Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Connecting Nietzsche's Fundamental Concepts.

Expand Messages
  • sauwelios
    A member recently mentioned his desire to find the possible connection between the ubermensch, the eternal recurrence, and the will to power . As these
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      A member recently mentioned his desire to find "the possible connection between the ubermensch, the eternal recurrence, and the will to power". As these connections are of paramount importance, and one of them has been the problem or puzzle with which I occupied myself recently, I will now give my view on these connections.

      Christianity, which was basically a copy of Zoroastrianism, taught as one of the commandments of its God unconditional truthfulness. We can compare Christianity to a scorpion (with only eight legs, however, if the Decalogue is indeed a Decalogue (see the Wikipedia article on the Ten Commandments, where up to 12 commandments are distinguished)). The scorpion's torso was the Christian God, and the stinger was the commandment to truthfulness ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"). Eventually, the latter stung the former to death. Of course, this meant the stinger itself, too, had to die sooner or later---unless it be transplanted to a new body or something. But with the life that was still present in the stinger, Nietzsche actually found the truth (German *Wahrheit*)---or rather, the highest probability (German *Wahrscheinlichkeit*, "trueseemingness"). See this group's description.

      In Thus Spake Zarathustra, Zarathustra finds this truth in between The Dance-Song and Of Self-Surpassing (chapters 33 and 34 of 66, if we count The Seven Seals as seven). He then gradually comes to understand the *ramifications* of this truth (see especially Of Redemption). He comes to see that "the Will which is the Will to Power must will something higher than all reconciliation" (Of Redemption, paraphrase). This "something" is the eternal recurrence.

      By accomplishing this task, by actually willing the eternal recurrence of the-world-as-will-to-power, Zarathustra becomes the Übermensch whom in Part I he only heralded.

      The reason Zarathustra heralded the Übermensch was that the death of God threatened human life with meaninglessness. Thus the Übermensch was heralded as the (future) 'meaning of the earth'.

      But after Zarathustra has become the Übermensch---the *only* Übermensch, in that narrow sense of the word---, why does Nietzsche---the man behind the mask Zarathustra---still teach the Übermensch? E.g.:

      "The problem I [...] pose is not what shall succeed mankind in the sequence of living beings (---man is an *end*---): but what type of man shall be *bred*, shall be *willed*, for being higher in value, worthier of life, more certain of a future."
      (The Antichrist, section 3.)

      This type is in the next section called "a *higher type*: which is, in relation to mankind as a whole, a kind of Overman [Übermensch, lit. "superhuman being"]." Why should an Overman (Nietzsche) care about whether any Overmen emerge in the future, when he himself may be dead and gone? Why should he not just enjoy his insight into the world as will-to-power aloof, like an Epicurean god, unconcerned with humanity down below? What drives him to enter the City (Greek *polis*), to become political?

      "Passion for power: but who would call it passion [*Sucht*, cognate with "sick"], when the height longeth to stoop for power! Verily, nothing sick or diseased is there in such longing and descending!
      That the lonesome height may not forever remain lonesome and self-sufficing; that the mountains may come to the valleys and the winds of the heights to the plains---
      Oh, who could find the right prenomen and honouring name for such longing! "Bestowing virtue"---thus did Zarathustra once name the unnamable."
      (TSZ, Of the Three Evils, 2.)


      The Übermensch in the broader sense of the word is the genuine or actual philosopher (*eigentliche Philosoph*---see BGE 211). Genuine or actual philosophy is *not* the will to truth; it is "the most spiritual will to power" (BGE 9):

      "Will to Truth" do ye call it, ye wisest ones, that which impelleth you and maketh you ardent?
      Will for the thinkableness of all being: thus do I call your will!
      All being would ye *make* thinkable: for ye doubt with good reason whether it be already thinkable.
      But it shall accommodate and bend itself to you! So willeth your will. Smooth shall it become and subject to the spirit, as its mirror and reflection.
      That is your entire will, ye wisest ones, as a Will to Power; and even when ye speak of good and evil, and of estimates of value.
      Ye would still create a world before which ye can bow the knee: such is your ultimate hope and ecstasy."
      (TSZ, Of Self-Surpassing.)

      Note the mention of good and evil, and compare this to BGE 9:

      "Your pride (oh you noble Stoics) wants to prescribe your morality, your ideal, to nature, even to nature, and make the latter incorporate the former[!]"
      (BGE 9.)

      *Human* nature is a part of nature, the *human* being is a kind of being. Thus the human being "shall accommodate and bend itself to you! So willeth your will. Smooth shall it become and subject to the spirit, as its mirror and reflection. [...] Ye would still create a [mankind] before which ye can bow the knee: such is your ultimate hope and ecstasy." (TSZ, Of Self-Surpassing.) "Your pride wants to prescribe your morality, your ideal, to [human] nature, [...] and make the latter incorporate the former[!]" (BGE 9.) And the teaching of the eternal recurrence of the-world-as-will-to-power is the perfect means for the achievement of this end:

      "[T]he theory of eternal recurrence [...] as a means of breeding and selection."
      (The Will to Power, section 462. Cf. 1053, 1055-58.)

      And it's fitting that someone who belongs to the Overman type should have that very type, the sprouting and flourishing of individuals belonging to that very type, as his ideal: see Twilight of the Idols, 'Forays of an Untimely Man', section 20: Dionysus there represents the superhuman type, Ariadne the human type. Cf. BGE 295, where Dionysus says he wants to make the human being "stronger, more evil, and more profound; also more beautiful".
    • sauwelios
      ... Oh you noble Stoics should be between square, not round, brackets. ... I meant section 19 here, though section 20 is indeed also of note: it implies that
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 7, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote: [snipped]
        >
        > "Your pride (oh you noble Stoics) wants to prescribe your morality, your ideal, to nature, even to nature, and make the latter incorporate the former[!]"
        > (BGE 9.)
        >

        "Oh you noble Stoics" should be between square, not round, brackets.


        > And the teaching of the eternal recurrence of the-world-as-will-to-power is the perfect means for the achievement of this end:
        >
        > "[T]he theory of eternal recurrence [...] as a means of breeding and selection."
        > (The Will to Power, section 462. Cf. 1053, 1055-58.)
        >
        > And it's fitting that someone who belongs to the Overman type should have that very type, the sprouting and flourishing of individuals belonging to that very type, as his ideal: see Twilight of the Idols, 'Forays of an Untimely Man', section 20: Dionysus there represents the superhuman type, Ariadne the human type.

        I meant section 19 here, though section 20 is indeed also of note: it implies that where the value judgment "beautiful" arises, there arises a *love* (the German word for "ugly" is *hässlich*, "hately"):

        "What does man love there? But there is no doubt: the *ascension of his type*."
        (section 20, paraphrase.)


        Also, in regard to what Ian said yesterday about Nietzsche actually arguing for the eternal recurrence in the notebooks: this may be explained by the notion of the theory of eternal recurrence as a means of breeding and selection. In order for it to work as such a means, it---or at least the *possibility* of it---must be believed in by those it is to select and/or those it is to weed out.
      • Ian
        I don t think people would actually have to *believe* in the eternal recurrence for it to be a valuable means to breeding and selection, as Nietzche seems to
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 7, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't think people would actually have to *believe* in the eternal recurrence for it to be a valuable means to breeding and selection, as Nietzche seems to imply in e.g. TGS that one would only have to be able to *will* that it be the case in order to truly affirm life. Presumably, a person who wants the eternal recurrence to happen, but just cannot believe that it will (maybe he finds arguments its favor unpersuasive, maybe he sees no evidence in its favor) will still be looked upon favorably by Nietzche.

          ~Ian

          --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote: [snipped]
          > >
          > > "Your pride (oh you noble Stoics) wants to prescribe your morality, your ideal, to nature, even to nature, and make the latter incorporate the former[!]"
          > > (BGE 9.)
          > >
          >
          > "Oh you noble Stoics" should be between square, not round, brackets.
          >
          >
          > > And the teaching of the eternal recurrence of the-world-as-will-to-power is the perfect means for the achievement of this end:
          > >
          > > "[T]he theory of eternal recurrence [...] as a means of breeding and selection."
          > > (The Will to Power, section 462. Cf. 1053, 1055-58.)
          > >
          > > And it's fitting that someone who belongs to the Overman type should have that very type, the sprouting and flourishing of individuals belonging to that very type, as his ideal: see Twilight of the Idols, 'Forays of an Untimely Man', section 20: Dionysus there represents the superhuman type, Ariadne the human type.
          >
          > I meant section 19 here, though section 20 is indeed also of note: it implies that where the value judgment "beautiful" arises, there arises a *love* (the German word for "ugly" is *hässlich*, "hately"):
          >
          > "What does man love there? But there is no doubt: the *ascension of his type*."
          > (section 20, paraphrase.)
          >
          >
          > Also, in regard to what Ian said yesterday about Nietzsche actually arguing for the eternal recurrence in the notebooks: this may be explained by the notion of the theory of eternal recurrence as a means of breeding and selection. In order for it to work as such a means, it---or at least the *possibility* of it---must be believed in by those it is to select and/or those it is to weed out.
          >
        • sauwelios
          Well, I said it---or at least the *possibility* of it---must be believed in . In the notebooks, Nietzsche likens the possibility to the possibility of eternal
          Message 4 of 6 , Sep 7, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Well, I said "it---or at least the *possibility* of it---must be believed in". In the notebooks, Nietzsche likens the possibility to the possibility of eternal damnation: what effect the notion of that possibility has had on the course of history.

            Also, to be looked upon favorably by Nietzsche is not to be selected in the sense meant. That selection is rather like *natural* selection: some (genes) survive, others die out.

            As for the possibility of it, I think it is as well possible as eternal novelty, as both are unthinkable (the ER because nothingness is unthinkable, and EN because infinity is unthinkable).

            Of those who believe in the possibility of it, then, those who "cannot bear it stand condemned", whereas "those who find it the greatest benefit are chosen to rule." (WP 1053 (1884).) And those who do *not* believe in the possibility of it?

            "This doctrine is mild against those who do not believe in it, it knows no hells and no threats. Whoever does not believe has a *fleeting* life in his consciousness."
            (Notebooks, 1881-82.)

            Will not those who find it the greatest benefit probably also prevail over those who do *not* believe in the possibility of it? And will there not also be two types among those who don't believe in it? Those who find the idea attractive and those who find it repulsive? So that there arises the following order of the chance to prevail?

            1) Those who believe in the possibility of it and find the idea attractive;
            2) those who do *not* believe in the possibility, but find the idea attractive;
            3) those who do not believe in the possibility and find the idea repulsive;
            4) those who *do* believe in the possibility and find the idea repulsive.


            --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Ian" <ianmathwiz7@...> wrote:
            >
            > I don't think people would actually have to *believe* in the eternal recurrence for it to be a valuable means to breeding and selection, as Nietzche seems to imply in e.g. TGS that one would only have to be able to *will* that it be the case in order to truly affirm life. Presumably, a person who wants the eternal recurrence to happen, but just cannot believe that it will (maybe he finds arguments its favor unpersuasive, maybe he sees no evidence in its favor) will still be looked upon favorably by Nietzche.
            >
            > ~Ian
            >
            > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
            > >
            > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote: [snipped]
            > > >
            > > > "Your pride (oh you noble Stoics) wants to prescribe your morality, your ideal, to nature, even to nature, and make the latter incorporate the former[!]"
            > > > (BGE 9.)
            > > >
            > >
            > > "Oh you noble Stoics" should be between square, not round, brackets.
            > >
            > >
            > > > And the teaching of the eternal recurrence of the-world-as-will-to-power is the perfect means for the achievement of this end:
            > > >
            > > > "[T]he theory of eternal recurrence [...] as a means of breeding and selection."
            > > > (The Will to Power, section 462. Cf. 1053, 1055-58.)
            > > >
            > > > And it's fitting that someone who belongs to the Overman type should have that very type, the sprouting and flourishing of individuals belonging to that very type, as his ideal: see Twilight of the Idols, 'Forays of an Untimely Man', section 20: Dionysus there represents the superhuman type, Ariadne the human type.
            > >
            > > I meant section 19 here, though section 20 is indeed also of note: it implies that where the value judgment "beautiful" arises, there arises a *love* (the German word for "ugly" is *hässlich*, "hately"):
            > >
            > > "What does man love there? But there is no doubt: the *ascension of his type*."
            > > (section 20, paraphrase.)
            > >
            > >
            > > Also, in regard to what Ian said yesterday about Nietzsche actually arguing for the eternal recurrence in the notebooks: this may be explained by the notion of the theory of eternal recurrence as a means of breeding and selection. In order for it to work as such a means, it---or at least the *possibility* of it---must be believed in by those it is to select and/or those it is to weed out.
            > >
            >
          • sauwelios
            But if those who do *not* believe in the possibility, but do find the idea attractive, have a better chance to prevail than those who do not believe in the
            Message 5 of 6 , Sep 8, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              But if those who do *not* believe in the possibility, but do find the idea attractive, have a better chance to prevail than those who do not believe in the possibility and find the idea repulsive, *anyway*, why teach the eternal recurrence at all? In fact, I think the former necessarily have a better chance to prevail than the latter only if the doctrine of the *will to power* holds sway. Thus Nietzsche writes:

              "It was morality that protected life against despair and the leap into nothing, among men and classes who were violated and oppressed by *men*: for it is the experience of being powerless against men, not against nature, that generates the most desperate embitterment against existence. Morality treated the violent despots, the doers of violence, the 'masters' in general as the enemies against whom the common man must be protected, which means first of all encouraged and strengthened. Morality consequently taught men to hate and despise most profoundly what is the basic character trait of those who rule: their will to power. To abolish, deny, and dissolve this morality---that would mean looking at the best-hated drive with an opposite feeling and valuation. If the suffering and oppressed lost the faith that they have the right to despise the will to power, they would enter the phase of hopeless despair. This would be the case if this trait were essential to life and it could be shown that even in this will to morality this very 'will to power' were hidden, and even this hatred and contempt were still a will to power. The oppressed would come to see that they were on the same plain with the oppressors, without prerogative, without higher rank.

              "Rather the opposite! There is nothing to life that has value, except the degree of power---assuming that life itself is the will to power. Morality guarded the underprivileged against nihilism by assigning to each an infinite value, a metaphysical value, and by placing each in an order that did not agree with the worldly order of rank and power: it taught resignation, meekness, etc. Supposing that the faith in this morality would perish, then the underprivileged would no longer have their comfort--and they would perish."

              (WP 55 (June 10, 1887).)


              The eternal recurrence *is* the eternal recurrence of the-world-as-will-to-power. If it would be the eternal recurrence of the-world-as-mechanistic-nonsensicality, for instance (cf. GM II.12), the effect of the idea would be a completely different one; not to mention any still *less* herd-unfriendly examples.



              --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
              >
              > Well, I said "it---or at least the *possibility* of it---must be believed in". In the notebooks, Nietzsche likens the possibility to the possibility of eternal damnation: what effect the notion of that possibility has had on the course of history.
              >
              > Also, to be looked upon favorably by Nietzsche is not to be selected in the sense meant. That selection is rather like *natural* selection: some (genes) survive, others die out.
              >
              > As for the possibility of it, I think it is as well possible as eternal novelty, as both are unthinkable (the ER because nothingness is unthinkable, and EN because infinity is unthinkable).
              >
              > Of those who believe in the possibility of it, then, those who "cannot bear it stand condemned", whereas "those who find it the greatest benefit are chosen to rule." (WP 1053 (1884).) And those who do *not* believe in the possibility of it?
              >
              > "This doctrine is mild against those who do not believe in it, it knows no hells and no threats. Whoever does not believe has a *fleeting* life in his consciousness."
              > (Notebooks, 1881-82.)
              >
              > Will not those who find it the greatest benefit probably also prevail over those who do *not* believe in the possibility of it? And will there not also be two types among those who don't believe in it? Those who find the idea attractive and those who find it repulsive? So that there arises the following order of the chance to prevail?
              >
              > 1) Those who believe in the possibility of it and find the idea attractive;
              > 2) those who do *not* believe in the possibility, but find the idea attractive;
              > 3) those who do not believe in the possibility and find the idea repulsive;
              > 4) those who *do* believe in the possibility and find the idea repulsive.
              >
              >
              > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Ian" <ianmathwiz7@> wrote:
              > >
              > > I don't think people would actually have to *believe* in the eternal recurrence for it to be a valuable means to breeding and selection, as Nietzche seems to imply in e.g. TGS that one would only have to be able to *will* that it be the case in order to truly affirm life. Presumably, a person who wants the eternal recurrence to happen, but just cannot believe that it will (maybe he finds arguments its favor unpersuasive, maybe he sees no evidence in its favor) will still be looked upon favorably by Nietzche.
              > >
              > > ~Ian
              > >
              > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote: [snipped]
              > > > >
              > > > > "Your pride (oh you noble Stoics) wants to prescribe your morality, your ideal, to nature, even to nature, and make the latter incorporate the former[!]"
              > > > > (BGE 9.)
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > > "Oh you noble Stoics" should be between square, not round, brackets.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > > And the teaching of the eternal recurrence of the-world-as-will-to-power is the perfect means for the achievement of this end:
              > > > >
              > > > > "[T]he theory of eternal recurrence [...] as a means of breeding and selection."
              > > > > (The Will to Power, section 462. Cf. 1053, 1055-58.)
              > > > >
              > > > > And it's fitting that someone who belongs to the Overman type should have that very type, the sprouting and flourishing of individuals belonging to that very type, as his ideal: see Twilight of the Idols, 'Forays of an Untimely Man', section 20: Dionysus there represents the superhuman type, Ariadne the human type.
              > > >
              > > > I meant section 19 here, though section 20 is indeed also of note: it implies that where the value judgment "beautiful" arises, there arises a *love* (the German word for "ugly" is *hässlich*, "hately"):
              > > >
              > > > "What does man love there? But there is no doubt: the *ascension of his type*."
              > > > (section 20, paraphrase.)
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Also, in regard to what Ian said yesterday about Nietzsche actually arguing for the eternal recurrence in the notebooks: this may be explained by the notion of the theory of eternal recurrence as a means of breeding and selection. In order for it to work as such a means, it---or at least the *possibility* of it---must be believed in by those it is to select and/or those it is to weed out.
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • sauwelios
              We might say Nietzsche describes the world as *prescription* and nothing besides. And to those who would object, but then that description , too, is really a
              Message 6 of 6 , Sep 9, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                We might say Nietzsche describes the world as *prescription* and nothing besides. And to those who would object, "but then that 'description', too, is really a prescription", we could reply, with Nietzsche: "Well, so much the better." (BGE 22.) As Leo Strauss says in this group's description (no pun intended), "the doctrine of the will to power is at the same time an interpretation and the most fundamental fact". In other words, it is at the same time a *pre*-scription and the most accurate *de*-scription.

                Now, being in effect a *de*-scription, Nietzsche's prescription that the world be will to power and nothing besides cannot be what makes him a philosopher---his manifestation of the most spiritual will to power, his creating the world in his image (BGE 9);

                "[T]he most spiritual will to power consists in prescribing to nature what or how it ought to be (aph. 9)."
                (Leo Strauss, 'Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's [i]Beyond Good and Evil[/i]'.)

                In the case of *Nietzsche*, the most spiritual will to power cannot consist in prescribing to nature *what* it ought to be, namely will to power and nothing besides, as that *is* probably the case: it is an *insight* reached by scientific method (see BGE 36). Therefore, in the case of Nietzsche the most spiritual will to power must consist in prescribing to nature *how* it ought to be:

                "To say that being as a whole 'is' will to power means that being as such possesses the constitution of what Nietzsche defines as will to power. And to say that being as a whole 'is' eternal recurrence of the same means that being as a whole *is*, as being, in the manner of eternal recurrence of the same. The determination "will to power" replies to the question of being *with respect to the latter's constitution*; the determination "eternal recurrence of the same" replies to the question of being *with respect to its way to be*.
                (Heidegger, *Nietzsche*, Vol. II, Chap. 26, trans. Krell.)

                Nietzsche/Zarathustra is a Dionysus (EH 'TSZ' 7). His Ariadne is ultimately Life (existence) in general, i.e., the world as will to power. And he says to her: "Thou shalt eternally recur!"---or, in other words, "I will that thou eternally recur". And whereas *his* happiness, as a man, is "I will", *her* happiness is "he wills" (TSZ, 'Old and Young Women'). Therefore she accepts the name he gives her---"Eternity". This then replaces her maiden name "Life". Eternity, in TSZ, *is* Eternity-Life; the eternal recurrence *is* the eternal recurrence of the-world-as-will-to-power. And whereas the will to power is the most fundamental, i.e., the deepest, fact, the eternal recurrence is the highest value.


                --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
                >
                > But if those who do *not* believe in the possibility, but do find the idea attractive, have a better chance to prevail than those who do not believe in the possibility and find the idea repulsive, *anyway*, why teach the eternal recurrence at all? In fact, I think the former necessarily have a better chance to prevail than the latter only if the doctrine of the *will to power* holds sway. Thus Nietzsche writes:
                >
                > "It was morality that protected life against despair and the leap into nothing, among men and classes who were violated and oppressed by *men*: for it is the experience of being powerless against men, not against nature, that generates the most desperate embitterment against existence. Morality treated the violent despots, the doers of violence, the 'masters' in general as the enemies against whom the common man must be protected, which means first of all encouraged and strengthened. Morality consequently taught men to hate and despise most profoundly what is the basic character trait of those who rule: their will to power. To abolish, deny, and dissolve this morality---that would mean looking at the best-hated drive with an opposite feeling and valuation. If the suffering and oppressed lost the faith that they have the right to despise the will to power, they would enter the phase of hopeless despair. This would be the case if this trait were essential to life and it could be shown that even in this will to morality this very 'will to power' were hidden, and even this hatred and contempt were still a will to power. The oppressed would come to see that they were on the same plain with the oppressors, without prerogative, without higher rank.
                >
                > "Rather the opposite! There is nothing to life that has value, except the degree of power---assuming that life itself is the will to power. Morality guarded the underprivileged against nihilism by assigning to each an infinite value, a metaphysical value, and by placing each in an order that did not agree with the worldly order of rank and power: it taught resignation, meekness, etc. Supposing that the faith in this morality would perish, then the underprivileged would no longer have their comfort--and they would perish."
                >
                > (WP 55 (June 10, 1887).)
                >
                >
                > The eternal recurrence *is* the eternal recurrence of the-world-as-will-to-power. If it would be the eternal recurrence of the-world-as-mechanistic-nonsensicality, for instance (cf. GM II.12), the effect of the idea would be a completely different one; not to mention any still *less* herd-unfriendly examples.
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Well, I said "it---or at least the *possibility* of it---must be believed in". In the notebooks, Nietzsche likens the possibility to the possibility of eternal damnation: what effect the notion of that possibility has had on the course of history.
                > >
                > > Also, to be looked upon favorably by Nietzsche is not to be selected in the sense meant. That selection is rather like *natural* selection: some (genes) survive, others die out.
                > >
                > > As for the possibility of it, I think it is as well possible as eternal novelty, as both are unthinkable (the ER because nothingness is unthinkable, and EN because infinity is unthinkable).
                > >
                > > Of those who believe in the possibility of it, then, those who "cannot bear it stand condemned", whereas "those who find it the greatest benefit are chosen to rule." (WP 1053 (1884).) And those who do *not* believe in the possibility of it?
                > >
                > > "This doctrine is mild against those who do not believe in it, it knows no hells and no threats. Whoever does not believe has a *fleeting* life in his consciousness."
                > > (Notebooks, 1881-82.)
                > >
                > > Will not those who find it the greatest benefit probably also prevail over those who do *not* believe in the possibility of it? And will there not also be two types among those who don't believe in it? Those who find the idea attractive and those who find it repulsive? So that there arises the following order of the chance to prevail?
                > >
                > > 1) Those who believe in the possibility of it and find the idea attractive;
                > > 2) those who do *not* believe in the possibility, but find the idea attractive;
                > > 3) those who do not believe in the possibility and find the idea repulsive;
                > > 4) those who *do* believe in the possibility and find the idea repulsive.
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Ian" <ianmathwiz7@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > I don't think people would actually have to *believe* in the eternal recurrence for it to be a valuable means to breeding and selection, as Nietzche seems to imply in e.g. TGS that one would only have to be able to *will* that it be the case in order to truly affirm life. Presumably, a person who wants the eternal recurrence to happen, but just cannot believe that it will (maybe he finds arguments its favor unpersuasive, maybe he sees no evidence in its favor) will still be looked upon favorably by Nietzche.
                > > >
                > > > ~Ian
                > > >
                > > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote: [snipped]
                > > > > >
                > > > > > "Your pride (oh you noble Stoics) wants to prescribe your morality, your ideal, to nature, even to nature, and make the latter incorporate the former[!]"
                > > > > > (BGE 9.)
                > > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > "Oh you noble Stoics" should be between square, not round, brackets.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > > And the teaching of the eternal recurrence of the-world-as-will-to-power is the perfect means for the achievement of this end:
                > > > > >
                > > > > > "[T]he theory of eternal recurrence [...] as a means of breeding and selection."
                > > > > > (The Will to Power, section 462. Cf. 1053, 1055-58.)
                > > > > >
                > > > > > And it's fitting that someone who belongs to the Overman type should have that very type, the sprouting and flourishing of individuals belonging to that very type, as his ideal: see Twilight of the Idols, 'Forays of an Untimely Man', section 20: Dionysus there represents the superhuman type, Ariadne the human type.
                > > > >
                > > > > I meant section 19 here, though section 20 is indeed also of note: it implies that where the value judgment "beautiful" arises, there arises a *love* (the German word for "ugly" is *hässlich*, "hately"):
                > > > >
                > > > > "What does man love there? But there is no doubt: the *ascension of his type*."
                > > > > (section 20, paraphrase.)
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > Also, in regard to what Ian said yesterday about Nietzsche actually arguing for the eternal recurrence in the notebooks: this may be explained by the notion of the theory of eternal recurrence as a means of breeding and selection. In order for it to work as such a means, it---or at least the *possibility* of it---must be believed in by those it is to select and/or those it is to weed out.
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.