PHIL1001 Philosophy Final Paper

• What should I choose? (blu3mo)
  • I’m still most interested in Nietzsche.

1. What (if anything) are we supposed to learn from the story of the Grand Inquisitor? What is Dostoevsky (or Ivan) trying to say with the story?
2. Despair, according to Kierkegaard, is the opposite of faith, but also a path that leads to faith (or can lead one to faith). How might Ivan’s despair over the suffering of children be read as an illustration of Kierkegaard’s idea?
3. Why does the mysterious visitor contemplate murdering Zosima shortly after he had confessed his crime to him? And why does he then confess to “everyone in the town”? He says, “I want to suffer for my sin!” What good will his suffering do anyone?
4. Nietzsche says (has Zarathustra say) that the idea of eternal recurrence is an “abysmal” thought, but also that it offers a kind of redemption. How can eternal recurrence be understood as an image of redemption?

• This seems interesting. (blu3mo)
• Eternal recurrence

5. Kierkegaard would (probably) regard Michel in Breathless as a man in despair, a man without a self. Nietszche would (let’s suppose) admire him as a free spirit. Who would be closer to the truth?
6. How does Nietzsche’s personal profession of faith in “brief habits” (The Gay Science §295) differ both from Kierkegaardian faith and from his own ideal of the “free spirit”?

• How to make it more original?

  • Address counterarguments: Acknowledge potential objections to your interpretation and address them effectively. This demonstrates your understanding of alternative viewpoints and strengthens your overall argument. (chatgpt)
  • Connect to contemporary issues: Explore how the concept of eternal recurrence and its implications for redemption might apply to current social, political, or cultural issues. This can demonstrate the relevance of Nietzsche’s ideas in today’s world and encourage readers to consider the potential impact of eternal recurrence on their own lives. (chatgpt)
    • This seems interesting.
  • It might be possible to bring up the topic of time theory.
    • Circular time and others
    • If we can relate it to the Game of Life, for example.

• Assumptions:

  • Determinism
  • Repetition

• “Abysmal”

  • Also related to the Buddhist concept of reincarnation

• Points that can be made:

  • The elimination of resentment based on the past
    • This is about “redemption”

• Overview:

  • “Eternal recurrence” leads to the following when believed in:
    • The first part is “abysmal,” and the second part is “redemption”
    • In a world where God is dead, it is a concept of belief, a fiction (quote)
  • Nietzsche denies the concept of “truth” from the beginning and argues that one should believe in this
    • It’s about the decision of what to believe;
    • Other reactive choices cannot affirm life
      • Christianity, nihilism
    • But with this, life can be affirmed
    • It’s like Pascal’s wager, so explain using a decision matrix

• As a premise, a deterministic worldview that repeats (eternal recurrence 1). Life can only be like this.

  • It eliminates the questions of “if it were like this” and “why is it like this” that were present in Christianity, for example
    • In this case, the deterministic aspect is important
      • If it is said to have already happened, the concept of determinism can be easily grasped

• The point of discussion is how to face destiny in everyday life.

• In a situation where it is said that you have to affirm or deny it because it will be repeated infinitely (eternal recurrence 2)

  • If that’s the case, it becomes necessary to affirm it, and that is considered redemption (about redemption)

    • To redeem what is past, and to transform every “It was” into “Thus would I have it!”—that only do I call redemption!

    • Litmus test
    • This is also called love of fate
  • Furthermore, to further affirm life
    • If there is even one thing that can truly be affirmed in life, then based on that, one can affirm everything in life
      • This seems like an empty philosophy
    • If we think about it mathematically, when we assume that it repeats infinitely, the calculation of + and - breaks down (eternal recurrence 3)
      • So, it becomes a matter of feeling

• Like Pascal’s Wager, it’s not about “truth”

  • Well, isn’t it the same?
    • Pascal: If you believe, there is “infinite gain,” so you should believe based on expected value calculation
    • Nietzsche: If you believe in the assumption (possibility) that everything is infinite,
      • If it is truly infinite: There is “infinite gain” in being able to affirm life
        • There are two infinities overlapping
      • Even if it is not truly infinite: There is the benefit of being able to affirm “one life” based on that
      • So, what if you believe?- Assumption is something that allows us to affirm life.

• Options:

  • Embrace nihilism and believe in eternal recurrence.
  • React against nihilism and embrace a philosophy that denies life.
    • This involves resenting fate and denying life. In Christianity, one might resent fate and hope for salvation after death, while in Buddhism, one might hope for a future life. Both deny life out of ressentiment.
  • If we consider the decision matrix, we would choose to believe in eternal recurrence.
  • Decision Matrix:
    • Believe in eternal recurrence and affirm life:
      • If eternal recurrence is true: infinite gain
      • If eternal recurrence is false: affirm one life
    • Deny eternal recurrence and deny life:
      • If eternal recurrence is true: deny forever
      • If eternal recurrence is false: deny one life
    • It is argued that we should believe in either case.
    • This emphasizes that eternal recurrence is not a fact, but something we should believe in instead of the idea of one life.