Why Is Nietzsche's Eternal Return
Please read the case study entitled I Wouldn’t Change a Thing that you find in the reading assignment.
Based on what you have learned in this unit, answer the following questions:
Tanksley reports about her young life up to this point that “if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t change a thing.” Can you use this as a point of departure for defining Nietzsche’s eternal return and showing how it works?
Answer: Nietzsche’s eternal return " is a thought experiment in which one imagine that the life's choice they make will repeat forever"(Brusseau, 2012). Meaning that one should be aware that whatever decisions they make in life, will repeat in a loop. When Tanksley says that she "wouldn't change a thing", is does reflects the idea of what …show more content…
eternal return means, because the choices that she made, up to this point, per her accounts, comes naturally to her, so it maximizes who she is supposed to be, by allowing her to believe that these are worth living forever and ever again.
characterizing Tanksley’s professional life as one fit for approval by Nietzsche’s eternal return?
Answer: Now, when we look at Tanksley’s professional life as a Senator’s co-director of community affairs, right then contradict with Nietzsche’s eternal return.
Her job title itself has the word community in it, and supposedly she making decision that affects the welfare of other individuals there are part of that community. In other words, she is not solely looking out for herself, wherein in it does not fits in Nietzsche’s idea of each their own. Her career path is focused on making changes that will affect a great number of people, while she also mentions that “I didn’t choose politics, politics chose me”, which does not really fit the statement that “eternal return forces you to make your own decisions” (Brusseau, …show more content…
2012).
The values guiding Wallace Souza’s work as a news reporter in remote Brazil—especially the kinds of images judged appropriate for TV there—are quite different from those guiding TV reporting in the United States. Why does Nietzsche believe this kind of cultural clash is a reason to subscribe to the eternal return and simultaneously abandon traditional ethical theories, which attempt to pertain universally?
Answer: The example in the question reflects different Cultural ethics, which is based on the idea that whatever happens or the decisions one makes should be based on the culture of the place one is currently living, basically following the rules of that place and one would be all set with their ethical choices.
Per Nietzsche, this is a waste of time and that does not reflect who a person really is, one ethics decision will have to change from place to place, not allowing them to really be themselves. “Nietzsche’s proposal of living is beyond any traditional moral limit” (Brusseau, 2012). Hence, one could not break the rules of culturalism and still make that one essential decision in life, that if repeated forever, would be their own.
Tanksley reports about her young life up to this point that “working in the government sector where my daily responsibilities afford me the opportunity to empower and inspire everyday people is a career that ignites my passion for people.” How might an advocate of the eternal return respond to this sentiment? Explain.
Whose life seems more in tune with how you imagine yourself living the eternal return, Souza’s or Tanksley’s?
Why?
Answer: An advocate of the eternal return, when faced with the responsibility to empower and inspire people, would be going against its own interests, because to be able to inspire other, one should follow the moral principles of choosing between right and wrong. If Tanksley decides to steal, she would have made the wrong choice and would probably disappoint people. Now, if eternal return enthusiastic steal because they think is the best choice for his life at the moment, they would not be breaking any rule, because morality should be cast aside in their favor.
Therefore if I was to choose between the life of Souza’s TV report, politician, dealer and Tanksley’s director of community affair, I certainly would want to live over and over again as Tanksley, although I believe her life does not fully represent eternal return for the fact that she looks to empower people, It is much more of a interesting life, and as Tanksley describes, “it allows her creativity to flow in a sea of possibilities” (Brusseau, 2012). It may not have the excitement of the Amazon jungle, or the thrills of reporting the conflicts of drug dealing, nonetheless, it seems to be the right thing to do, which actually applies to having certain virtues, such as fairness, sincerity and civility, which I like to believe that I innately live by.
Based on what you have learned in this unit, answer the following questions:
Tanksley reports about her young life up to this point that “if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t change a thing.” Can you use this as a point of departure for defining Nietzsche’s eternal return and showing how it works?
Answer: Nietzsche’s eternal return " is a thought experiment in which one imagine that the life's choice they make will repeat forever"(Brusseau, 2012). Meaning that one should be aware that whatever decisions they make in life, will repeat in a loop. When Tanksley says that she "wouldn't change a thing", is does reflects the idea of what …show more content…
eternal return means, because the choices that she made, up to this point, per her accounts, comes naturally to her, so it maximizes who she is supposed to be, by allowing her to believe that these are worth living forever and ever again.
characterizing Tanksley’s professional life as one fit for approval by Nietzsche’s eternal return?
Answer: Now, when we look at Tanksley’s professional life as a Senator’s co-director of community affairs, right then contradict with Nietzsche’s eternal return.
Her job title itself has the word community in it, and supposedly she making decision that affects the welfare of other individuals there are part of that community. In other words, she is not solely looking out for herself, wherein in it does not fits in Nietzsche’s idea of each their own. Her career path is focused on making changes that will affect a great number of people, while she also mentions that “I didn’t choose politics, politics chose me”, which does not really fit the statement that “eternal return forces you to make your own decisions” (Brusseau, …show more content…
2012).
The values guiding Wallace Souza’s work as a news reporter in remote Brazil—especially the kinds of images judged appropriate for TV there—are quite different from those guiding TV reporting in the United States. Why does Nietzsche believe this kind of cultural clash is a reason to subscribe to the eternal return and simultaneously abandon traditional ethical theories, which attempt to pertain universally?
Answer: The example in the question reflects different Cultural ethics, which is based on the idea that whatever happens or the decisions one makes should be based on the culture of the place one is currently living, basically following the rules of that place and one would be all set with their ethical choices.
Per Nietzsche, this is a waste of time and that does not reflect who a person really is, one ethics decision will have to change from place to place, not allowing them to really be themselves. “Nietzsche’s proposal of living is beyond any traditional moral limit” (Brusseau, 2012). Hence, one could not break the rules of culturalism and still make that one essential decision in life, that if repeated forever, would be their own.
Tanksley reports about her young life up to this point that “working in the government sector where my daily responsibilities afford me the opportunity to empower and inspire everyday people is a career that ignites my passion for people.” How might an advocate of the eternal return respond to this sentiment? Explain.
Whose life seems more in tune with how you imagine yourself living the eternal return, Souza’s or Tanksley’s?
Why?
Answer: An advocate of the eternal return, when faced with the responsibility to empower and inspire people, would be going against its own interests, because to be able to inspire other, one should follow the moral principles of choosing between right and wrong. If Tanksley decides to steal, she would have made the wrong choice and would probably disappoint people. Now, if eternal return enthusiastic steal because they think is the best choice for his life at the moment, they would not be breaking any rule, because morality should be cast aside in their favor.
Therefore if I was to choose between the life of Souza’s TV report, politician, dealer and Tanksley’s director of community affair, I certainly would want to live over and over again as Tanksley, although I believe her life does not fully represent eternal return for the fact that she looks to empower people, It is much more of a interesting life, and as Tanksley describes, “it allows her creativity to flow in a sea of possibilities” (Brusseau, 2012). It may not have the excitement of the Amazon jungle, or the thrills of reporting the conflicts of drug dealing, nonetheless, it seems to be the right thing to do, which actually applies to having certain virtues, such as fairness, sincerity and civility, which I like to believe that I innately live by.