Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Attention: Starting December 14, 2019 Yahoo Groups will no longer host user created content on its sites. New content can no longer be uploaded after October 28, 2019. Sending/Receiving email functionality is not going away, you can continue to communicate via any email client with your group members. Learn More

52703Re: Is Eternal Recurrence a valid concept at all?

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Christopher June
    Aug 31

      Beware of taking Kaufmann too dear. He’s American, he’s Jewish, he’s academy. He made it okay for the left to read Nietzche in the universities. A necessary function – best for a Jew to deem Nietzsche Kosher. But his takes on Nietzsche are often patronizing and reveal some masked contempt.

       

      When you ask if ER is “literally” true, I suppose you mean “scientifically” true. I dunno if ER is scientifically true. Ask the human race a million years from now. All we call “science” nowadays will be “superstition” in a couple thousand years. Don’t base your ethics or worldview on science. Science changes all the time. Life is more important than science. Will living AS IF ER is true enhance your life? Than go for it. Science has no real clue, it only thinks it does.

       

      Nietzsche was looking for a worldview fit for the overman. Affirming actual life in all its terrors – that is fit for the overman.

       

      Daniel

       

      From: ourpalnietzsche@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ourpalnietzsche@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 5:36 PM
      To: ourpalnietzsche@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [Our Pal Nietzsche ] Re: Is Eternal Recurrence a valid concept at all?

       

       

      Hallo Daniel. Interesting answer, and I think our conclusions basically agree. Jill ("my other half") had been wondering whether, if ER was literally true, it might explain the deja vu phenomenon and that's how we got to talking about it. Even though I see it as only having a "stimulus value" and, unlike the will to power, no actual value as part of a description of the universe, I have still given it some thought since it was so important in N's eyes. Walter Kaufmann wrote in Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist that most of N's interpreters have disregarded the conception of ER though it would seem no author can be understood correctly as long as the very notion which he himself valued most extravagantly is ignored. Which reminds me I'm overdue a rereading of Kaufmann's great book, where ER gets quite a bit of discussion.

    • Show all 6 messages in this topic