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…
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…
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?
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…
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…
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?