> I think the idea of ER contradicts Nietzsche's other theories such as will
> to power and his vision of superman.
>
> In one of his works, N tries to prove ER by using physics. He writes that
> the
> matter in the universe will form the same patterns again and
> again forever, because the number of combinations is finite; if the
> universe is a deterministic closed system and time is infinite, all
> possible
> combinations must occur not for once but for an infinite number of times.
> It is apparent that his view of the universe is a Newtonian one. (He, of
> course, knows nothing about the Big Bang theory or quantum mechanics.
> Thinking about it, these are still theories and maybe he is right after
> all.)
Big Bang theory would not necessarily preclude the rightness of ER as a
physics doctrine. Since time is infinite in big bang theory, the
premises necessary for an infinite recurrence is still there: One need
not have the present universe remain static in order for events to
repeat. It is enough to know that this universe in and of itself will
repeat.
> Original Newtonian thinkers (Deterministic Materialists, as they are called
> sometimes) such as Laplace theorize that if they knew the whole data
> concerning the positions and speeds of all bodies in the universe in a
> given moment, they could calculate the outlook of the universe in any
> moment in the future or in the past. This means that the future and the
> past are fixed patterns and events could occur only in one way. In other
> words and aspects this means that there is nothing such as free will, let
> alone
> will to power. Consciousness is just atoms bumping together, something
> happens because it had to happen, things couldn't be any other way. If one
> accepts N's proof for ER than he must also accept Laplace's (who was a much
> better physicist then N) proof for deterministic materialism (DM).
> As easily seen, DM leads one into a most perfect nihilism, which is even
> worse than Schopenhauer's philosophy, on the grounds that N attacks him.
The Will to Power does not depend on a free will foundation. All that is
needed for the Will to Power to be important is the psychological
doctrine of belief in one's ability to be free and have power over one's
own life. Even if all events are determined, the mere fact that we
believe ourselves to be free moral and aesthetic agents allows us to make
use of the will to power...the way in which we use it, of course, remains
up to us, and in that sense we are free...the bottom line: Thinking that
we are free is the very thing that makes us free.
> For a better discussion, please consider;
>
> 1. I am not a native speaker of English, and my native language (Turkish)
> does not even remotely resemble it. Naturally, Turkish does not resemble
> German, too. (Think about translations.)
>
> 2. Philosophy is one of my hobbies. I have read TSZ, BGE and EH in Turkish.
> I have also read some articles on N and his works in both Turkish and
> English.
>
> As a result, when you use philosopers' terminology abundantly and uncommon
> vocabulary too often, I just do not understand what you mean.
>
> Good day,
>
> N. Gizem Forta
>
> "I found the missing link between the animal and the civilized man; that's
> us."
>
>
>
> --- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---