This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eternal return article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The phrase (time is a) flat circle is a fairly recent US idiom that refers the idea of eternal recurrence. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1D95:5AEE:422F:8A5B ( talk) 14:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
@ TreeLethargy: I don't want to come across like I'm trying to "own" the current version of the article (I wrote a large part of the current version under my former username, DanFromAnotherPlace), but since you didn't leave an edit summary it's not clear to me why you thought these changes were an improvement, so I'd like to discuss it further. I believe they were not an improvement, for the following reasons:
Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 04:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands fails to list and elaborate on all possible influences that could have led to the development of this idea in the early Greeks and Stoics. Greeks, Persians and their eastern counterparts visited each other from 500 BCE, cross-pollinated and shared some basic ideas across multiple disciplines. Nietzche himself was familiar with Buddhist concepts and seemed to have retained some Buddhist precepts in his philosophy. He knew Europe had a lot of catching up to do at the time, as he writes in Daybreak: [1] http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/friedrich-nietzsche/daybreak/aphorism-96-quote_59bf0e28b.html Soothsayer79 ( talk) 02:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The topic is not scoped to the Stoic/Nietzschean concept of eternal return, but also how it has been interpreted, reworked and evolved.I agree with this, and I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought the scope was that narrow. The article follows the course of an idea – from Pythagoras to the Stoics, to Christianity, to Nietzsche, to Ouspensky, and to modern science – and every link in the chain is supported by sources that link the material in the same way. What I'm trying to get across to you is that it's not enough to say that you think your material adds context; you need to present reliable sources to show that academic scholarship draws the same connections that you are drawing in the article.I think you understand this because you keep raising concerns about the sourcing of the existing content. I'm sure this is well-intentioned, but it does gives the impression that you're trying to deflect from the fact that your own additions are insufficiently sourced. In any event, your complaints seem to be based on the assumption of a narrow "Stoic/Nietzschean" scope, so if we both agree that the scope is wider than this, we can move on. (I'll note, looking at it, that the Pythagoras section relies too heavily on primary sources and could certainly be improved, but the link to Stoicism is confirmed by the cite to Zeller in the next section.)Re: Eliade, of course I wasn't saying that we should use that article as a trash can. Eliade uses the phrase "eternal return" in a different way (hence the separate article), and it seems to me that a discussion of Hindu/Mayan/Egyptian cyclic symbolism might not be out of place there. I haven't looked at the article in detail, so if you disagree, that's fine.I'd recommend that you stop restoring your preferred version of the article. This is edit warring, and will possibly get you sanctioned if you continue. And furthermore, it won't accomplish anything. This is a collaborative project – your only chance of getting your edits to stick is to convince other editors of their value. You need to demonstrate, with sources, that the material you're adding is relevant to the subject. I'm not necessarily saying it isn't relevant, only that you haven't demonstrated it. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 17:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:Lot of activity on this thread lately. Interesting discussion on possible links to theological and early greek ideas, but we must be careful here. There is value in knowing and listing similar notions, but is this topic specifically about nietzsches idea or the general idea that history repeats?
Elder Cunningham (
talk) 22:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock.
Nemov (
talk)
03:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@
Soothsayer79: I've been thinking about this and looking through some sources, hoping we could reach a compromise, but the fact is I fundamentally don't believe this content belongs in the article. I think I've adequately explained why already, but just to put my objections on a policy basis I'll link you again to
WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
That, in my opinion, is what you're doing here; you're implying, and in some cases claiming directly, that the concept of eternal return originated somewhere other than ancient Greece, without having presented a single source that makes the same claim.
I don't think that continued back-and-forth between the two of us will be productive, so unless any page watchers want to chip in, I suggest we take this to WP:OR/N for some outside input. Do you agree? Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 19:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Soothsayer79 ( talk) 23:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
IOHANNVSVERVS (
talk ·
contribs) wants to offer a
third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
Response to third opinion request: |
There needs to be reliable sources to justify the inclusion of any material. An editor cannot look at two sources and draw a conclusion. That's WP:SYNTH and a form of original research. Anything that's not clearly backed by sourcers doesn't belong. In the situation here we have material that's been added and challenged on the grounds that is not sourced. It is up to Soothsayer79 to provide sources that back the additions. I hope this helps. Nemov ( talk) Nemov ( talk) 14:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
I'm going to restore the pre-dispute version once again. There is now a sufficient consensus here that the onus is on you to convince us that your edits are appropriate, not the other way around. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 02:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." That, in my opinion, is what you're doing here; you're implying, and in some cases claiming directly, that the concept of eternal return originated somewhere other than ancient Greece, without having presented a single source that makes the same claim.
There are also a number of striking resonances between Nietzsche's own philosophy and Stoicism, although almost all of them need to be qualified carefully ... Nietzsche outlines a concept of eternal recurrence, although not necessarily as a cosmological doctrine.Michael Ure, " Nietzsche's Free Spirit Trilogy and Stoic Therapy", p. 76:
Nietzsche develops a quintessential Stoic ethic, anchored in the complete affirmation of natural necessity, and he does so on the basis of Stoic physics and cosmology ... We can clearly see the convergence of cosmic Stoicism and Nietzsche's ethics in his own account of the affirmation of eternal recurrence.Eric Oger, " The eternal return as crucial test", pp. 1–2:
Nietzsche as a classical philologist knew very well that a great number of versions of similar doctrines existed already in the antiquity: Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Plato and the Stoics among others. This is evident from his autobiography Ecce Homo: "The doctrine of 'eternal recurrence', that is to say of the unconditional and endlessly repeated circular course of all things – this doctrine of Zarathustra could possibly already have been taught by Heraclitus. At least the Stoa, which inherited almost all its fundamental ideas from Heraclitus, shows traces of it" (KSA VI: 313 [EH81]). And yet, he sometimes calls this doctrine new (KSA IV: 275; also KSB VI: 112). This could be because – in contrast to the philosophical speculations from the antiquity – he tried to provide a scientific argumentation for it.
linking these as possible sources/inspiration for Nietzsche's concept. I'm showing you why these two formulations of the idea belong in the same article, but the article does not revolve around Nietzsche. The article describes the history of an idea, and Nietzsche is a part of that history. Eastern religions may have inspired Nietzsche's philosophy, and therefore may, as I've already said, merit some discussion in the Nietzsche section of the article, but not in an independent section, and especially not in order to create the implication that the concept of eternal return originally came from the East, a claim for which you still have not been able to provide a single source.I no longer believe that you are arguing in good faith here, so I'm not inclined to engage with you any further. Please revert your POINTy removal of sourced content, or I'll escalate this to an admin noticeboard. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 17:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
"One of core tenant..." should read "One of the core tenets of..." 189.129.111.91 ( talk) 03:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eternal return article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The phrase (time is a) flat circle is a fairly recent US idiom that refers the idea of eternal recurrence. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1D95:5AEE:422F:8A5B ( talk) 14:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
@ TreeLethargy: I don't want to come across like I'm trying to "own" the current version of the article (I wrote a large part of the current version under my former username, DanFromAnotherPlace), but since you didn't leave an edit summary it's not clear to me why you thought these changes were an improvement, so I'd like to discuss it further. I believe they were not an improvement, for the following reasons:
Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 04:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands fails to list and elaborate on all possible influences that could have led to the development of this idea in the early Greeks and Stoics. Greeks, Persians and their eastern counterparts visited each other from 500 BCE, cross-pollinated and shared some basic ideas across multiple disciplines. Nietzche himself was familiar with Buddhist concepts and seemed to have retained some Buddhist precepts in his philosophy. He knew Europe had a lot of catching up to do at the time, as he writes in Daybreak: [1] http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/friedrich-nietzsche/daybreak/aphorism-96-quote_59bf0e28b.html Soothsayer79 ( talk) 02:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The topic is not scoped to the Stoic/Nietzschean concept of eternal return, but also how it has been interpreted, reworked and evolved.I agree with this, and I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought the scope was that narrow. The article follows the course of an idea – from Pythagoras to the Stoics, to Christianity, to Nietzsche, to Ouspensky, and to modern science – and every link in the chain is supported by sources that link the material in the same way. What I'm trying to get across to you is that it's not enough to say that you think your material adds context; you need to present reliable sources to show that academic scholarship draws the same connections that you are drawing in the article.I think you understand this because you keep raising concerns about the sourcing of the existing content. I'm sure this is well-intentioned, but it does gives the impression that you're trying to deflect from the fact that your own additions are insufficiently sourced. In any event, your complaints seem to be based on the assumption of a narrow "Stoic/Nietzschean" scope, so if we both agree that the scope is wider than this, we can move on. (I'll note, looking at it, that the Pythagoras section relies too heavily on primary sources and could certainly be improved, but the link to Stoicism is confirmed by the cite to Zeller in the next section.)Re: Eliade, of course I wasn't saying that we should use that article as a trash can. Eliade uses the phrase "eternal return" in a different way (hence the separate article), and it seems to me that a discussion of Hindu/Mayan/Egyptian cyclic symbolism might not be out of place there. I haven't looked at the article in detail, so if you disagree, that's fine.I'd recommend that you stop restoring your preferred version of the article. This is edit warring, and will possibly get you sanctioned if you continue. And furthermore, it won't accomplish anything. This is a collaborative project – your only chance of getting your edits to stick is to convince other editors of their value. You need to demonstrate, with sources, that the material you're adding is relevant to the subject. I'm not necessarily saying it isn't relevant, only that you haven't demonstrated it. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 17:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:Lot of activity on this thread lately. Interesting discussion on possible links to theological and early greek ideas, but we must be careful here. There is value in knowing and listing similar notions, but is this topic specifically about nietzsches idea or the general idea that history repeats?
Elder Cunningham (
talk) 22:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock.
Nemov (
talk)
03:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@
Soothsayer79: I've been thinking about this and looking through some sources, hoping we could reach a compromise, but the fact is I fundamentally don't believe this content belongs in the article. I think I've adequately explained why already, but just to put my objections on a policy basis I'll link you again to
WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
That, in my opinion, is what you're doing here; you're implying, and in some cases claiming directly, that the concept of eternal return originated somewhere other than ancient Greece, without having presented a single source that makes the same claim.
I don't think that continued back-and-forth between the two of us will be productive, so unless any page watchers want to chip in, I suggest we take this to WP:OR/N for some outside input. Do you agree? Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 19:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Soothsayer79 ( talk) 23:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
IOHANNVSVERVS (
talk ·
contribs) wants to offer a
third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
Response to third opinion request: |
There needs to be reliable sources to justify the inclusion of any material. An editor cannot look at two sources and draw a conclusion. That's WP:SYNTH and a form of original research. Anything that's not clearly backed by sourcers doesn't belong. In the situation here we have material that's been added and challenged on the grounds that is not sourced. It is up to Soothsayer79 to provide sources that back the additions. I hope this helps. Nemov ( talk) Nemov ( talk) 14:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
I'm going to restore the pre-dispute version once again. There is now a sufficient consensus here that the onus is on you to convince us that your edits are appropriate, not the other way around. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 02:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." That, in my opinion, is what you're doing here; you're implying, and in some cases claiming directly, that the concept of eternal return originated somewhere other than ancient Greece, without having presented a single source that makes the same claim.
There are also a number of striking resonances between Nietzsche's own philosophy and Stoicism, although almost all of them need to be qualified carefully ... Nietzsche outlines a concept of eternal recurrence, although not necessarily as a cosmological doctrine.Michael Ure, " Nietzsche's Free Spirit Trilogy and Stoic Therapy", p. 76:
Nietzsche develops a quintessential Stoic ethic, anchored in the complete affirmation of natural necessity, and he does so on the basis of Stoic physics and cosmology ... We can clearly see the convergence of cosmic Stoicism and Nietzsche's ethics in his own account of the affirmation of eternal recurrence.Eric Oger, " The eternal return as crucial test", pp. 1–2:
Nietzsche as a classical philologist knew very well that a great number of versions of similar doctrines existed already in the antiquity: Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Plato and the Stoics among others. This is evident from his autobiography Ecce Homo: "The doctrine of 'eternal recurrence', that is to say of the unconditional and endlessly repeated circular course of all things – this doctrine of Zarathustra could possibly already have been taught by Heraclitus. At least the Stoa, which inherited almost all its fundamental ideas from Heraclitus, shows traces of it" (KSA VI: 313 [EH81]). And yet, he sometimes calls this doctrine new (KSA IV: 275; also KSB VI: 112). This could be because – in contrast to the philosophical speculations from the antiquity – he tried to provide a scientific argumentation for it.
linking these as possible sources/inspiration for Nietzsche's concept. I'm showing you why these two formulations of the idea belong in the same article, but the article does not revolve around Nietzsche. The article describes the history of an idea, and Nietzsche is a part of that history. Eastern religions may have inspired Nietzsche's philosophy, and therefore may, as I've already said, merit some discussion in the Nietzsche section of the article, but not in an independent section, and especially not in order to create the implication that the concept of eternal return originally came from the East, a claim for which you still have not been able to provide a single source.I no longer believe that you are arguing in good faith here, so I'm not inclined to engage with you any further. Please revert your POINTy removal of sourced content, or I'll escalate this to an admin noticeboard. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 17:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
"One of core tenant..." should read "One of the core tenets of..." 189.129.111.91 ( talk) 03:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)