COMENTARIOS ARISTOCRATICOS: ETERNO RETORNO DE LO MISMO

Nietzsche proposed this idea as a thought experiment. It was not to be taken literally.

Quoting Nietzsche :

The greatest weight.-- What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence - even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!"

Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus?... Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?

from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.341, Walter Kaufmann transl.

What if someone tells you that your life is going to occur innumerable times more? If you feel scared of the idea, you need to make a change in your life.

However, even more interesting is the last part.

Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?

This is where he invokes a really powerful thought : how comfortable with yourself and your way of living you must be in order to affirm this eternal return. Most of the people can't do it. They just can't stand to live the same life again and again. But if you can, how fulfilling your life must be for you to crave nothing but this life again and again and infinite times more.

1.1K views

View 6 upvotes

Profile photo for James Swingland

James Swingland

MSci Physics, MRes Bioimaging, PhD Computational biology, 2 years Data Science8y

This sounds like a mumbo-jumbo non-physics idea. However two families of physical models are similar in spirit.

The first is the oscillating universe. In this model there is a big bang, the universe expands, the expansion slows, the universe collapses and begins again. Unfortunately this model is unlikely because dark energy is now known to be accelerating the expansion. While it is still possible to make models which would show this, they are ugly, inelegant and unlikely to be viable.

A better modern alternative is the big rip. In this concept, the dark energy increases in strength, eventually ripping the universe into shreds. Each shred continues to expand becoming a new universe.

Unfortunately it is unlikely this is true either. It is generally agreed that the required form of dark energy is not massively likely.

A better question now is why people find these ideas appealing (including me). In the world we see there is a continuous renewal, parents child I parent. So it fits well with experience & evolved instincts. But our instincts are not a good way of judging the world. Intuitively we cannot at first grasp Newtons laws & even that our own star is gradually dying (which allows us to live) on time scales incomprehensible to us, is beyond our intuitions. Even time itself seems to have a beginning, certainly there is no reason it couldn't, which is beyond comprehension.

We should not trust these evolved guesses and vague analogies when pushed so far from our experiences.

So while I agree it is possible, I do not think it is the most likely situation. There are other possibilities though, with some similar features. An infinite number of universes in the multiverse seems the most pleasant and popular speculation, though there is no evidence as yet.

1.2K views

View 5 upvotes

Profile photo for Svai Dunchan

Svai Dunchan

the occassional openminded time travel enthusiast4y

I like the idea, mainly because I’m only believing that one thing that everything will be the same everywhere to the point of me typing this comment infinite number of times, however, at the same time, there could be one major difference - let’s say stars form with not hydrogen+helium but with carbon+mercury for some unexplained reason. Imagine life in THAT universe. Yeah. Or a minor difference, such as a birthmark you have is now on the other side to where it’d be. Thing is, quantum fluctuations suggest that anything can happen and it maybe it’s just likely that nothing will happen the same way twice… the same number of atoms can probably form stars out of whatever makes up human skin and the hydrogen+helium fusions are sentience in another universe.

At the very least, if it is to happen, then that one Futurama episode was right…

425 views

View 2 upvotes

Profile photo for Ian

Ian

Business Consultant, INTJ, Mensan, Atheist.8y

Original Question: What do you think about the idea of Eternal Return?

Well, I've never heard it called that, but there are several different theories around which posit that the universe is cyclical - see Cyclic model for a brief summary.

In essence these theories say that the big bang and the start of this universe is the result of a previous universe collapsing in on itself to a singularity, then a random quantum fluctuation 'explodes' it, starting the cycle over again.

Basically what cyclic models posit is that eventually the universe stops expanding, and slowly starts to collapse in on itself under the force of gravity, probably in an accelerating way as more and more black holes are formed. We'll then reach the point when black holes will start to merge, 'swallowing up' most of the remaining matter in the universe until at some point, perhaps trillions of years into the future, there'll be just the one enormous black hole left. This will eventually collapse in on itself to form the singularity.

There's a technical explanation of one such theory available as a pdf from here - http://physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf.

The recent discovery that so-called dark matter and dark energy appear to be accelerating the expansion of the universe have made the cyclic model less popular of late, however there's still so much we don't know that it's difficult to separate theory from conjecture, or even from the fact that some of our fundamental theories might be wrong.

1.5K views

View 5 upvotes

View 1 share

Profile photo for Michael Fernandez

Michael Fernandez

Process Improvement Consultant6y

Eternal Return has ancients roots. It has been used by the Stoics, and in a more modern context, the philosopher Nietzsche.

I would argue that the most effective use of the concept has very little to do with science, but that of a thought experiment. I’d like to add another phrase that I think is instrumental in understanding it’s usefulness, “Amor Fati”. Which can be translated as love of one’s fate.

“Eternal Return

Amor Fati”

The two phrases combined together have significant implications.

What if your life was destined to repeat itself, over and over again, for the rest of eternity? What would that mean for everything that’s happened to you up to this point? How would your relationship with your past change? What would change about your perspective towards the future?

You can let the “curse of Eternal Return” cripple you, or it can empower you. How would something like this empower you? This is where the notion of Amor Fati comes into play. As Nietzsche has suggested, Amor Fati demands that we not merely “bear what is necessary…but love it”.

Taking an inventory of our past can bring with it overwhelming emotions. If we were to consider the possibility that it would all happen again, Amor Fati is a tool that allows us to sort out those tough moments and apply the lessons each moment brought into the greater context of our lives. After all, everything that happened contributed to who you are in this moment… Aren’t happy with who you are today? Well you’ve now brought this light and have the faculties to get to a place of acceptance. It is only through the fire that your freedom can be found.

Now we finally arrive to the “curse of Eternal Return”. Knowing then, that the past is what it is, and we are destined to do it again, the future seems that much more pressing. Knowing that it hasn’t happen, but whatever does happen will happen again and again, demands we treat the future with the upmost care and respect.

How much time would you waste knowing whatever decision you make would have eternal implications? How much would you hold back on your dreams knowing you only have one chance? I would suggest the “curse of Eternal Return” would light the fire in our belly that would push us to make the best of what's left.

In the end, whether the Eternal Return is trust or not is beside the point. The thought alone compels me to action. The possibility on it’s own motivates me to go after everything I’ve ever wanted, even past the doubt, difficulty, and circumstance.

After all, if I have to this again for the rest of eternity, might as well make it special.

https://www.facebook.com/theeternalreturn/

530 views

Profile photo for Chrysaor Jordan

Chrysaor Jordan

has walked away from the church forever8y

Thank you definitely for this A2A, Horatio Oswald. I am grateful for the excuse to quote my favourite Borges story:

John of Pannonia['s] learned and measured refutation was sufficient to have Euphorbus the heresiarch condemned to the stake. "This has happened and will happen again," said Euphorbus. "You are not lighting a pyre, you are lighting a labyrinth of flames. If all the fires I have seen were gathered together here, they would not fit on earth and the angels would be blinded. I have said this many times." Then he cried out, for the flames had reached him.

Jorge Luis Borges, "The Theologians." English translation James E. Irby.

The "heresy" for which Euphorbus was condemned was, you have guessed, the idea of the Eternal Return. And I quoted Borges not to say that the idea is heretical and wrong, but to say that the idea is old. Allegedly, it was proposed early enough for Aristotle to have heard of it and to have disapproved.

My big question is: how can this be proved? Or can this be proved? Perhaps the Universe has been born and died and been reborn and died again ... et cetera ... an untold number of times, perhaps infinitely. Perhaps I have quoted Borges not once but many times before. Perhaps this is the billionth time you have asked this question.

If that is so ... how can we know?

How could this idea be proven, if it is true? How could it be disproven, if it is false? What would constitute evidence, for or against? If traces of a previous Universe could be found, then where could they be? Would they not have to be outside of our Universe? And what does that mean?

The idea of the Eternal Return may (or may not) be true. I think the challenge of finding out, one way or the other, is at least as daunting as the idea of searching for God (in the deist sense). Until then, it is an intriguing possbility.

What if Euphorbus was right?

If the idea is correct, it would militate strongly in favour of atheism. The only remaining question: has the endless loop of death, rebirth, and repetition a beginning in a finite series of steps? It is possible to write a program that (if left to run itself uninterrupted) would keep going to infinity.

If yes, then that would give reason to believe in God.

If no, if the Universe was always in the endless loop of Eternal Return, then the debate is settled. In that case, there can be no God of any description.

The answer to that would settle the debate. But getting there is likely to be a challenge.

871 views

View 2 upvotes

Answer requested by

Horatio Oswald

Profile photo for Chris Turner

Chris Turner

Use of the work of Professor BF Skinner5y

Originally Answered: What do you think of the concept of “Eternal Return”, an idea once held by the Pythagoreans and the Stoics?

I must admit, this idea has crossed my mind many times, particularly after a feeling of ‘deja vous’. This has been mentioned by Nietzche a number of times though he does not appear to commit to it. Personally I think that it ‘boils down’ to two strands of thinking: one is the feeling that life is too terrible to accept more than once…..this is the ‘must be something better’ argument. The other is that we should embrace this wonderful life with all it’s ups and downs and proudly enjoy it. We should be courageous and accept everything and if it is recurring, then so be it…Nietzche’s ‘will to power’ and his enthusiasm for the ‘over man’ appear to be in line with this notion. For myself, I would like to think that each return would be accompanied with a gain in wisdom, but this is possibly too naive……

50 views

View 1 upvote

1 of 1 answer

Profile photo for Lt Neno

Lt Neno

Lives in Florence, Italy

Originally Answered: What is your opinion on the concept of reincarnation?

It means nothing: carrying no memory or wisdom from your past lifes means those supposed experiences may only exists in your mind, so talking about reincarnation is pointless.

The existence of evil is a threat to the very idea of any benevolent deity: Manicheists invented a negative god to balance the good one to justify it, and Hebrew and then christians copied from that.

Reincarnation solve the problem with karma, but population has doubled in the last 50 years and growing, so where do all these “new” people come from?

Profile photo for Anonymous

Anonymous

Nietzsche was not the first person to come up with this. However, it was a parable. In Hinduism, the universe is cyclic, but almost nothing from our current universe is guaranteed.

Is it really going to happen?

According to the vast majority of evidence and cosmologists, No. For it to be true, we would need the universe to suffer a Big Crunch. If you don’t know what that means, it means the universe would collapse and then potentially reform through another big bang, but since astronomical observations show that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down, this suggests that the Big Freeze scenario is far more likely.

246 views

Profile photo for Martin Payne

Martin Payne

I read a lot8y

There are two possible ways that I can immediately think of for the "Eternal Return" to be played out, if indeed it is being played out (which recent findings pointing toward an acceleration in the expansion of the Universe would tend to rule out in any case) (also note, I am not talking about the mechanism that causes the iterative cycle, just what the effect would be).

The first way in which it would be played out is that, each 'time' the big bang occurred, the exact same results occurred - all the way to having me type this response (quantum theory would suggest this case unlikely). In this case, why would it matter that the cycle were playing out? The end result is the same. I could have typed this response an infinite number of times, or just this once, there is no difference at any level we're capable of being aware of.

The other way in which it would be played out is that nothing is the same. Quantum fluctuations in the first microseconds pretty much guarantee that our whole galaxy would not exist. In this case, neither would we. So, does it matter to us now? Not sure, don't think so?

629 views

View 1 upvote

Profile photo for CW204

CW204

Director of Finance & Operations (2019–present)

Originally Answered: What are your thoughts on the concept of reincarnation?

I have consistently thought it is unsupported nonsense in every life I’ve had.

Profile photo for Jeffrey Barclay

Jeffrey Barclay

Former Slave. Animal lover, atheist and science nut.

Originally Answered: What is your opinion on the concept of reincarnation?

It's a concept. That’s all it is. Think about what you're asking me, an atheist, to believe. Forget it, sunbeam, not going to happen…

Profile photo for Lee Jamison

Lee Jamison

B.A. in Art & Religion, Centenary College of Louisiana (Graduated 1979)1y

What are your thoughts on the idea of God returning to Earth? Do you think it's possible? Why or why not?

Perhaps the single most poorly taught monotheistic concept is that found in opening of the Shema: “Behold, O Israel, Yahweh, your God is one.” It is the foundation of the concept of a “universe”- one existence- rather than a competition among existences such as that implied in the caprices of polytheisms. Even the name of the monotheistic deity is a past-present-future-tense assertion of personal existence. All that has the power of being *is* by the will of God.

Viewed in that context, let me ask- has existence left Earth?

No.

And life on Earth, despite our many terrors, seems pretty persistent. Most of the reasons we claim for disbelieving in such a foundation of being are really built around rather childish assumptions about what a supposedly “good” god would be constrained to do (because surely, you know, we know better than the mind within which we exist) rather than any exploration of why we beings made “in the image of” the Creator would demonstrate the incredible diversity of ideas and cultures and dynamisms we show merely on this one tiny blue dot in space.

God hasn’t left. God has no need to “return”. Our very being is the work of God, past, present, and future.

132 views

1 of 6 answers

Profile photo for Vincent McCarthy

Vincent McCarthy

Former Veterinary Technician. (1988–2013)

Originally Answered: What are your thoughts on the concept of reincarnation?

I feel like it might be possible with in the realms of science, but no one has realiably proven it to be a fact.

Profile photo for Rob Lowe

Rob Lowe

Mature Australian. Had diverse careers and experience.

Originally Answered: What is your opinion on the concept of reincarnation?

A completely unscientific concept fro which there is absolutely no evidence, not even an ancient book written by bronze age goat herders.

Profile photo for Swami Jai Deep

Swami Jai Deep

Enlightened Mystic - Kundalini & Spiritual Awakening Guide1y

What is eternity for you?

What is beyond time is eternity. In fact, time is an illusion and it exists in the mind only.

What Albert Einstein said- "Time is an illusion." Mystics have been saying the same for centuries after experiencing the absolute reality (absolute truth), not conceptual reality.

Mystics say metaphorically there are two shores - this shore and other shore - this shore is the door to the other shore - this shore is ‘now and here’ and the other shore is eternity/timelessness, anything other than that is time-tunnel (past-present-future) created by mind and that is an illusion.

There is no past, future and present also. There is only eternity. When you say it is 10.33 it is already 10.33.04.

Those who reach the other shore taste eternity, the immortality of consciousness.

2.2K views

View 30 upvotes

1 of 75 answers

Profile photo for Arthur Naebig

Arthur Naebig

B. Ed in Vocational Technical Education & Humanities (subject), Chicago Teachers College (Graduated 1962)

Originally Answered: What are your thoughts on the concept of reincarnation?

Rtdiculous!

Profile photo for Samuel Wilson

Samuel Wilson

Professional Illustrator and Graphic Designer2y

What are your thoughts on reincarnation as a form of afterlife?

My thoughts?

Just that reincarnation is absolutely pointless and wouldn't make anyone gain anything at all.

Just think about it: you die, go someplace else and are told a bunch of nice things and then you're informed that you have to go and continue learning how to be a nice dude. Then boom! You're a tiny baby once again, and your memory is reset. You can’t remember anything about ANY of your past lives.

What a bummer. Especially when reincarnation is supposed to make you into a better person each time. Well, crap happens all over again well, and the cycle is frustratingly long. Like eternity. How depressing.

You have been murdered a few times. Each time scared the shit out of you. You then got mouth cancer and died. Then you lived to be a poor 120 year-old poor granny and guess what. Yeah you got it: you died. Again. Then you fell in love and dropped down a cliff on a nature hike, leaving your heartbroken fiance grieving. Damn it, you broke 17 bones including your nose. Then… do I hear you say that you’re getting born yet again? Yes you are, and your junkie mom aborts you and dumps your sorry ass in some dumping site. Then the guys up there are waiting to tell you that… oh, stop it.

What a bunch of unimaginative dudes those guys up there are.

We have a gazillion… wait, more than that - galaxies out there, full of (who the heck knows) planets which could be explored for an eternity but the ethereal elders want to send us back to earth, again and again and… well, again. This has to be hell.

I say we join forces and scream to the Elders that this shit has to stop, the sooner the better. None of those deaths feel too cosy. And why do the elders get to have all the fun up there?

Well, there you are, my thoughts about reincarnation.

253 views

View 1 upvote

1 of 4 answers

Profile photo for Philailouros

Philailouros

Amateur Atheist2y

Do you think eternal hell is fair?

Infinite punishment for a finite period of naughtiness? One of the reasons I could never follow Christianity or Islam is the very obvious injustice of such a punishment. It seems clear to me that those who came up with this foul idea thought that it would be a useful means to terrify people into converting to their religion: “Believe what we tell you to believe, and if you’re lucky, you might not get tortured forever.”

It’s telling that Hinduism and Buddhism do not have this concept of eternal punishment: these religions generally do not seek converts, so they do not feel the need to engage in Mafia style menacing: “Hey, nice soul you got there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.” In these religions, human frailty is accepted as a reality, rather than a deadly flaw, so when you inevitably screw up, you get as many chances as you need to improve yourself in subsequent reincarnations.

If you believe, as I do, that our free will is highly limited, or even that it may not exist, the idea that one could be punished for eternity becomes even more grotesque. When you consider that we have absolutely no control over the major factors that influence who we become as people, i.e., our genetics and our upbringing, the idea that we should burn for eternity for a few missteps looks utterly ridiculous. Modern secular justice systems take into account a criminal’s IQ, mental health, socioeconomic circumstances, and experience of trauma, when deciding upon an appropriate sentence, because that is the fair thing to do.

Religions are frequently used as a means to consolidate power and to exert social control: when Henry VIII broke from Rome and announced himself as head of the new Church of England, he gave himself license to marry as many times as he wanted, and reap vast wealth from the dissolution of the monasteries. One day, the English were expected to believe in the transubstantiation of the host in Holy Communion; the next, the bread and wine became purely symbolic, and to believe otherwise became heresy, punishable by death.

If you can convince people that “sins” are not only punished on earth, but also in the afterlife, what an enormous amount of power you will wield: one thinks of the renaissance popes raking in piles of cash for the granting of indulgences to their credulous flock, as they dallied in their palaces with their various mistresses, all of which were paid for by peddling the idea of punishment in the afterlife. One has to give them a degree of credit for a successful scam, whereby relatives of the deceased could pay to bail the dearly departed out of purgatory with payments to the Church.

As humans, we are born with varying degrees of intellect, and different levels of innate moral sense that can help us to curb our worst urges. We also have a very limited and uncertain amount of time in which to progress, both morally and intellectually, so the idea that failing to accept certain beliefs, or adopting particular behaviors in our time on earth merits an infinity of pain, is clearly unfair. If there is such a thing as Divine justice, one would hope that the Judge is rather less capricious and callous than He is depicted in certain religious traditions.

I would suggest that those who live in constant fear of Hell are there already: they live like prisoners under constant surveillance, dreading the inevitable day when one false move will have them dragged off to a torture chamber in which each second constitutes an infinity of agony. Our conception of Hell is merely a projection of our worst instincts for cruelty and revenge, so we might question the nature and motives of those who consider that eternal damnation is in any way just.

906 views

View 9 upvotes

1 of 64 answers

Profile photo for Frederick M. Dolan

Frederick M. Dolan

Professor, UC BerkeleyUpvoted by

Leandro Aliseda

, Masters Philosophy & Technology, University of Campinas (2018) and

Christopher Brennan

, PhD Philosophy & Dissertation Involved Evolutionary Theory, State University of New York (2000)2y

What did Nietzsche mean by eternal return or eternal recurrence?

There are three main sources of Nietzsche’s doctrine of the eternal return:

The Gay Science, Book Four, section 341 (“The greatest weight”).

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part Three, “Of the Vision and the Riddle” and “The Convalescent,” and the sections that follow till the end of Part Three. See also “Of Redemption” in Part Two, and “The Intoxicated Song” in Part Four.

The Will to Power, Book Four, Part III (“The Eternal Recurrence”). Posthumously published notes. (These are the main sources in English; the Colli-Montinari critical edition of Nietzsche’s writings contains many other notes on the eternal return.)

In The Gay Science and Thus Spoke Zarathustra – that is, in the work Nietzsche himself published – the eternal return is presented as a psychological thought-experiment and as a vision, respectively. Only in the unpublished notebooks does Nietzsche experiment with the eternal return as a metaphysical doctrine or scientific hypothesis. These notes do contain interesting speculations, however, and are useful for attempting to interpret the eternal return as it appears in the publications that Nietzsche himself authorized. Canvassing all of the sources yields certain clues. The thought of the eternal return is terrifying, paralyzing, nauseating, will-destroying, and life-negating, at least in part, it seems, because it renders individual existence meaningless. On the other hand, there is a sense in which it is a “necessary” idea, if not because it can be proven, then at least because it is the “greatest weight” – an idea that is maximally threatening to life – and as such ought to appeal to the strong, heroic spirit who craves that which is difficult just because it is difficult (cf. the image of the camel in “The Three Metamorphoses”). In addition, there seems to be some perspective, perhaps the perspective on life provided by moments of deep joy, from which the eternal return is not life-negating but rather life-affirming, indeed the highest possible affirmation of life.

Zarathustra discovers this perspective, at least for himself, towards the end of Part Three of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The great difficulty is that although Zarathustra clearly states the life-negating version of the eternal return, he does not articulate the life-affirming version. In “Of the Vision and the Riddle,” Zarathustra describes a vision of time. The moment or instant of time is a gateway at which two paths “in eternal opposition” meet, one going forward eternally, the other going backward eternally. According to Zarathustra’s vision, everything that can happen must already have happened on the lane running eternally backward. Moreover, since “all things are bound fast together,” everything that can happen must happen again on the lane going eternally forward. Zarathustra then experiences a vision of a shepherd into whose mouth a snake, representing “all that is heaviest,” has crawled. Zarathustra at first tries to pull out the snake, but then shouts to the shepherd to bite off its head. After he does so, he becomes “a transformed being, surrounded with light, laughing,” and Zarathustra is consumed with the desire to experience this laughter that seems to be “no human laughter.”

In section 341 of The Gay Science, the eternal return is a thought-experiment: what would be the consequence, he asks, of believing it? In this version, the eternal return is formulated and two responses are suggested. The first is to “throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse....” The second is a “tremendous moment,” in which you say to yourself “never have I heard anything more divine.” Nietzsche seems to suggest that one ill-disposed to life would find the thought crushing, and that only one who is supremely well-disposed to himself and to life would “crave nothing more fervently” than its eternal return. In Zarathustra’s vision, as well, the shepherd before and after he has bitten off the head of the snake represents two opposed attitudes towards the eternal return.

But what is divine, or even significant, about the thought of the eternal return, in either its negative or affirmative version? In its negative version (the idea that whatever can be has already been an infinite number of times and will recur an infinite number of times), the doctrine suggests that in the long run individual life is insignificant, and hence that it is pointless to act, or to refrain from acting, in any particular manner. In other words, it is a way of expressing the idea that life is meaningless, or nihilism, the attitude that Zarathustra says is the hidden teaching of the wisest and that becomes a popular attitude over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Is Zarathustra (or Nietzsche) saying, then, that the most intensely life-affirming spirit will succeed in affirming the meaninglessness of life? Or (it is not quite the same thing) that affirming the meaninglessness of life is the highest possible affirmation of life?

The importance of the “gap” and the need for a re-interpretation of the eternal return that displays the latter as an affirmative thought is shown in two places, “Of Redemption” (in Part Two) and “The Convalescent” (Part Three). In “Of Redemption,” Zarathustra shows why willing, which up to that point he had unreservedly praised, is self-defeating: it cannot “will backwards.” He then explains that the will must be “taught to be reconciled with time, and higher things than reconciliation.” In this way, it seems, the will can “will backwards.” “All ‘It was’ is a fragment, a riddle, a dreadful chance – until the creative will says to it: ‘But I willed it thus! Thus shall I will it!’” But after stating this task, Zarathustra “suddenly broke off and looked exactly like a man seized with the extremist terror.” Zarathustra’s terror, I think, is his reaction to his Hintergedanken, the thoughts behind his thoughts, which are more terrifying even than the eternal return. The latter, as he tells the dwarf in “Of the Vision and the Riddle,” is an “abyssal thought.” But even more terrible is the thought that the universe is and remains fragment, riddle, and chance, and that its redemption through an “I will,” as difficult (and therefore attractive) an achievement as that may be, is finally unreal. It is unreal because, as Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good and Evil, there is no “doer behind the deed”: the autonomous self, as something separable from its actions, is an illusion. The act of affirmation or the creation of value is not something done to the world, as it were, from the outside, but simply one possible (and therefore necessary) state of the world itself, one more manifestation of the will to power.

In any case, the reader is given no explanation of how Zarathustra proposes to will backwards. The gap in Zarathustra is most clearly seen in “The Convalescent.” Zarathustra accepts the eternal return, which begins to destroy him until, after a period of unconsciousness followed by seven days of fever and fasting, he regains his health. At this point, his animals state what he has presumably learned: “‘Everything goes, everything returns; the wheel of existence roles for ever. Everything dies, everything blossoms anew; the year of existence runs on for ever’.” This sounds like the version of the eternal return that we have heard and that almost crushed Zarathustra, but the latter denies it, saying that his animals have “made a hurdy-gurdy song of it.” This does not mean that the animals’ version is wrong; the “hurdy-gurdy song” is presumably an oversimplified, parodic version of the perspective that Zarathustra has achieved. But because it is oversimplified, it is not quite right, either. The affirmative version of the eternal return, then, must be similar but not identical to the animals’ (negative) version. It will be some re-interpretation of the negative version such that it can be affirmed, at least by Zarathustra.

Note that in the animals’ version, the eternal return seems to express the idea of time going on indefinitely while repeating certain patterns, much like the cyclical change of the seasons. What is curious about this version, it seems to me, is that it expresses an idea of temporality, not eternity. The immortal is a temporal experience, and pertains to the endless continuation of life. The eternal, on the other hand, is the experience or condition of timelessness, i.e., the absence of temporal succession – virtually the opposite of immortality. Yet Zarathustra has not presented a promise of immortality. In his “Vision,” Zarathustra speaks of lanes that travel backwards or forwards “eternally,” and the “return,” of course, is characterized as “eternal” rather than continuous, perpetual, or immortal. Now, it is not obvious why a person who is well-disposed to his life would fervently crave its “eternal return” in Zarathustra’s (explicit) sense. What returns is one’s life exactly as one has lived it, and that precludes memory of its earlier instantiations. There can be no subjective experience of its return. If we know anything about the eternal return, then, it is that it does not imply immortality or perpetual life. We should take Zarathustra at his word, and inquire into the significance of eternity. But we should also anticipate that Zarathustra’s idea of eternity is unconventional.

In a note in The Will to Power from 1885 (note 1062), Nietzsche writes that if the cosmos had a goal, or even an unintended final state, it would already have been reached. He is assuming, without explanation, infinite time and a finite amount of force. The claim that the eternal return follows from these assumptions, and the assumptions themselves, are dubious, but we can put that aside for the moment. The key point is Nietzsche’s conclusion that the world has no purpose – that is, none beyond its immediate existence. The chaotic becoming that characterizes a purposeless cosmos is in no sense “creative,” as if the world possesses “the power of infinite transformations” and is constantly generating novelty. The eternal return asserts rather that the world as it exists at any given moment is already fully present and complete, so that what returns just is eternity, and there is nothing further to accomplish, achieve, or reveal beyond what is at the present moment. If each moment is equally pointless (because it is not a step on the way to a final purpose), then each moment is equally valuable – depending on one’s attitude. At the same time, the return of eternity does not imply stasis or “being,” as opposed to “becoming.” It is, rather, sheer, chaotic flux and becoming. The eternal return demands that we think the ultimate nature of reality as at once fully present and achieved and as continually changing and transfiguring itself. The way to do this, it seems, is to think of it according to the formula that everything that can happen has happened an infinite number of times and will happen again infinitely. This formula captures both the sense that the world has no purpose and hence is at every moment fully achieved, and the sense that as such it is a temporal process of transformation, differentiation, flux, or becoming.

Fire, which traditional Zoroastrians worship as an image of the deity, is an apt figure of this formula. A flame is nothing but the continual transformation of elements into other elements, yet it is nonetheless complete at every moment of its life, and has no purpose other than to consume itself in its manifestation. The world, like fire, has no purpose beyond being what it is, i.e. assuming all of its possibilities, and it is therefore better understood as a morally unaccountable game than as an instrument of divine, natural, or human purpose. It is in this sense that Nietzsche writes, in The Will to Power, “an anti-metaphysical view of the world – yes, but an artistic one.” The world is an aesthetic phenomenon, a form of play, a game, and not a moral project: morality, rather, is one among the many possibilities or masks assumed by life. In the same vein, Nietzsche writes (in Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks) of Heraklitos’ vision of the cosmos as “the game Zeus plays,” or the game “of the fire with itself.” Again, the gravamen of these formulations is a view of the world as (a) becoming rather than being, (b) undetermined by an overarching goal or purpose, and (c) meaningful, if it is, on aesthetic grounds, i.e. as play, appearance, performance, and activity for its own sake.

One implication of all this is that the eternal, for Nietzsche, is not identical to timelessness (“timelessness,” Nietzsche notes in 1885 [The Will to Power, 1064], “to be rejected”). Indeed, the eternal return would be oxymoronic if eternity meant timelessness, since returning implies temporality. (In a way, the phrase is appropriately oxymoronic, as I’ll try to explain.) What is to be thought, evidently, is the combination of the idea of becoming, which is temporal, and eternity, which transcends temporality. Ordinarily we think of becoming as the process in which an initial state or beginning, x, is transformed into an end state, y. But Nietzsche is adamant that there is neither an initial state nor an end state, and asks us to conceive the idea of a sheer becoming that has not begun at some moment and will not end. Unmooring the ordinary idea of becoming from the concept of a beginning and end disrupts the ordinary idea of time as linear succession by introducing to it the idea of eternity, but retaining the idea of becoming disrupts the idea of eternity by introducing to it the idea of becoming. The eternal return is an especially dynamic (and difficult-to-grasp) concept because it works against eternity by means of time, and against time by means of eternity. What is eternal, and fully present and achieved at each and every moment, just is temporality, i.e. becoming, which, as Gilles Deleuze writes in Nietzsche and Philosophy, has never begun to become and never stops becoming. To put it differently, the world is finite (everything that can happen has happened, so that there is “no escape” [The Will to Power, note 1066]), but not in the sense that it possesses a beginning or an end. Eternity, so to say, is change in a mode that implies neither beginning nor end nor, therefore, direction. In yet another register, the present tense is inseparable from the past and future tenses. The present is not a pure, self-defined instant, but rather contains within itself the phenomenon of passage. The present just is that which passes and so makes way for the future, and what returns eternally just is the moment of passage, or becoming. In this way, the eternal return is consistent with Nietzsche’s affirmation of Dionysos, the avatar of that which ebbs and flows or comes and goes, as the continual renewal of desire, satisfaction, and further desire.

This is evidently different from the ordinary concept of eternity in which time “stands still” and all temporal markers disappear, at least until one’s normal temporal awareness returns and so assigns the experience of eternity to a single moment in a linear succession of the moments that constitute one’s life. This conception is part of what Nietzsche rejects in Arthur Schopenhauer’s philosophy as naively “optimistic,” a quasi-Platonic suspension of willing in favor of a transcendent world beyond “this” world that Schopenhauer thought was accessible through art (especially music) as well as ecstatic experience. In contrast to Schopenhauerian timelessness, Nietzsche insists on the orgiastic and “earthly” character of an existence in which the will to power, properly sanctified, seems worth the destruction of individual egos that its growth necessitates. The individual can affirm life in this sense, however, only if she is intoxicated with it, since embracing one’s own downfall is not a rational thing to do. The value of intoxication is to celebrate (and, as Dionysos, to deify) the destruction of rational, egoic consciousness on the grounds that sheer existence is sufficiently extraordinary to overcome its negative aspects from the point of view of the rational, egoic individual. Nietzsche counterposes Dionysos to “the crucified” as two images of individual suffering: in the latter, suffering brings about a redeemed world and is retrospectively justified in its light; in the former, the world is already fully justified “as an aesthetic phenomena,” and the sheer miracle of existence shines through and overwhelms even the severest individual suffering. One must be drunk with life in order to affirm it, as it were, all the way down, e.g. to the point of pursuing life itself rather than this or that version of it or perspective on it. For this reason, one will pay close attention to, and attempt to think, feel, and act out of, those moments of joy when “the world becomes perfect,” as opportunities to fall into “the well of eternity,” i.e., to become intoxicated or seduced by life.

39.5K views

View 76 upvotes

View 5 shares

1 of 7 answers

Profile photo for Milind Gandhi

Milind Gandhi

Director in a software company (2013–present)8y

What are the arguments for and against eternal return?

Argument for "Eternal Return"

"Time" always existed and hence it's "infinite" in both directions, i.e. beginning-less & endless.

If the universe is not repeating in perfect pattern, then we can never reach the present moment. Because our history will also become infinite like "time". Infinite history requires infinite duration to pass and arrive at present, which implies that present moment can never occur ("Infinite Regress"). However we exist in present moment. Hence, "Eternal Return" is the only theory, which supports "our existence" as well as "infinity of time".

Some people (e.g. Bill Hall's answer) wrongly assume that only events and body etc. repeat, while the mind/brain or consciousness changes. But that's not right, because a different consciousness will make the event unique and hence again the history will become infinite. The key here is that history has to be finite, to be able to reach at the present moment. That means, same "you" will be asking this question and same "me" will be answering this question with same "Quora".

BTW, if you are interested, I have answered this theory in multiple ways:

Milind Gandhi's answer to If time is infinite, does it mean every event will repeat itself? For example, does infinite time imply that every person will be born many times? More simply, does a particular DNA string of finite size evolve infinitely many times?

Milind Gandhi's answer to Reincarnation: Will the Universe repeat itself with the exact history again, and again? (Think of a reason you might get Deja-Vu)

(Spiritually) Is Moksha a permanent state?

Argument against "Eternal Return"

There is Not a single argument against "Eternal Return", I could find so far.

Overcoming anxiety

If you understand this theory well, then it clearly implies that if all the events are repeating, then they are pre-determined. Hence there is nothing we can do about it. Whatever anxiety you are feeling right now, has already been felt before and will be felt in later cycles as well. I too share such anxiety more or less for past few months.

A small catch here is that, because all the cycles repeat in perfect pattern, we will never know anything outside the scope of that cycle. Which means, in next cycle we will never know until this moment, that we are continuously repeating. For argument sake, if we know, then that makes the event unique and breaks the cycle. But as we proved above, it's not possible.

I have added few verses of Bhagavad Gita in the wiki of Eternal return. They suggest, what Einstein suggested about "Big Bang" and "Big Crunch" in 1930's Cyclic model.

According to Gita & Buddhism, what we call "Self" is not the ultimate reality. The actual "self (Atma)" is void-ness/zero (Śūnyatā). When our consciousness vanishes, we assume this true self. Actually what we defined as "time" above, is also another presentation of our true "self (Atma)".

IMHO, to overcome this anxiety, one need to accept it. Because as part of cycle, this anxiety is bound to happen and will vanish when the right moment arrives.

1.9K views

View 5 upvotes

View 1 share

1 of 7 answers

Profile photo for Mohammadreza Sanayi

Mohammadreza Sanayi

PhD in Theoretical Nuclear and Particle Physics & Nuclear Physics, Bauman Moscow State Technical University (Graduated 2008)1y

What do you think of quantum randomized eternal recurrence?

It is more of a myth …………………..

The really true part of it is that It is one of the most remarkable results in physics: If you leave a complicated system to its own devices, it will eventually return to its initial state with almost perfect accuracy. For example, gas particles floating around randomly and chaotically in a container will eventually assume positions that correspond almost exactly to their initial positions. This “Poincaré recurrence theorem” is the basis of modern chaos theory. The extent to which it is also valid in the world of quantum physics has been investigated for decades. Now the TU Vienna has succeeded for the first time in detecting a form of “Poincaré recurrence” in quantum systems made up of many particles.

THIS DOES NOT QUITE WELL PROVES CORRECT FOR “QUANTA” .

85 views

View 1 upvote

View 1 share

1 of 1 answer

Profile photo for Bella Joy

Bella Joy

The Joy of Quora3y

What is your personal view on eternal life?

Immortality? If I were to be run over by a car and get back up again like the cat in Hocus Pocus?

My view? It has its pros and cons.

Pros: Immortality is amazing! I will probably get sick or starve for weeks on end, never notice, and I would still be fine! I would get to explore as much as I want, meet anyone that I would want to meet, literally do anything I would want to do! Go to jail for a whole (not eternal) lifetime? Get the death sentence? That wouldn’t be so bad, now would it?

Cons: Immorality is a curse! I’d know all the secrets to the universe and I still wouldn’t be satisfied! I’d live long enough to watch my family die and people from across the world suffer….and I would live on for two kalpas watching civilization prosper or go into extreme poverty! I would be wanted thanks to mortals since they’d think I would be a “witch” for living too long! The government would be after me! Cashiers at liquor stores would be asking my age and I’d say, “Oh, I’m 2.2 million years old!”.

FYI, I just came up with this from the top of my head. There’s a ton to write about eternal life (immortality), but yeah, I’d like to live as a mortal, thanks.

1.3K views

View 3 upvotes

1 of 37 answers

Profile photo for Brian Flanagan

Brian Flanagan

What are your thoughts on the idea of God returning to Earth? Do you think it's possible? Why or why not?

I’m ok with the idea, but my schedule is full next week, but I could take a zoom call following week if he, or she, is available.

Profile photo for Miyoko Tachibana

Miyoko Tachibana

NPO Volunteer, retired Japanese language teacher, 5y

What is eternal return? If you believe in it, why? Are we “aware” of our “return”?

Our souls originally came down to this three dimensional world from some higher dimentions. to work on your Karma which is the obstacle to make your soul purer and resonate with the higher dimensional frequency. When you leave earth, your life is judged by spiritual scale of love and according to the judgment, your soul spends certain amount of time(it is the spiritual world time) in the 4 th, and 5th dimentions and when you graduated from those dementional practices your soul can go to next higher dimention and Iyou finish the spiritual practice successfully, you can go higher above than 5th dimention where your soul originally came from . That is eternal return, I suppose. when your soul goes up to the 6 dimention or above, your soul does not have to come back to Earth any longer . Your soul journey will be only upwardly.

61 views

1 of 5 answers

Tell us why you are not interested.

Your input helps us improve this page for everyone.

Unrelated to this page

Downvote answer

Report

Profile photo for Bill Hall

Bill Hall

liberal arts educated ages ago. Add "it seems to me" to every claim I make.9y

What are the arguments for and against eternal return?

I'm sorry you are having anxiety, but if I understand your concern correctly, you are fundamentally mistaken about "returning". Assuming something akin to eternal returning can occur, it's not you who occurs again. Only something which on the surface appears to be you may happen again. It's similar to you mistaking your identical twin for yourself.

Your identical twin, even if somehow identical down to the quantum level, is not you. Instead, there are two separate brains, each experiencing their own consciousness. Even if two brains have the exact same experiences, it's still two different conscious experiences of the same thing.

If you find it upsetting multiple people who look like you may have lives similar to yours, I think you are being disconsiderate of the other people. They have just as much right to their lives as you do to yours. You don't hold the copyright to someone else's life experience, no matter how similar it might be to yours.

715 views

View 3 upvotes

1 of 7 answers

Profile photo for Don Luck

Don Luck

Former Retired Professor4y

Why do I feel like eternal return is possible such as reincarnation?

You want to keep your ego intact beyond death. The Buddha taught the assumption of a permanent “me” is an illusion. Jesus was anxious about dying but surrendered himself to the source of his life [whom he called “Abba” i.e. “Poppa”] saying “Your will be done” and “Into your hands I commit my spirit.” We need to surrender our egos. As Jesus put it, “Those who seek to gain their lives will lose them.” We did not give life to ourselves; it never was our possession. Hence we should surrender it trusting we belong to Something greater than ourselves and not try to figure it out. That really is trying to find a security that is centered in OURSELVES rather than aiming at getting BEYOND the ego [the Buddhas’s response] or surrendering in trust to God [Jesus’ response].

97 views

1 of 3 answers

Profile photo for Stefaan Codde

Stefaan Codde

source 5000 years old Ghost

Dec 13

What is your belief about an afterlife where souls can reunite throughout eternity?

Such thing does not exist.

Once dead, is dead.

If a witch passies a dead person the Ghost tries to enter the body of the witch.

Profile photo for Stephen Sibbald

Stephen Sibbald

Christian, geek, veteran, grandfather.Upvoted by

Michael Waits Sr

, MA Marriage and Family & Theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (2005)2y

Do you think eternal hell is fair?

In the Old Testament, two words are used for hell: sheol, which means the grave or a pit; and gehenna, which is the valley of Hinnom, a garbage dump outside Jerusalem. What you don’t find is a place of fire-and-brimstone, eternal torture and suffering, ruled over by the Devil — what we call hell.

Rabbinic tradition had a number of competing and contradictory ideas about the afterlife, and debate was common. In fact, in Acts, Paul deflected his prosecution by the Jewish religious leaders, and purposely caused a violent uproar, by simply pointing out that “the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.” (Acts 23:6–10)

In the New Testament, three words are used for hell: Gehenna, which means sheol, the pit where the dead and garbage is burned; and Hades and Tartarus, which are the Greek underworld. The imagery of a fiery hell is used in many places. But in each case it refers to the Greek myth (not sheol), and is not intended to be understood literally.

Judea was conquered and ruled by Greeks from 332 BC, and Greek education continued under the Romans. 350 years later, Jewish scholars were given a formal Greek education. This applied even to religious leaders such as Pharisees: for instance, we know Paul of Tarsus had a formal Greek education because of the proper Greek he used in his letters.

Throughout the NT, you can see Greek ideas seeping into common Jewish thought. For example, 1 Cor 13:12 “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face“ is an obvious allusion to Plato’s allegory of the cave, which Paul would certainly have been taught.

The Greek underworld - Wikipedia is another example of this. The Phlegethon River is the river of blazing fire associated with punishment, and this powerful imagery is used in the NT. For instance, Luke 16:22–24 reads, a “rich man died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away … So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me … because I am in agony in this fire.’ “

But no educated Jew of the first century would have believed that the Greek Hades was real. They would have held tightly to the Old Testament ideas of sheol. Some of the common people might have believed it, in the same way as some Christians today believe we will be punished if our evil deeds outweigh our good. Both concepts — fire-and-brimstone and weigh-scales — are useful for teaching but not mainstream doctrine or literal depictions.

In modern times, most of our popular concepts about hell come from:

literal interpretation of scriptural allegory, as described above;

pagan ideas. For instance, the word hell comes from Old Norse Hel, Loki's daughter who rules over the damned in Niflheim. Ideas about Niflheim have influenced our modern ideas about hell; and

images that were popular during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Two classic instances are Dante Alighieri’s novel Divine Comedy, and Michelangelo’s painting The Last Judgment. These images had obvious political objectives and dubious theological orthodoxy.

If we use a more sophisticated exegesis of scripture, we find that although hell does indeed exist, we know very little of its physical manifestation. What is certain is that it is a real place of immense suffering, whether physical, spiritual or both.

The best concept of hell I have encountered, which is both scripturally sound and pragmatically useful, is a place beyond the love of God. If we are created to love and be loved by God, then his absence would be agony. And the person who freely opts to live without God will get precisely what they want. I picture hell as rather like the grey city that CS Lewis describes in his book The Great Divorce.

So my answer to the question is yes, this sort of hell is an absolutely reasonable and just punishment for people who reject God.

Not likely.

144.8K views

View 265 upvotes

View 14 sharesAnswer requested by

Xavier Williams

1 of 64 answers

Profile photo for Coleman Maxwell

Coleman Maxwell

What is something that will go on forever?

Easy. Putting a slinky on an escalator.

Good day.… (more)

Profile photo for Roberto Vilar

Roberto Vilar

Learning to think with secular franciscans

What are the arguments for and against eternal return?

My wife is a Boudhist from south Corea.

She believes in eternal return.

She don't care a penny about it.

"Wath's the point, as I can't remember my previous experiences I only can focuse on this very present reality"

Her natural tendency to kindness and care are not motivated by any future expectancies. Previous difficulties and pains could provide the ground for It, not only in pre-existences of course.

Profile photo for Karen Guthrie

Karen Guthrie

Birth Doula for more than 90 births (2015–present)3y

Until death do us part, does eternal love exist?

I've been married for almost 40 years to the love of my life. We are closer every day. We have a daughter and we are very close to her too. Did we beat the odds? Yes. What did it take? Marrying my best friend, respect, caring more about the relationship than being right, talking it out if one of us seems unhappy, and choosing our words carefully at times. For example, for years he would say, "do you need help with that" and during a discussion we learned that I heard "this is your job but if you need to be bailed out I will do it" so I always said no. He changed it to"how can I help". Then I heard "this is OUR task where can I be useful". This is what people mean when they talk about working on your marriage. You have to talk to each other honestly.

6.8K views

View 16 upvotes

1 of 19 answers

Profile photo for Avien

Avien

learner of upanisads, various scriptures & traditional practicesUpdated 6y

What is your opinion about reincarnation?

Well my opinion is same as it is revealed by Scriptures.

“One dies as the first of many who will die and in the midst of many who are dying. This is how it was and how it will be. Like corn mortals ripen and fall, and Like corn they come up again”- KATHA UPANISAD

In Bhagwat Gita( Song Of God ), Lord Krishna says:

“Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.”

In Katha Upanisad, it says:

“Of those unaware of the self some are born as embodied creatures while other stays in the lower stage of evolution as determined by their own need for growth(Karma).”

It is believed when an atman or soul leaves a body; it finds body that suits the person’s need that just died. For instance, a lazy person who spends most of his life lying around may become a tree or a koala bear. It happens so that the person can realize for himself that it’s not what he wants and move on to next. This happens again and again until the he achieves illumination or Self-realization which is the ultimate goal of life.

2K views

View 8 upvotes

1 of 15 answers

Profile photo for Phil White

Phil White

Broadcast Engineer III (1991–present)

Dec 13

What is your belief about an afterlife where souls can reunite throughout eternity?

I’m an Atheist…….

When I go Mother Earth will divide me up so other life forces can live on……. ;-)

No afterlife……. ;-)

Profile photo for Rhasheed Vickers

Rhasheed Vickers

I always take notes in life, I also took Sociology classes1y

What are people's thoughts on the idea of eternal torment in hell?

Christians are at an impass on this. One side believes the eternal torment while the other believes in temporary torment until the lake of fire where hell and death will be destroyed.

I personally think that some will PROBABLY remain in the lake to burn such as false teachers with secret covenants with Satan and Satan alongside his angels. If anyone is to stay it may probably be them. Mostly though, I think the lake of fire is going to destroy everything and make all in it “ashes beneath our feet.” It's called the second death, not the second eternal life. GOD can kill the soul in hell. It's clues like that that hint towards the possibility that the lake of fire burns everything.

They will burn before the angels and prophets but at the same time, nothing of old will be remembered? Doesn't that mean what's burning will simply burn away.

If they are not to be remembered, then having a massive burning before angels that they see every day would make things kinda hard to forget. As massive fire pit with screaming and torment, emitting smoke and a massive glow, forgotten?

Also if they are to burn eternally before Abraham, the others, and angels, isn't that torment for them too? That means they have to watch them burn forever. All time. Eternity. Eons. It just doesn't make sense but at the time I am open to being incorrect and acknowledge that there are things I do not understand. Maybe it's eternal, maybe it's not.

130 views

1 of 3 answers

Profile photo for Richard Herbert Johnson

Richard Herbert Johnson

Former Self employed stand up philosopher2y

What are your thoughts on reincarnation as a form of afterlife?

The consciousness that is the foundation of the greater Cosmos evolves. It doesn’t just evolve in an abstract sense, it evolves in individuality, like you and me.

Each of us is an infinitesimal point of consciousness in a holographic fractal matrix of pure consciousness. We come from the eternal sleep of this infinite consciousness and evolve through the simplest lifeform to where we are now and beyond.

Of course this is just my thoughts on it.

Then there is the mud man with the missing rib, his wife, and a talking snake. This is another account of what existence is all about too.

Personally I prefer reincarnation in contrast to burning in a fiery pit in hell for eternity. It makes more sense to me.

43 views

1 of 4 answers

Profile photo for Suechie

Suechie

Spiritually Awake & Kundalini Awakened

Dec 14

What is your belief about an afterlife where souls can reunite throughout eternity?

It’s the absolute truth!

Profile photo for Jeffrey Werbock

Jeffrey Werbock

musician, lecturer, documentary film maker3y

Do you still think the eternal return will happen to us when we die?

When you say “us” (singular, “me”) what are you referring to? If you are referring to the body, then no, when the body dies, the body disintegrates and cannot sustain any living functions at all. If you are referring to the brain and the effect it generates that we call “I”, then you must understand the “I” function serves to support the survival of the body, just like any other vital function. The “I” of a body is part of the body’s navigational and guidance system helping to steer the body as it moves around searching for what it wants while trying to avoid what it doesn’t want. Right now your body’s “I” function is focused on reading these words, in case there may be some useful or interesting information here. When the body dies, its brain dies too, and all cognitive functions including the “I” feeling ceases to exist.

111 views

1 of 1 answer

Profile photo for Cindy

Cindy

What are your thoughts on the idea of God returning to Earth? Do you think it's possible? Why or why not?

GOD made each and every moon, planet, sun/star, universe, and galaxy; even beyond ALL we may be able to see at night! GOD is Larger than ALL we may see at night! GOD whole body canNOT “return”; GOD is already Seeing and Knowing ALL! GOD is invisible to anything we may see or even dream up! GOD is invisible to our sight!

GOD sent Jesus to be the Christ from and for GOD! GOD chose Jesus because Jesus is the only angel in Heaven that has Never ever Sinned! Never disobeyed GOD!

How about you read the Bible? The New Living Translation Bible is translated at the 6th grade level.

Profile photo for Alexandre Huat

Alexandre Huat

Ph.D. in Laboratory of Computer Science, Information Processing and Systems & Functional Imaging Quantification, University of Rouen (Graduated 2021)5y

How are we eternal?

I once found out a website about eternity that stated the following.

—

Definition. Something is eternal if and only if it has no beginning and no end.

Theorem. Everyone is eternal from its own point of view.

Proof. Nobody can perceive his own beginning since his senses build up while he is being born. And, nobody can perceive his own end since his senses extinct while he is dying. Thus it has been demonstrated.

—

This is the most convincing thing I have ever heard on eternity.

I’m trying so hard to find back this website! If anyone knows it, please share. This website was about a “society” of persons who are willing to seek the truth at any cost and by themselves with extreme rigor. I was not in a good mood when I found out this website so I did not bookmark it.

615 views

View 2 upvotes

1 of 8 answers

Profile photo for Sabri Shahin

Sabri Shahin

Senior SAP ERP Consultant at HP Enterprise Business (2006–present)6y

What are you thoughts on Averngers: Eternity?

The wise father threatens to punish the disobedient son, but he forgives; that is what the merciful father does; God has much more mercy than any merciful father

Scripture teachings include the threats for punishments, but it also includes the teachings of mercy and forgiveness; the wise and merciful father does not punish according to the threats; he asked us to forgive and he is the most merciful, most compassionate

In Luke 6:37 Jesus taught ‘Forgive, and you will be forgiven’

In Matthew 6:14 ‘For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you’

In Mark 11:25 ‘forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins’

In Acts 3:19 ‘Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out’

That is also what we should learn from the teachings and from the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:21-35

There are many scripture verses to teach us that Prophets asked God not to punish the guilty and disobedient people. Examples are Genesis 18:16-32, Deuteronomy 9:29, Exodus 32:12-13

There are also many scripture verses to teach us that God is the most compassionate most merciful

If the prophets have pleaded to God not no punish the disobedient, and since God has more mercy and compassion than the prophets, then people should hope that even the disobedient would be forgiven

The forgiven sinners are expected to regret their disobedience and to regret that they are not rewarded as good as the righteous obedient.

The following links include more detailed answers:

https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-our-purpose-of-existence-in-this-world/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/What-makes-us-happy-in-our-lives/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/Is-eternal-hell-fire-true/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/Do-the-successful-religions-have-any-universal-traits/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/What-three-things-should-I-do-before-I-die/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-humans-believe-in-a-god-or-gods/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-afterlife-What-happens-if-you-die-or-stop-existing/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/Are-human-beings-basically-good-or-evil/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-have-a-particularly-unique-philosophy-religion-or-world-view-you-can-share/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-only-one-religion-in-the-world/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/Do-All-religions-believe-in-Original-Sin/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/What-false-beliefs-do-people-arould-you-hold/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/What-can-you-say-and-feel-about-Jesus-Christ-and-his-atonement/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/Is-fate-part-of-the-Christian-religion/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/If-death-erases-everything-what-is-the-point-of-living-life/answer/Sabri-Shahin

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-formula-for-happiness/answer/Sabri-Shahin

81 views

1 of 1 answer

Profile photo for Tom Keller

Tom Keller

Interested in philosophy, science and rational thought.

What are your thoughts on the idea of God returning to Earth? Do you think it's possible? Why or why not?

If there was an omnipotent being, it could go anywhere it wanted. But, since I don't think God exists, I naturally don't think he/she/it will return anywhere.

Profile photo for The Elect

The Elect

Bible Investigator

Dec 13

What is your belief about an afterlife where souls can reunite throughout eternity?

My beliefs about this and ANY subject is based on the Word of the Most High and His Christ.

John 17:17

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

God's Word is Truth; The ONLY TRUTH

Profile photo for Roger White

Roger White

What's your view on the concept of "eternity"?

Eternity is not infinite time, it is awareness (what you are at a very subtle level) PRIOR to the creation of time.

There are sophisticated classical descriptions of pure awareness prior to creation in Hindu and Buddhist traditions

Ajātivāda - Wikipedia

The Absolute is not subject to birth, change and death Ajātivāda ( अजातिवाद ) is the fundamental philosophical doctrine of the Advaita Vedanta philosopher Gaudapada . [ 1 ] According to Gaudapada, the Absolute is not subject to birth, change and death . The Absolute is aja , the unborn eternal. [ 1 ] The empirical world of appearances is considered unreal , and not absolutely existent . [ 1 ] Gaudapada's perspective is based on the Māṇḍūkya Upanishad , [ 2 ] applying the philosophical concept of "ajāta" to the inquiry of Brahman, [ 3 ] [ 4 ] showing that Brahman wholly transcends the conventional understanding of being and becoming. The concept is also found in Madhyamaka Buddhism, as the theory of nonorigination. [ 5 ] [ 6 ] Ajātivāda: "A" means "not", or "non" as in Ahimsa, non-harm " Jāti " means "birth", "creation", or "change"; [ 1 ] it may refer to physical birth, but also to the origin or change of mental phenomena [ 7 ] "Vāda" means "doctrine" [ 1 ] Taken together "ajātivāda" means "The Doctrine of no-change" or "the Doctrine of no-origination". [ 1 ] The term "ajāta" is similar to the term "anutpāda" [ 8 ] from Madhyamika Buddhism, [ 3 ] [ 4 ] which means "having no origin", "not coming into existence", "not taking effect", "non-production". [ web 1 ] This has led some scholars to believe that the concept of Ajātivāda itself could have been borrowed from Madhyamika Buddhism. [ 9 ] However, it notably diverges from the main tenets of Buddhism, viz. Kśanikatva (momentariness) and Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) which all schools of buddhist philosophy accept as foundational. [ 10 ] [ 11 ] This distinction is further confirmed by Gaudapada's rejection of Śūnyatā (non-self) in favor of Ātman (self). [ 11 ] "Ajātivāda" is the fundamental philosophical doctrine of Gaudapada . [ 1 ] According to Gaudapada, the Absolute is not subject to birth, change and death . The Absolute is aja , the unborn eternal. [ 1 ] The empirical world of appearances is considered Maya (unreal as it is transitory), and not absolutely existent . [ 1 ] According to Comans, Gaudapada's perspective is quite different from Madhyamika Buddhist philosophy. [ 2 ] Gaudapada's perspective is based on the Māṇḍūkya Upanishad . [ 2 ] In the Māṇḍūkya Karika , Gaudapada's commentary on the Māṇḍūkya Upanishad , Gaudapada sets forth his perspective. According to Gaudapada, Brahman cannot undergo alteration, so the phenomenal world cannot arise independently from Brahman. If the world cannot arise, yet is an empirical fact, then the world has to be an unreal (transitory) appearance of Brahman. And if the phenomenal world is a transitory appearance, then there is no real origination or destruction, only apparent origination or destruction. From the level of ultimate truth ( paramārthatā ) the phenomenal world is māyā , "illusion", [ 2 ] apparently existing but ultimately not real. [ 12 ] In Gaudapada-Karika , chapter III, verses 46-48, he states that the quietened mind becomes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aj%C4%81tiv%C4%81da

I like Barry Long’s terminology of the same phenomena: God out of existence which is so pure that it has no qualities, prior to time and space, it is so pure that it can never move to create anything. For me, it is obvious that BL, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Paul Brunton, Franklin Merrell-Wolff et al are all describing the same thing.

Mysteriously, then there is God in existence, or God as existence. There are multiple levels, creation begins as transcendental idea. This concept exists in Plato (theory of forms) and many traditions, every object must first exist as a transcendental idea. So there is God in Existence, then the IDEA of time and space has been created, then the endlessly vast IDEA enumerating all of creation…. then on a outward level the energy and material layers of manifest IDEA.

On a practical level, you might experience awareness prior to the creation of time. For example, after meditating you might lie down and appear to sleep, yet profoundly, in this sleep, awareness was never lost, but no time elapsed in the continuity of awareness.

An eloquent, inspiring and detailed modern description of how awareness creates the world is in the first chapters of “The Origins of Man and the Universe” Barry Long. Or at the same level are the works by the authors listed above.

130 views

View 1 upvote

1 of 75 answers

Profile photo for Jon Miner

Jon Miner

Retired Teacher, who sometimes taught Psychology units.

Updated 8y

I believe that such a belief goes counter to every scrap of scientific evidence that has ever been discovered. Now I know that there are a lot of scientific discoveries that have yet to be made and a lot of pseudoscientific beliefs that are believed by many, which are in my opinion unbelievable. But still, people do think amazingly wrong things from time to time.

The idea states: "Everything that has happened has happened before and will happen an infinite number of times."

This belief runs counter to the ideas of uncertainty, randomness, and accident. And is against the ideas of conservation of… (more)

7 answers collapsed (Why?)

COMENTARIOS ARISTOCRATICOS

Saturday, January 18, 2025

ETERNO RETORNO DE LO MISMO

No comments:

Post a Comment

ggg

About Me