain to me what he meant by the quote here
It's pretty clear what Nietzsche cares about: will to power and to a lesser extent christfags. I'm not going to pretend to know exactly what he meant (cunts fucked in the head), but in the context of the rest of his ideas it doesn't mean much.

But let’s not kid ourselves. I’m not going to convince you about anything here because at this point you’re just being obstinate and have too much toclose. But if you're genuinely interested in whether your view is right, go read a much more thorough treatment of the topic in Bernd Magnus’ Existential Imperative. It addresses both our views.

>he got it wrong. He absolutely did not mean it.
Of course this is what the scholars think. No one actually wants to believe that the eternal recurrence is true; nearly everyone who ever surrounded the man was a larper from day one. When faced with the actual reality of eternal recurrence, they say "he didn't mean it." What a farce.

Except throughout his work, it is clear that he meant it. That quote isn't the only one that gives it away, but it sums it up very nicely: Nietzsche was seeking a scientific basis for eternal recurrence, because he intuited that Christianity was fundamentally anti-scientific, so whatever was the opposite to what they believed in would have to be the ultimate conclusion of science. Eternal recurrence is initially posed as a thought experiment by Nietzsche, but it was never just a thought experiment for him. He posed it that way in the first place because he knew his readers and who he was dealing with. It would take time before there would be others who felt the same way as he did and were ready to feel that way.

>What did Nietzsche believe when he wrote "Time is a flat circle"?
That Zarathustra would be taken as the protagonist and not the dwarf.
>Does he believe in reincarnation like the Indians?
Well, Zarathustra tells the dwarf to stop being a retard instead of dancing on his head, like Shiva so we can assume he had some hesitancy or encumbrance which prevented him from wholehearted adopting the Indians.

>I’m not going to convince you about anything here because at this point you’re just being obstinate and have too much toclose.
nice rhetoric faggot.

Attached: 82180d8a43aa807bbf79735bef3a7fe23e02ef0ebfc1c4c346454a555914b536.png (565x592, 271K)

> There’s only room for one metaphysical principle in Nietzsche's ouvre and that is will to power.

Hah.

>*strong. Just to briefly touch on your second point, yeah. I think that’s where there’s some correspondance with Heraclitus, but Nietzsche wasn’t really interested in that style of traditional Western metaphysics. My general impression is that he found it very boring and matter-of-fact after Kant.

I was more or less thinking along the same lines, thanks. But what do you make up of this:

"Thirdly, it seems that Clark also conflates ‘will’ with ‘free will’. The latter meaning that consciousness originates actions, the former, for Nietzsche, means a non-conscious yet affective striving underlying all force. Clark confuses this critical distinction when she writes, ‘[t]he ultimate causes of our actions, then, are not the conscious thoughts and feelings with which Nietzsche claims we identify the will. Given these passages [BGE§§3, 19], we cannot reasonably attribute to Nietzsche the argument of BG 36’. But BGE§36 does not argue that the immanent aspect of will to power is the consciousness that originates actions (free will), so the attribution can be made without incoherence to previous passages in BGE. In BGE§21, Nietzsche writes:
‘Now, if someone can see through the cloddish simplicity of this famous “free will” and eliminate it from his mind, I would then ask him to take his “enlightenment” a step further and likewise eliminate … “unfree will” … in conformity with the prevalent mechanistic foolishness that pushes and tugs … The “unfree will” is mythology: in real life it is only a matter of strong and weak wills.’

That is, free will and mechanistic determinism are both errors. Consciousness does not originate actions, and the mechanism in physics does not sufficiently explain reality. In reality there are a multiplicity of wills to power, their differing strength determining action – a non-mechanistic determination. In the Nachlass, Nietzsche words this in the following manner:

‘…no things remain but only dynamic quanta, in a relation of tension to all other dynamic quanta: their essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their “effect” upon the same.

The will to power not a being, not a becoming, but a pathos – the most elemental fact from which a becoming and effecting first emerge.’ (WP§635, March-June 1888)
This section was written in 1888 and thus offers a view on the development of his power project. As it reveals, the will to power underlies all actions and involves a ‘pathos’: a feeling. That Clark can deny this metaphysical aspect of the will to power is unjustifiable revisionism..."

cont.

"...Clark writes, ‘Nietzsche encourages us to continue to think in causal terms … but to abandon the interpretation of causality we derive from our experience of willing. BG 36 therefore gives us no reason to retain belief in the causality of the will, nor any way of reconciling its argument with Nietzsche’s repeated rejection of that causality.’ But again, Nietzsche’s argument in BGE§36 does not involve causality of the will in this Libertarian sense. The will is not of necessity connected to the conscious “I” that believes it controls; the will is mostly subconscious, but it is nonetheless an immanent sentience underlying all energy. It is thus a metaphysical principle, as Nietzsche repeatedly makes clear.
Again, the Nachlass provides elaboration of Nietzsche’s thinking here. He writes in March-June 1888,

‘… the will to power is the primitive form of affect [Affekt-Form] … all driving force is will to power, that there is no other physical, dynamic or psychic force except this.’ (WP§688)

This passage alone hammers Clark’s argument. When she writes, ‘[t]he problem is that if willing is not conscious, it becomes impossible to understand how BG 36 would support its first premise: that only willing is “given,” and that we cannot get up or down to any world beyond our drives’, she betrays the fact that she does not distinguish consciousness from affect. The experience of will is not of necessity consciousness; shades of differentiation of sentience must be fathomed here.

Furthermore, from the Nachlass in 1885:

‘There is absolutely no other kind of causality than that of will upon will. Not explained mechanistically.’ (WP§658)

This obviously refutes Clark’s statement above regarding Nietzsche’s repeated rejection of the causality experienced in will. This experience is, as such, a posteriori, contrary to her initial claims that Nietzsche’s argument for a metaphysical will to power would have to be conditioned on an a priori basis. It is not.
In sum, Nietzsche’s argument against free will does not refute his argument that the will to power has an intrinsic aspect, which is causality understood from the inside – somewhat analogous to A. N. Whitehead’s cosmology. BGE§36 is not a trick."

philosopher.eu/metaphysical-doctrine-of-nietzsches-will-to-power/

Another bold criticism from the catches syphilis from fucking prostitutes and goes insane and spends the rest of his life in an asylum camp.

Movie?

Nah it was mostly a thought experiment motivate you to live your best life

Nietzsche had no understanding of physics

What a misreading lmao

And btw he didn’t believe in opposites

True Detective season 1
Don't watch the other seasons

>"Time is a flat circle"?
Superposition

>because the idea had a physical basis beyond mere abstraction
[instantaneous] action at a distance, field dynamics; profane version: 'free will' is the magnitude of your capacity/aura of influence to affect probability fields; the narrowest aperture concerns only one's self [salvation or] preservation as part of the set of these 'Individuals' [ciphers of the form: intrinsically valuable 'souls'] -- the slave moral's mere maintenance, subsistence [persistence of identity] beyond mortal life.

Will to power. You are the inexhaustible wellspring of zero point energy. Your actions and deliberations are filigrees in the Book of Life. Some insist on defacing that, or tracing in crayon what's already written.

>Either the Christian is right or Nietzsche is right, in other words; if there is no afterlife like the Christian believes, then eternal recurrence is the case.
That's all very Lutheran of him,-- however the point is that Christ rose again - like a certain wine lush - where The Crucified as an indictment of man's nature ("still yet undetermined") truncates the 'fulfillment of the Law' (cosmic jubilee), leaving it as a sign of unending torturous surrogate whom obliges, rather than forgives; leaves us in fear of being eaten by Time, than grateful and rejoicing being relieved of a burden.

>the consciousness that originates actions (free will), so the attribution can be made without incoherence to previous passages in BGE. In BGE§21, Nietzsche writes: ‘Now, if someone can see through the cloddish simplicity of this famous “free will” and eliminate it from his mind, I would then ask him to take his “enlightenment” a step further and likewise eliminate … “unfree will” … in conformity with the prevalent mechanistic foolishness that pushes and tugs … The “unfree will” is mythology: in real life it is only a matter of strong and weak wills.’
This. 'free will' -- the idea to go and bring a certain state of affairs together oneself -- emerges/emanates/proceeds from possessing the capacity for it. The sphere of action of anyone here compared against a slum dweller, the former is in the position of a Lovecraftian Old One-- the wretch's horizon of apprehendable future world states for himself or surroundings (past, present, and future) is catastrophically hidebound.

>from the catches syphilis
If you're taking a Freudian tack, at least use the best available: Wagner and Nietzsche shared an ancestor in the Church, 300 years prior. Combine that with his concern for his protoge's nerves, "fapping compulsively".

>Don't watch the other seasons
Watch S3 after S1 if at all [neighboring states]; S2 is much more contemporary ~ gangster/the wirey meets Breaking Bad attempt (enjoyable, but not the engrossing experience of S1.)

>had no understanding of physics
He was as prescient about the world wars as with the sciences

It mostly wasn't. You probably think he didn't provide any solution to nihilism either.

You have no understanding of quantum physics. It's like you think physics is going to remain the same in the next 200 years and not drastically change as quantum experiments continue to be conducted.

underrated as fuck

It's actually a circle bent to look like a pringles chip

N didn't actually believe in eternal recurrence as a physical fact. Rather, he used it as part of a thought experiment to test to see if one was getting the best out of life.

If you had to repeat it all over again for eternity, would you be at peace with that or would it be the worst hell? If the latter, then you must step up your efforts to live your best life and take nothing for granted.

yo icycalm calm down

>Superposition
This is too much of a stretch...

>[instantaneous] action at a distance, field dynamics; profane version: 'free will' is the magnitude of your capacity/aura of influence to affect probability fields;

I'd like to read more about these themes, so how did you come up to these conclusions? what author influenced you?

>the former is in the position of a Lovecraftian Old One-- the wretch's horizon of apprehendable future world states for himself or surroundings (past, present, and future) is catastrophically hidebound.

It seems to me that as the slum dweller lacks some or most basic human rights, nutritional needs, or even long-term goals he's the one with a more restricted will. But I'd like to know your reasoning for this.

Some dummies believe it's a metaphysical claim, IE there is limited matter but infinite time, so any reality so perceived will occur again at some point in some place of the multiverse since any reality is just a certain configuration of matter. Nietzsche as a naturalist might have endorsed this idea, but it's more likely it's a regulative idea to tickle out the intuition that your form of life is undesirable for life's own sake.

To test the value of your own life ask yourself if you would want to live it eternally.

This is the correct answer. It's a thought experiment. Read the fucking passage carefully you idiots.

>The heaviest burden: “What, if some day or night, a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: ‘This life, as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh… must return to you—all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned over again and again—and you with it, speck of dust!’ Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: ‘You are a god, and never have I heard anything more divine!’ If this thought were to gain possession of you, it would change you as you are, or perhaps crush you. The question in each and every thing, “do you want this once more and innumerable times more?” would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?

>WHAT, IF... a demon WERE to

>WOULD you not throw

>WOULD HAVE answered him

>IF this thought

>it WOULD change you

>WOULD lie upon your actions

>Or how well disposed WOULD you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?

This is a poor argument. Nietzsche in almost every aphorism of Beyond Good and Evil prefaces his ideas with "Gesetzt, dass..." which translates to "Supposing, that...". This doesn't make his claims less constative.

I do believe Nietzsche didn't make a metaphysical claim there.

unironically based

imagine listening to anything a crippled gnome with syphilis had to say.

I tried providing arguments with direct citations and secondary reading but nigger faggots like you arent interested in discourse, especially when you’re clearly out of your depth. Seethe more.

actually you've made the poor argument by equating your "supposing that" with what the post highlighted

>Christian
>Platonism
Yikes
>most outstanding cultural event
huh? What event?

>same boring rhetoric
I accept your concession of defeat.

Attached: ff8b2733e7253d0afbf6beec6e4f4deffa51bfec3baebeb7c27ec07a50ccc22d.png (823x720, 282K)

youtu.be/YKwwC1demNE

Time is an undergrad's unanswerable question.

this is literally me as of lately, as I've been thinking about humanity's cosmic insignificance.

I wan't my puerile narratives to be factual! I wan't my puerile narratives to be factual!

Attached: okami1.gif (500x281, 1.06M)

>While you’re jerking off to the cute girl in your middle school class that you never asked out
take out this projecting and 10/10

>the former is in the position of a Lovecraftian Old One-- the wretch's horizon of apprehendable future world states for himself or surroundings (past, present, and future) is catastrophically hidebound.

I misread it, my bad. Now I get it.

>Will to power. You are the inexhaustible wellspring of zero point energy. Your actions and deliberations are filigrees in the Book of Life. Some insist on defacing that, or tracing in crayon what's already written.

Anti-monist poster, is that you? Fantastic stuff as always

You do realize that Nietzsche projected too; he rants against Socratic method and yet employs it, and then laughs about it. In the same vein this guy is 100% pure larping in his own genius absurdism. He's never going to affirm his life (approach a girl, especially that one he had a crush on in middle school) yet he's making the same insult to the poster: they are never going to affirm their life either. N was physically weak and his own method for affirmation was to write and express his ideas. Chances are user isn't going to use WTP to initiate the 4th reich and this shitposting is his own affirmation of his pathetically weak life. He knows how impossible his aspirations are, but he stares that impossibility in the face and laughs. I've been mulling of this post since last night and it is a gift that keeps on giving.

He probably just had a stroke, let's be honest

t. Descartes
t. Spinoza

>cube
>not Einstein

Attached: 1492130577916.gif (360x240, 1.27M)

No, I've been on more of an audiovisual binge. Some parts remind me of myself before Hegel:
> 'free will' is the magnitude of your capacity/aura of influence to affect probability fields; the narrowest aperture concerns only one's self [salvation or] preservation as part of the set of these 'Individuals' [ciphers of the form: intrinsically valuable 'souls']
And I don't like True Detective.

Attached: statue.jpg (700x700, 106K)

>Ich glaube an Spinozas Gott, der sich in der gesetzlichen Harmonie des Seienden offenbart, nicht an einen Gott, der sich mit Schicksalen und Handlungen der Menschen abgibt.
>I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

>flat circle
As opposed to a circle with volume?

What is that, Nietzsche? shut the fuck up

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

It was initially posited as a thought experiment, but he later came to believe it, partially because he really wanted it to be true, and partially because the more he examined Christian thought, the more he realized how irrational the world is.

>but he later came to believe it, partially because he really wanted it to be true,

How did you come up to these conclusions?

Are you Rikafag?

I read late Nietzsche

Impotent rage the post

Attached: 1567883056318.gif (245x140, 980K)

The ancient and classical Indians didn't believe in reincarnation, they believed in transmigration which is related but something separate

>transmigration

In any case this implies some people will eventually remember their former lifes.

>While you’re jerking off to the cute girl in your middle school class that you never asked out
Yeah man let's not mention my private little life

Gonna Second and sage in his honor!

time is a dick in the vageene

death of god

He's only implying that a circle, whatever circle, would not be flat.

Attached: e353e7fc7748ca82f054172e34120bc7.jpg (512x508, 59K)