• Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!

Nietzsche's Eternal Return and Determination

Khoren_

Practical Philosopher
Joined
Mar 25, 2022
Messages
222
Reaction score
401
Awards
9
We have a basic understanding of cause and effect, yes? We know that an event that comes before can be the cause of, or at least be highly correlated to, the event that comes after. Yet we never claim that all effects are caused, and thus are determined.
In a world of divination, magic, and Will, can we truly say that we will have any influence on the world, or is all that we do predetermined?
Can you say you would act any differently in the same situation?
 

Xenophon

Magister
Warned
Joined
Aug 17, 2023
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
3,301
Awards
16
We have a basic understanding of cause and effect, yes? We know that an event that comes before can be the cause of, or at least be highly correlated to, the event that comes after. Yet we never claim that all effects are caused, and thus are determined.
In a world of divination, magic, and Will, can we truly say that we will have any influence on the world, or is all that we do predetermined?
Can you say you would act any differently in the same situation?
I can say it; but that might be determined.
Maybe I was born perverse. I have published a couple of philosophy articles, taught the subject briefly (much to my present shame), and pulled the plug on a moribund Schroedinger-cat of a PhD dissertation. But the question of free will never interested me one iota. I could never wrap my head around what it might look like if I "knew" myself determined; could never see, conversely, how what gets called free will differed one jot from sheer randomness. I decided that the "issue" was "...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury yet signifying nothing."
 

IllusiveOwl

Zealot
Joined
Apr 29, 2024
Messages
194
Reaction score
363
Awards
4
I will step up and be Xeno's
idiot, full of sound and fury yet signifying nothing.
I love that someone is finally taking about Nietzsche! His Eternal Return is an intense philosophy, arguably the grounds on which his Zarathustrian Übermench stands, but it's important to measure a man's theory by the way he lived, and ultimately his fate. His last letters resemble a man who has seen more than his model of reality would allow. He was stern in his truth and his firmness broke him.

I believe Nietzsche was too grounded by his philosiphy and therefore uprooted when enlightened cosmic mumbo-jumbo came his way. He believed firmly that this material world was all that was, that doctrine that makes man hope for more outside of it was poison! So when he began seeing seeing and knowing the impossible... the lunatic drowns in the waters a mystic swims.
In a world of divination, magic, and Will, can we truly say that we will have any influence on the world, or is all that we do predetermined?
To get right down to your question, I give a very glad yes 🦉

The world is magic, like a pool table where the white ball's been struck, physics already knows where the balls will fall before they land there, time just has to catch up. As it is with folk who sleep in a reactive life, toss something their way and what happens is already predetermined based on their programming, like a billiard ball's programmed to react certain was when struck.

Freedom, though, that comes from the Will you've mentioned, sorta like the Will-to-Power. Since everything is magic, that makes you magic as well! The you that is conditioned and reacts predictably is just another billiard ball... but what if you didn't care about what others do? What if you have your own agenda that wasn't determined by past events or your emotional programming and disregard your natural impulses, your surroundings? You can argue, yes, that you decided to rebel based on your experiences before, making your actions just a predetermined, but the path you choose, if made from a place without logic or emotion, can't be determined, only estimated by percentage.

The idea of cause and effect falls apart in an animistic model of the universe, but let's stay mechanical for the pool table metaphor cause it's fun. Where does meditation place you in the great machine of cause & effect? You come to a point of complete stillness, where nothing is effecting you and you are causing nothing... I argue that it is in that silence that true will exists! Free from all pressures, impulses, desires, you can decide to do something completely new, to make a cause birthed by no effect, in an effectless still bubble of consciousness, a halo of stillness 😏

To become this "causal entity" is to be awake in a sleepy, reactive world, to become conscious of your state as a billiard ball and to do something about it! Free will is to have a platter of options and to choose whichever one you want; it can be predetermined if you have always loved Swiss, or logically understood the superiority of mozzarella and had an inclination towards logic, but what if you saw the whole plate as one thing? What if none of it meant anything to you but your own decisions? Perhaps seeing things like this, an inclination towards peace and love would be the only actual path you would want to tread... but you certainly don't have to! Even if it's a 50/50 chance, that's still more freedom than living a mechanical, predetermined 100/0 life.
 

Xenophon

Magister
Warned
Joined
Aug 17, 2023
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
3,301
Awards
16
Anthony Peake has a rather striking take on Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. In "Life After Death?" Peake uses his understanding of contemporary physics and psychological/neurological experiments to suggest a world where we never die. Instead, we keep reliving our lives up till the moment of death again and again. Aesthetics aside, Peake's reasoning strikes me as tortured. He seems to zero in on one possibility without really specifying why he dismisses others. The closing chapters scream "PUBLISHER'S DEADLINE LOOMS!" Still, it's worth pondering whether he might be right and if so, why not.
 

Khoren_

Practical Philosopher
Joined
Mar 25, 2022
Messages
222
Reaction score
401
Awards
9
Anthony Peake has a rather striking take on Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. In "Life After Death?" Peake uses his understanding of contemporary physics and psychological/neurological experiments to suggest a world where we never die. Instead, we keep reliving our lives up till the moment of death again and again. Aesthetics aside, Peake's reasoning strikes me as tortured. He seems to zero in on one possibility without really specifying why he dismisses others. The closing chapters scream "PUBLISHER'S DEADLINE LOOMS!" Still, it's worth pondering whether he might be right and if so, why not.

I don't know if you read fiction or not - hell you can probably watch the movie - but there's a book that actually explored this theme called The Unbearable Lightness of Being that's about a Soviet era doctor and this girl from a small village who ultimately ends up almost trapped with him. My description doesn't do it service - by any means - and I highly recommend it.
Post automatically merged:

I will step up and be Xeno's

I love that someone is finally taking about Nietzsche! His Eternal Return is an intense philosophy, arguably the grounds on which his Zarathustrian Übermench stands, but it's important to measure a man's theory by the way he lived, and ultimately his fate. His last letters resemble a man who has seen more than his model of reality would allow. He was stern in his truth and his firmness broke him.

I believe Nietzsche was too grounded by his philosiphy and therefore uprooted when enlightened cosmic mumbo-jumbo came his way. He believed firmly that this material world was all that was, that doctrine that makes man hope for more outside of it was poison! So when he began seeing seeing and knowing the impossible... the lunatic drowns in the waters a mystic swims.

To get right down to your question, I give a very glad yes 🦉

The world is magic, like a pool table where the white ball's been struck, physics already knows where the balls will fall before they land there, time just has to catch up. As it is with folk who sleep in a reactive life, toss something their way and what happens is already predetermined based on their programming, like a billiard ball's programmed to react certain was when struck.

Freedom, though, that comes from the Will you've mentioned, sorta like the Will-to-Power. Since everything is magic, that makes you magic as well! The you that is conditioned and reacts predictably is just another billiard ball... but what if you didn't care about what others do? What if you have your own agenda that wasn't determined by past events or your emotional programming and disregard your natural impulses, your surroundings? You can argue, yes, that you decided to rebel based on your experiences before, making your actions just a predetermined, but the path you choose, if made from a place without logic or emotion, can't be determined, only estimated by percentage.

The idea of cause and effect falls apart in an animistic model of the universe, but let's stay mechanical for the pool table metaphor cause it's fun. Where does meditation place you in the great machine of cause & effect? You come to a point of complete stillness, where nothing is effecting you and you are causing nothing... I argue that it is in that silence that true will exists! Free from all pressures, impulses, desires, you can decide to do something completely new, to make a cause birthed by no effect, in an effectless still bubble of consciousness, a halo of stillness 😏

To become this "causal entity" is to be awake in a sleepy, reactive world, to become conscious of your state as a billiard ball and to do something about it! Free will is to have a platter of options and to choose whichever one you want; it can be predetermined if you have always loved Swiss, or logically understood the superiority of mozzarella and had an inclination towards logic, but what if you saw the whole plate as one thing? What if none of it meant anything to you but your own decisions? Perhaps seeing things like this, an inclination towards peace and love would be the only actual path you would want to tread... but you certainly don't have to! Even if it's a 50/50 chance, that's still more freedom than living a mechanical, predetermined 100/0 life.

I have actually done some testing antithetical to the idea of determinism, or at least the "testing" of my own inner sense of future recall where I had purposefully acted against what my character would do. Now if that's something that is predetermined, sure, but at the very least it gave me something to think about when that nagging suspicion about knowing what will happen is at least semi-founded in experiential evidence. I think the goal is less a question of free will and more a question about how we are very much influenced by material conditions - at least in so far as our own possible choices are overtly limited by the choices of preceding moments.

Which, on one hand, leaves me to realize that at the very least every individual choice made, from my positional decision to the overt actions made on my behalf, impacts how every individual moment after such also limits plausible decisions in the future. So, in so far that we are able to choose, do we have free will - or at least the perception of choice. I'm eager to agree with Xeno regarding the fact that it is a pointless question - we can't truly know what it would be to have a true freedom of will - but I hesitate to think that is ultimately Random. On some sense - at least as far as the outcomes are concerned - randomness would also be functionally similar to google individual choice, but in others, most randomness is miniscule and only exists upon observation.

If only one world, I am ultimately only capable of making the decisions I perceived and thus free will is a moot point.
If every possible world, I am ultimately making every decision, but am incapable of perceiving them all, and thus free will is a moot point.

But ultimately, if a "choice" is made, it is influenced by hundreds of thousands of preceding moments, and thus guides experience along a certain route. Not in the literal sense like you would lead a child, but in the sense that the compactness of dirt and the presence of flora leads the stream to change course.

The experiential viable course is one of degrees of freedom, and even individual experiences will only lead one through the channels of probability.

Free will is to have a platter of options and to choose whichever one you want; it can be predetermined if you have always loved Swiss, or logically understood the superiority of mozzarella and had an inclination towards logic, but what if you saw the whole plate as one thing?

Is definitely the same in different words, which leads us to the question of "And how influential I can be?" Which is the topic of this entire forum.
 
Last edited:

Xenophon

Magister
Warned
Joined
Aug 17, 2023
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
3,301
Awards
16
I don't know if you read fiction or not - hell you can probably watch the movie - but there's a book that actually explored this theme called The Unbearable Lightness of Being that's about a Soviet era doctor and this girl from a small village who ultimately ends up almost trapped with him. My description doesn't do it service - by any means - and I highly recommend it.
Post automatically merged:



I have actually done some testing antithetical to the idea of determinism, or at least the "testing" of my own inner sense of future recall where I had purposefully acted against what my character would do. Now if that's something that is predetermined, sure, but at the very least it gave me something to think about when that nagging suspicion about knowing what will happen is at least semi-founded in experiential evidence. I think the goal is less a question of free will and more a question about how we are very much influenced by material conditions - at least in so far as our own possible choices are overtly limited by the choices of preceding moments.

Which, on one hand, leaves me to realize that at the very least every individual choice made, from my positional decision to the overt actions made on my behalf, impacts how every individual moment after such also limits plausible decisions in the future. So, in so far that we are able to choose, do we have free will - or at least the perception of choice. I'm eager to agree with Xeno regarding the fact that it is a pointless question - we can't truly know what it would be to have a true freedom of will - but I hesitate to think that is ultimately Random. On some sense - at least as far as the outcomes are concerned - randomness would also be functionally similar to google individual choice, but in others, most randomness is miniscule and only exists upon observation.

If only one world, I am ultimately only capable of making the decisions I perceived and thus free will is a moot point.
If every possible world, I am ultimately making every decision, but am incapable of perceiving them all, and thus free will is a moot point.

But ultimately, if a "choice" is made, it is influenced by hundreds of thousands of preceding moments, and thus guides experience along a certain route. Not in the literal sense like you would lead a child, but in the sense that the compactness of dirt and the presence of flora leads the stream to change course.

The experiential viable course is one of degrees of freedom, and even individual experiences will only lead one through the channels of probability.



Is definitely the same in different words, which leads us to the question of "And how influential I can be?" Which is the topic of this entire forum.
I actually had to play TA to a prof teaching the Unbearable Lightness &c in a philosophy class. A good teacher (failing to get tenure at UT-Austin, he was reduced to a tenured position at some podunk school called Cal-Berkeley), who had an interesting take on Pascal, John Dewey, Heidegger and the like. Somehow the Kundera volume never grabbed me. Perhaps I was stamped "No Returns" at birth.
 
Top