Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
In general, it is impossible to say that there is any formulated theory of eternal return. Nietzsche had an idea with such a name, which he was very interested in, and played a crucial role in the formation of his philosophy, but in the end Nietzsche never found how it could be integrated into science.�
Nevertheless, science has come a long way since the death of this philosopher, and along the way it has encountered almost the same problems that once puzzled Nietzsche. Twentieth-century physics was forced to problematize such fundamental concepts as the existence of an object and causality. What's wrong with Nietzsche? This raises the question of how much the answers of physics are similar to the answers that Friedrich anticipated with his philosophy.
And here just not everything is so clear. Of course, technically, hardly anyone will remember Nietzsche's ideas in physics. But let's look, for example, at the ontology of quantmech: there is no object whose position at each moment of time is strictly determined and completely mediated by its state at the previous moment of time; the object exists, but with a certain amount of uncertainty; moreover, it may end up in a state that no chain of continuous changes can be achieved from the previous ones (see, for example, Tunnel effect) or in a state that is possible only for a very short period of time and only because of the uncertainty mentioned above.�
What kind of existence is this that is so contradictory? But, on the other hand, is it so contradictory from the position of eternal return, which allows everything not to be present in the world forever (and thus not constantly run into insurmountable obstacles), but to constantly return: the way it is now possible, and as much as possible.
modern science is at a dead end, because it is guided by a selfish incentive, and the evolution of selfishness has come to the point of transferring the initiative to altruism… and this does not depend on the person, but on the Program of development of creation… and there are two ways to go… 1. start learning altruism and move on peacefully… 2. do nothing and nature will translate by Force and all sorts of troubles… we already feel this… more and more efforts and resources have to be devoted to helping other people in their distress…