Philosophy Now Forum

Bernard wrote:

Impenitent wrote:

Bernard wrote:Nietzsche had tremendous will - there is no doubt - but this ultimate amour fati idea of his is the most unwilling of any of his ideas - yet he presents the ER as the central pivot of his greatest mouthpiece: Zararthustra. What would happen if we took his will and reconstructed the idea with will as the full protaganist, rather than the half baked way it exits within the eternal return manifesto? Will occurs within it only as will to affirm and acknowledge fate, rather than to alter it. Surely if will exists for anything it is to somehow alter fate... ?

why alter that which you love?

-Imp

By altering it you may love it more. (that applies to fate in itself as much as more specific things that one loves) All things change anyway, so would it be more a matter of staying with what you love as much as possible by willing oneself along the path of the changes occurring with what one loves, aligning those changes to suit oneself more closely?

if it is fated, it cannot be changed... (Sisyphus must be smiling) how it is seen and interpreted by the artistic eye is another question...

-Imp

A fate can't be altered only if it has already occurred.

I have found that the eternal return provides a paradoxical feeling of freedom. Also, for some reason, when I imagine the world is deterministic, I also feel this freedom. It is the same freedom reported by William James of monks who excercise the virtue of obedience to abbots. The certainty of the matter relieves responsibility and makes effort unnecessary. I have, for this reason, found the eternal return to be a very practical thought experiment.

Is there danger in that of being complicit in a slave or master morality?

I'm getting this sudden urge to write all my posts over again...

Quantum mechanics won't allow you to.

Bernard wrote:Quantum mechanics won't allow you to.

Does quantum mechanics preclude you from getting a joke?

Quite the contrary if QM is the interference of consiousness upon fate

Bernard wrote:Quite the contrary if QM is the interference of consiousness upon fate

Mind elaborating for a non-physicist? And please, use punctuation to clarify the emphasis.

The ER is not initially willed but a pre-existing state which is then willed, this willing actually punctures the eternal return, which in turn punctures any reality of it being in actual pre-existence to begin with: it is a concatenation. Something similar happens in physics when observation occurs on the quantum level: what was considered to be a pre-existing state, ie: standard physics (solid, unchanging matter and its laws) turns out to be an idea or description of the world, not the world per se. Observation in physics equates with will in philosophy.

Bernard wrote:The ER is not initially willed but a pre-existing state which is then willed, this willing actually punctures the eternal return, which in turn punctures any reality of it being in actual pre-existence to begin with: it is a concatenation. Something similar happens in physics when observation occurs on the quantum level: what was considered to be a pre-existing state, ie: standard physics (solid, unchanging matter and its laws) turns out to be an idea or description of the world, not the world per se. Observation in physics equates with will in philosophy.

I've always equated observation with, umm, observation. Silly me.

Anyways, I still don't get what you're driving at. Anyone care to translate this for me? I do get observation can effect outcome, but everything else is blurry, especially as it relates to bullshit as eternal recurrence. Or how we got here from a joke.

I mean observation is to physics is what will is to philosophy (since Zarathustra anyway)

Bernard wrote:I mean observation is to physics is what will is to philosophy (since Zarathustra anyway)

Will is acting on desire. What does that have to do with observation?

Ah, I see. You are saying they are both important to their fields. Still don't know how we got here from my joke regarding the absurdity that is eternal recurrence. It's a silly oddity of Nietzsche's fever dreams.

Will can act on anything within one's ability to will, not just upon desire: just like any observation can be made within one's purview to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Bernard wrote:Will can act on anything within one's ability to will, not just upon desire: just like any observation can be made within one's purview to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Bernard, let's skip the lesson on will and observation, okay? I want to know what the hell this has to do with my joke? I've already said all I need to say on Nietzsche's foolish notion, as witnessed by my joke regarding it. (And Will is indeed acting on ones desires, not upon them, themselves. What you don't desire, you won't will.)

Now please, for the last time, what the fuck are you on about? Or are you 'on' something?

Anyways, I have a desire to sleep. I will now act on this.