================================================ Subject: Re: Way NCR - philosophy question From: "Tara" To: Date: Mon 30 Apr 2001 22:18:02 -0400 ================================================ There's actually some disagreement on whether or not he was insane, or just "deliriously intelligent". Regardless, I did already have my own ideas on the question, but it's not one that many people will even attempt to tackle. The list was kind of slow, so I decided to see what other people might think about it... I took a philosophy class, a psych class, and a sociology class during the same time frame a couple of years ago, and the combination made me very interested in seeing people's opinions on different intellectual and philosophical topics. That's why I don't complain when debates start on the list, unless the debate turns into personal attacks. (Which, unfortunately, has happened too often in the time I've been here). And just for the record, in my opinion, the answer is yes... whether the belief is self-engenderment or non-self-engenderment, a start point is still implied. If the universe didn't create itself, then something other must have created it. For something to be created, it has to have a start point. Eternal recurrence means basically a loop that just keeps going around, but a loop doesn't have a starting point (or an ending point). By definition, "eternal" has no beginning and no end, and therefore no creation... it just always has been. To say that the universe is both eternal and has a creator is contradictory. Tara ----- Original Message ----- From: Jackson Crawford To: Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 4:05 PM Subject: Re: Way NCR - philosophy question > Once again, here comes the fearless list philosopher to save the day! > Perpetual recurrence and universal extra-engenderment so somewhat > contradict each other, because hypothetically perpetual recurrence would by > nature lead right back to the original primitive state eventually, causing > an "other" engenderment. Now, it is possible that he believed that there had > to have been an ultimate cause of this cycle, and an ultimate effect - such > sentiments were common amongst humanistic philosophers. But really, I think > that his belief in an ultimate cause was more psychologically than > philosophically oriented, because he was, recall, insane, and his belief > that there was some sort of higher power giving him purpose was probably the > only thing that kept him alive in his later years. > He was a genius though, and one to whom Corvism and I owe a great debt. > Anyway, I don't know how much more to write on the subject - if you need > more information, or if I've completely missed the mark (you're not testing > me or anything, are you?), write for such. > > Jackson Wade Crawford - The Raven of Texas/ Corvvs Texanis/ Kruk Teksasu > International Director, Corvist Association for the Preservation and > Perpetuation of Free Will > > -----Original Message----- > From: Creed Discussion List [mailto:CREED-DISCUSS@WINDUPLIST.COM]On > Behalf Of Tara > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 11:39 PM > To: CREED-DISCUSS@WINDUPLIST.COM > Subject: Way NCR - philosophy question > > > Does Nietzsche's concept of the eternal recurrence contradict his own belief > that the universe is not self-engendered? > > To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: > http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp > > To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: > http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp