Eternal re-occurence, truth or wankery? Local, historical, cosmilogical, relative?
Personally: all of the above. In my perspective, the law of conservation of energy and an hope of being able to do something the Right way, compels me. Et tu, /lit/?
>>2524540
>law of conservation of energy
only a few rationalists have faith in this
>>2524540
Even if net energy is constant, your consciousness is a function of the pattern of matter/energy locally, which will definitely not persist after your death.
The Souls is wishful thinking, enjoy your one life you know you have.
>>2524540
From a personal perspective I feel like I have lived and died the same life over and over again so I don't know.
However, all it takes it one super intelligent AI turning the universe into a super computer and reversing entropy and then figuring out how to invade other dimensions.
Of course "simulation argument"
judging by this thread it's definitely wankery
>>2524540
Cyclical history, it happens for a reason. From the Empires in the West to the East they all observed this phenomena. Buddhism is practically all about stopping it kek
>>2524540
Truly the only solution is a breeding program & a 4,000 year giant worm tyranny.
>>2526371
>implying this is even possible without a giant worm
>>2524800
Seriously though how do you explain spoopy phenomena like the hundredth monkey experiment or when you can tell your being watched simply by people looking at you.
>>2526407
Those are /x/ tier.
Eternal reoccurrence seems to just be another way to create something ungodly in place of the final judgement of G-d, thereby giving them reason to love, and live a good life.
Haters will say this is untrue
>>2527159
This interpretation would only be held by someone who believes in G-d, so it's not really a legitimate critique of the concept, more of a way to demonize a philosophical opponent's motives that address the heart of the issue.