Nietzsche’s Eternal Return

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/14/nietzsches-eternal-return

by apollinaire • 7 years ago

73 55 7 years ago

molteanu• 7 years ago

The article goes on and on but says nothing insightful. Just Wikipedia-like facts, strung together for the purpose of who knows. Be warned or be content that you're not the only one with that feeling.

coldtea2• 7 years ago

The article goes on and on but says nothing insightful.

It's not supposed to.

A better title would be "A general introduction to Nietzsche's life to people who have only heard his name" -- rather than the more promising "Nietzsche’s Eternal Return" which only concerns half a hastily written paragraph in TFA.

That said, it's quite poorly informed in the philosophical aspects (didn't bother to check the biographical ones):

"Scholars still debate what Nietzsche had in mind. A physically stronger being? A spiritual aristocrat? A kind of cyborg?"

Scholars might still debate "what Nietzsche had in mind" with Ubermench, but they don't consider any of the above options (except perhaps "a spiritual aristocrat", and that's still extremely vague).

yasp• 7 years ago

Why do current scholars consider meaningful a philosopher who left poorly specified one of the core idea about which he wrote?

wayoutthere2• 7 years ago

It’s not really possible to say anything insightful about Nietzsche at this point. He’s probably the most overanalyzed philosopher ever.

The article hits the big one people miss — that he’s describing a state of existence rather than any imperative.

rayiner• 7 years ago

It’s the New Yorker.

ganitarashid• 7 years ago

The article goes on and on but says nothing insightful.

Every NewYorker article basically.

Errancer3• 7 years ago

Just go and read Deleuze's essays on Nietzsche. They're short and extremely insightful

steveklabnik2• 7 years ago

His book on Nietzsche is very good, though a bit controversial since he leans on Will to Power so much.

I've been meaning to write a blog post titled "Nietzsche loves Nokogiri" for the last... five years? Whew... The thesis is that basically, Nokogiri was the right response to the situation with Hpricot. I'm not sure how many Rubyists even remember those days at this point...

pmoriarty3• 7 years ago

You'd be much better advised to just go straight to the source and read Nietzsche, especially as he's one of the most readable, entertaining, and interesting philosophers ever.

You'd do yourself a disservice by looking at him through someone else's inevitably distorting glasses.

posterboy• 7 years ago

do you have to learn german just to read nietzsche?

mapcars• 7 years ago

That is if you want to look at the world through someone else's inevitable distorting glasses ;)

jcora• 7 years ago

It is always a good idea to read a philosopher through Deleuze's words. If there's one philosopher whose main sticht was distorting others in productive ways, it's Deleuze. It is a pretty up-front distortion ("taking them from behind and giving them a bastard child"), but usually providing an incredibly useful new perspective

OrderlyTiamat• 7 years ago

especially as he's one of the most readable, entertaining, and interesting philosophers ever.

You would do me a service by declaring your sarcasm, if any is intended. Nietzsche is famously one of the most dense philosophers to get into, and there are many different ways to interpret his writings. I've struggled through works by Nietzsche, and though I would definitely recommend it and agree that it is entertaining, interesting and thought provoking, "readable" isn't a word I would use to describe it.

keiferski4• 7 years ago

This article, as to be expected by the New Yorker, is fairly underwhelming, lacks a point and is outright wrong in a few places. For one, trying to apply Nietzsche’s thought to modern politics is to completely misunderstand the man. His work has nothing to do with the supposedly ‘new’ phenomenon of news and media lying about the truth. It is far deeper and profound than the Trump-buzzword article of the day.

It’s probably fair to say that Nietzsche, if he were around today, would almost certainly have no interest in the petty squabbles of democratic politics. To assign him a political viewpoint is to misunderstand that he is fundamentally interested in the individual human being as a self-contained phenomenon. His philosophy is not accurately characterized as “individualism” but it is absolutely not political in nature.

In any case, the title refers to an interesting idea which oddly enough isn’t even mentioned in the article itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return#Friedrich_Nietz...

samirillian• 7 years ago

I agree with everything you said but this part:

the individual human being as a self-contained phenomenon

He was absolutely an existentialist, but I think his rebuke of the Cartesian _cogito_ undermines that self-contained concept.

keiferski4• 7 years ago

I was trying to avoid delving into his whole idea of the will and explicit anti-‘selfhood’ as it seemed a bit too much for a HN comment. But yeah, I was trying to say that N. isn’t really a political thinker. He is better described as interested in fundamental forces that are far deeper than (what he perceives as) the petty mob values of democratic politics or a simple concept of individualism.

adamsea• 7 years ago

I personally enjoy the New Yorker and liked the article.

And in college I read “Politics and Modernity”, which does indeed use Nietzsches thought to investigate, well, the politics of modernity.

The author studies political science at Johns Hopkins and so there are at least a few people who would disagree with your statement that Nietzsche has nothing to do with politics of our moment.

https://www.amazon.com/Political-Theory-Modernity-William-Co...

FWIW I thought it was an excellent book.

pmoriarty3• 7 years ago

I wouldn't say that Nietzsche was apolitical.

He wrote that "Wagner has become what I most despise: an antisemite."

Nietzsche was very vocal in his opposition to antisemitism, which extended far beyond his break with Wagner, a man who he had formerly deeply admired. Ironically, his sister was an ardent antisemite, who falsified his work to make him seem sympathetic to her views.

Though Nietzsche would was not primarily a political philosopher (except in the sense that, arguably, everything is political) it is likely that were he alive today he would be opposed to the xonophobia and racism that is at Trump's core and that of many of his supporters.

kashyapc2• 7 years ago

While I don't agree with everything Pinker says, I must say, Pinker's point on "Drop the Nietsche" in his book, Enlightenment Now, did influence me:

Keep some perspective. Not every problem is a Crisis, Plague, Epidemic, or Existential Threat, and not every change is the End of This, the Death of That, or the Dawn of a Post-Something Era. Don't confuse pessimism with profundity: problems are inevitable, but problems are solvable, and diagnosing every setback as a symptom of a sick society is a cheap grab for gravitas. Finally, drop the Nietzsche. His ideas may seem edgy, authentic, baad, while humanism seems sappy, unhip, uncool. But what's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

Edit: "I agree" --> "influenced me". Maybe reading more of Nietsche might open up my mind more on his work. :-)

keiferski4• 7 years ago

Pinker is perhaps the single most uninformed public “intellectual” in society today. His ideas are slightly above Gladwell yet somehow he commands respect. I really don’t understand it.

freddie_mercury• 7 years ago

Ad hominem attacks don't really improve the level of discussions on HN.

kashyapc2• 7 years ago

By any stretch I'm not "blown over" by Pinker's work, but calling him "most uninformed" is uncharitable.

Sure he has his blind spots, and sometimes gets carried away and says things that are not at all in his wheelhouse. But overall, I think his work is a "net good".

Errancer3• 7 years ago

Nietzsche's work is all about fighting with pessimism? Instead of dropping Nietzsche, go and actually try to read him / or about him from genuine source, `Nietzsche and Anarchy: Psychology for Free Spirits, Ontology for Social War` is a great, positive and down to text reading for start

goto11• 7 years ago

Don't try to be Nietzsche unless you actually are Nietzsche.

division_by_0• 7 years ago

I think there is an interesting idea of Nietzsche related to pessimism that often gets lost. I've read Nietzsche's entire published work and Nachlass multiple times in my teen years and the most central concept in Nietzsche for me personally was his concept "pessimism of strength":

Quote 1:

We can thus guess where the great note of interrogation concerning the value of existence had been set. Is pessimism necessarily the sign of decline, of decay, of failure, of exhausted and weakened instincts?—as was the case with the Indians, as is, to all appearance, the case with us "modern" men and Europeans? Is there a pessimism of strength? An intellectual predilection for what is hard, awful, evil, problematical in existence, owing to well-being, to exuberant health, to fullness of existence? Is there perhaps suffering in overfullness itself? A seductive fortitude with the keenest of glances, which yearns for the terrible, as for the enemy, the worthy enemy, with whom it may try its strength? from whom it is willing to learn what "fear" is?[0]

Gibt es einen Pessimismus der Stärke? Eine intellektuelle Vorneigung für das Harte, Schauerliche, Böse, Problematische des Daseins aus Wohlsein, aus überströmender Gesundheit, aus Fülle des Daseins? Gibt es vielleicht ein Leiden an der Überfülle selbst? Eine versucherische Tapferkeit des schärfsten Blicks, die nach dem Furchtbaren verlangt, als nach dem Feinde, dem würdigen Feinde, an dem sie ihre Kraft erproben kann? an dem sie lernen will, was »das Fürchten« ist?[1]

Quote 2:

A fundamental question is the relation of the Greek to pain, his degree of sensibility,—did this relation remain constant? or did it veer about?—the question, whether his ever-increasing longing for beauty, for festivals, gaieties, new cults, did really grow out of want, privation, melancholy, pain? For suppose even this to be true—and Pericles (or Thucydides) intimates as much in the great Funeral Speech:—whence then the opposite longing, which appeared first in the order of time, the longing for the ugly, the good, resolute desire of the Old Hellene for pessimism, for tragic myth, for the picture of all that is terrible, evil, enigmatical, destructive, fatal at the basis of existence,—whence then must tragedy have sprung? Perhaps from joy, from strength, from exuberant health, from over-fullness.[0]

Eine Grundfrage ist das Verhältnis des Griechen zum Schmerz, sein Grad von Sensibilität, – blieb dies Verhältnis sich gleich? oder drehte es sich um? – jene Frage, ob wirklich sein immer stärkeres Verlangen nach Schönheit, nach Festen, Lustbarkeiten, neuen Kulten aus Mangel, aus Entbehrung, aus Melancholie, aus Schmerz erwachsen ist? Gesetzt nämlich, gerade dies wäre wahr – und Perikles (oder Thukydides) gibt es uns in der großen Leichenrede zu verstehen –: woher müßte dann das entgegengesetzte Verlangen, das der Zeit nach früher hervortrat, stammen, das Verlangen nach dem Häßlichen, der gute strenge Wille des älteren Hellenen zum Pessimismus, zum tragischen Mythus, zum Bilde alles Furchtbaren, Bösen, Rätselhaften, Vernichtenden, Verhängnisvollen auf dem Grunde des Daseins, – woher müßte dann die Tragödie stammen? Vielleicht aus der Lust, aus der Kraft, aus überströmender Gesundheit, aus übergroßer Fülle?[1]

[0] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51356/51356-h/51356-h.htm [1] http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Nietzsche,+Friedrich/Die+G...

PavlovsCat• 7 years ago

Scholars still debate what Nietzsche had in mind. A physically stronger being? [..] A kind of cyborg?

Nevermind scholar, what person who actually read Nietzsche seriously considers either of those? I would really like to see a source for this other than pop culture. Even "spiritual aristocrat" is weird, "spiritual athlete" would make more sense to me (even though it still wouldn't really say anything).

Consider the opposite of the Übermensch, the "last man": http://thelastmanonearth.blogspot.com/2009/03/nietzsche-and-...

Or this:

Anyone who doesn't want to belong to the masses need only cease to go easy on themselves; let them follow their conscience, which cries out to them "Be yourself! You are none of those things that you now do, think, and desire." Every young soul hears this call night and day and trembles, for when it thinks of its true liberation, it has an inkling of the measure of happiness for which it is destined from eternity. As long as it is shackled by the chains of opinion and fear, nothing can help it attain this happiness. And how bleak and senseless this life can become without this liberation!

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

I don't know what the Übermensch is, I always read Nietzsche like a poetry collection anyway, rather than a coherent model, and I haven't read Nietzsche in ages -- but I am pretty sure being one's own person (which of course is different for everybody) is part of it.

Jeema101• 7 years ago

The most consistent interpretation IMO is 'person who engages in self-mastery to overcome obstacles'.

I think that interpretation also jives with why he was so critical of pity and humanism: because he genuinely believed that some suffering is needed because overcoming obstacles through exertion of the will is the only way for humanity to live a satisfying existence.

That's my $0.02 anyway...

8bitsrule• 7 years ago

The concept of self-mastery suggests that the outcome of the ancient dictum 'Temet nosce' (know thyself) is part of a (once well-known?) psychological process, of a liberation from ignorance.

I see an echo of that in Jung's 'individuation'. I see other echoes in Gurdjieff & Ouspensky's writings, in the efforts of the (non-materialist) alchemists, in Maslow's 'self-actualization', in Bucke's 'cosmic consciousness', etc ... and that's just in the West.

Huxley displays a somewhat more universal (but abstracted) outline of this constellation of efforts in his 1946 The Perennial Philosophy.

Long ago I waded (not very deeply) into N., but as I recall, he explored a lot more than this one idea. Maybe he's become most identified with it because its other numerous threads are too esoteric ... or concealed.

NB: One Jung take on Nietzsche (1936): https://www.philosopher.eu/others-writings/essay-on-wotan-w-...

platz• 7 years ago

'On the Genealogy of Morals' was the most coherent, accessible, and IMHO relevant text to out times, that Nietzsche ever produced.

steveklabnik2• 7 years ago

This book changed my life, and sparked my interest in philosophy generally. Highly recommended.

zarro• 7 years ago

I've always found his concept of "live life in such a way, that at the end, you could say once more!"

Just imagine, how different would life be if people tried to live it in such a way, that if there was eternal re-occurrence, they would be content to relive it indefinitely.

The funny part really is, for all you know this isn't the first time where having this conversation.

brookhaven_dude• 7 years ago

live life in such a way, that at the end, you could say once more

This is in stark contrast with Hinduism and Yoga - there the goal is to never come back!

hailk• 7 years ago

In no way does Hinduism contrast that. And Yoga is not a religion.

Eternal recurrence is also a Hindu concept. The Eternal part is a little iffy at times though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

a_tschantz• 7 years ago

In a sense, the idea of eternal recurrence (and much of Nietzsche's philosophy) was a direct attempt to reject Eastern (or Buddhist) conclusions.

Schopenhauer had a metaphysics & morality that was fairly consistent with (and maybe informed by) Buddhism - i.e. existence is suffering/dukhka, this arises from will/trishna, and its cessation can be achieved through something that looks like the dissolution of the self.

Nietzsche, who was an avid reader of Schopenhauer, ran with the idea that life was fundamentally a process of will/craving, but spent his career trying to reject the conclusion that this is something to be overcome.

I find Nietzsche's philosophy makes a lot more sense when motivated in this manner.

divbyzer0• 7 years ago

I like to think. If we made it here once, we can make it agian.

voidhorse2• 7 years ago

yawn I’m tired of Nietzsche. Just as the world needed a new prophet, Zarathustra, we need a new misunderstood, brooding, wishes-he-were-a-poet grimbad philosopher. Nietzsche is great, but the motions of the ages are even startig to catch up to him, too. Ecce Homo is still interesting and somewhat relevant, but all of his other works are full of ideas that hae been sufficiently adopted or misappropriated by society at large as to be faux pas or bland. His war against Christian society and morals, for instance, while stylistically interesting, is almost entirely irrelevant at this stage in history. He’s become idolized and his message has become diluted, just like everyone else.

That said, he’s still a delight to read. Some of the aphorisms are also still glittering gems. I just find the major concepts in his thinking are somewhat musty at this point.

sysbin• 7 years ago

Nietzsche never truly had a war with Christianity. He was an optimist often mistaken as an nihilist. I’m skeptical why he never went into how free will is an illusion and otherwise his writing illustrates he thought people could make themselves have a good destiny or not. His eternal reoccurrence theory even is more understandable when thinking from a hard determinist mindset.

voidhorse2• 7 years ago

There’s no doubt he was an optimist just as there’s no doubt he was at war with institutionalized Christianity. Combatting Christianity and being a nihilist are not the same thing. You’re right that Nietzsche’s work comes from a place of hope.

Nietzsches cheif argument was for a “revaluation of all values”—he believed that, given the major technological and scientific breakthroughs in the 17c - 19c, man had to reorient his relation to life. The old social forms, such as traditional Christian morals, were holding humanity back by valuing or prioritizing the wrong things (e.g. humility instead of the pursuit of knowledge). That’s the major thrust of his whole output. He was largely right about this. The point of my op is to say that we’ve more or less achieved what he sought minus the ordination of some new shceme of shared values to guide us (ubermensch).

People let Nietzsche’s admittedly amazing stylistics cloud their comprehension of his arguments which are actually rather straightforward—he saw that the world was changing and that societal change was lagging far behind technical change, as it in fact still does to this day.

97b683f8• 7 years ago

I’m skeptical why he never went into how free will is an illusion
Men were considered "free" only so that they might be considered guilty – could be judged and punished: consequently, every act had to be considered as willed, and the origin of every act had to be considered as lying within the consciousness (and thus the most fundamental psychological deception was made the principle of psychology itself).

Source: Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche

pmoriarty3• 7 years ago

So who would you advise be read instead of Nietzsche?

zachguo• 7 years ago

These two excerpts probably explain what 'Eternal Return' is referring to.

To the opponents of democracy, Nietzsche says, in essence: Just wait. Liberal democracy will devour itself, creating conditions for authoritarian rule. Disorder and instability will sow distrust in politics itself. “Step by step, private companies will absorb the functions of the state,” Nietzsche writes. “Even the most tenacious remnants of the old work of governing (the activity, for example, that is supposed to protect private persons from one another) will finally be taken care of by private entrepreneurs.” The distinction between public and private spheres will disappear. The state will give way to the “liberation of the private person (I take care not to say: of the individual).”
The entrepreneur Peter Thiel, an avid reader of Nietzsche, says things like “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” ... For tech billionaires, national and racial hatreds are inconveniences; their authoritarianism wears a cosmopolitan face, promising frictionless commerce for all.

blaser-waffle• 7 years ago

Peter Thiel

See also: his dark revolution aka "The Dark Enlightenment".

Examples: https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/Searle20160815

chairmanmow2• 7 years ago

That's not what the eternal return refers to. It refers to physics - that the Universe will expand from and collapse to singularity and then do it again. His argument that if matter is finite, and time is infinite - therefore if we are composed of matter and given an infinite amount of time he thinks it is inevitable that matter/oneself will return to the exact same state over and over again.

It is an interesting thought experiment and I don't believe he's 100% correct with it, although I'll spare my interpretation.

It's not that the things you're saying don't have some relation to Nietzsche, but it has more to do with his thoughts on morality and so you're lumping things together in a categorical error. It's more important to think about it than to think Peter Thiel did all the heavy lifting for you already.

MadcapJake• 7 years ago

That's not it either. Eternal return is a actually a mental model to prepare yourself for all decision making: make the choice that you would be willing to live with choosing again and again for eternity. It's about removing yourself from cultural and political expectations and struggling through the only path that is uniquely you, because any less would be to lose yourself.

Someone suggested in another comment that you wouldn't know which life this is currently. This is also missing the point. Neitzchean eternal return is more like a Hell: relieving all your mistakes over and over for all time. Destined to make the same choices while woke to their failings.

The idea was to assert a non-humility and non-christian model of morality (a morality of self-realization)

mikelyons• 7 years ago

  Nietzsche is dead

Nietzsche’s Eternal Return

Related Stories