Talk:Eternal return

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Flat Circle"[edit]

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)[reply]

I hadn't heard of this before, but I just looked it up. It's a quote from a season 1 episode of True Detective which apparently caught people's attention and became a meme. It has some surprising longevity for a meme, presumably because it expresses an idea that most people haven't heard of in a vaguely impressive-sounding way (though of course the phrase is redundant if taken literally; there's no such thing as a three-dimensional circle). I don't think the quote should be included in the article, because it doesn't tell us anything new about the concept of eternal return, unless we've got a source that says this line from True Detective played a significant role in popularizing Nietzschean philosophy among the general public or something. 91.85.220.117 (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

@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:

  • I think generally that complex topics should be explained as simply as possible, especially in the lead. A phrase like "time repeats itself", while possibly over-simplistic, is much easier for the general reader to understand than "a permanent, fluctuating repetition of circumstances", which I think is not only denser but more ambiguous. Your changes to the lead also introduced two ideas – viz. that the concept is exclusive to continental philosophy, and that it always entails an ethical imperative – which are not found in the article or its sources.
  • Some minor changes that I'm sure were meant as good-faith copyedits have actually changed the meaning. "The Stoics believed..." has been changed to "Zeno of Citium, who believed...", but I'm not aware of any evidence that Zeno himself held this belief. "may have originated with Pythagoras" has been changed to "scholarly argued to have originated with Pythagoras", which is true but feels too limiting; I would take the latter phrase to mean that this is a novel theory proposed by modern scholars, when in fact the attribution is found in ancient Greek and Roman authors.
  • Some parenthetical date ranges have been removed, but I think these serve a useful purpose in an article that covers a span of some two thousand years. Readers may want to know, for example, when Origen lived in relation to Augustine, without having to click through to both articles to find out.
  • Changing "ise" to "ize" without consensus is inappropriate per MOS:VAR.
  • The introduction of Nietzche's ideas into the "Precursors" section is jumping the gun, and disrupts the flow of the paragraph. Possibly this quote could be incorporated into the "Interpretations" section, with regard to the question of how far Nietzsche believed in the idea as a scientific fact, though it would be helpful to have a secondary source that mentions it.

Sojourner in the earth (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your feedback TreeLethargy (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Influences[edit]

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)[reply]

@Soothsayer79: I agree that the article could be expanded, but I don't believe your recent edits are going in the right direction. This article is about eternal return (i.e., the eternal recurrence of the same), not about cyclic time in general, so the information you've added about Hindu/Mayan/Egyptian cosmology appears to be out of scope. Your claim that Pythagoras may have imported the idea of eternal return from Egypt looks like original research; given how little is known about Pythagoras's life and teachings, I'd be surprised if any reliable secondary sources could be found to support such a claim, but now that the material has been challenged, the burden (see WP:BURDEN) is on you to provide the sources.
There may be something to be said about the influence of Buddhism on Nietzsche's formulation of the theory. The content you've added about the similarity between samsara and eternal recurrence is cited to "Nietzsche and Buddhism", which in turn cites Guy Welbon, The Buddhist Nirvāna and its Western Interpreters. Neither source goes into much detail about eternal return, and I don't know whether Welbon's ideas are widely accepted, but it's possible that something about this could be added to the "Friedrich Nietzsche" section. However, these sources can't be used to imply that the Stoics were influenced by Buddhism, since their claims only relate to Nietzsche.
Your rewrite of the opening sentence is a copyright violation, in that it directly copies the wording of the cited source. This is a serious issue; it impacts Wikipedia's shareability and could get people into legal trouble. Please try to avoid this in the future.
And one last point, your popular culture section needs sources, not only to verify the content but also to demonstrate its relevance (see MOS:POPCULT). In other words, we need evidence that scholars who write about eternal return have also discussed the appearance of the concept in Battlestar Galactica, etc. This is important because otherwise there would be no limit to what could be added; there are probably thousands of references to eternal return in popular culture, and the section would soon overwhelm the article.
I'm going to follow WP:BRD and revert your changes; I would appreciate it if you could engage in discussion before restoring them. Thanks. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to establish that the concept of eternal return when it was formalised by Nietzsche did infact exist as the notion of cyclic time and that part of the formulation was not new. Please avoid reverting entire sections if you disagree with a subset of content. I am updating the defintion as per your suggestion to remove copyrighted defintions with an original definition. Also adding back representative image.
I will need to reference ancient influences to expand on the fact that all of these concepts, including how to overcome them on a personal level, were known at the time Nietzsche but embedded in religious teachings that not have the needed rigour Soothsayer79 (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment on MOS:POPCULT is interesting. This section needs to be incrementally improved as it adds to the understading of the primary topic but should be absorbed in main content where applicable, but I see now that ownership attitudes could have prompted movement of a lot of fundamentally intertwined sub-topics into the "See also" section instead which is why this particular page has not improved beyond the initial draft. Soothsayer79 (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem from the cited sources that the Pythogorean and Stoics notion of eternal return is not similar to Nietzsches intepretation, but in their description better resembles the cyclic nature of time "events repeating". As per reasoning in the first paragraph, wondering if these sections should be removed as out of scope, and speculative Soothsayer79 (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback and references @Sojourner in the earth. I have now added back some of the reverts with relevant citations where requested, more to come. Please edit/discuss specific sections before blanket restoration. Soothsayer79 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm following you here. Let me try and explain myself more clearly. The question of what is in scope for the article is not to be decided by editors like ourselves in isolation. We need to look at the sources. The question is: what do reliable sources talk about when they talk about eternal return?
So, for example, to justify the inclusion of the material on Stoicism, I would point out: (a) that reliable sources consistently use the phrase "eternal return/recurrence" when talking about Stoic beliefs (eg. [2] [3] [4]; (b) that these sources are clearly describing the same kind of thing as Nietzsche, viz. the reoccurrence of the exact same events; and (c) there are sources that explictly link Nietzsche's writings to these ancient doctrines (eg. [5]). This gives us grounds to say it's reasonable to discuss the Stoics' ideas and Nietzsche's ideas in the same article; the two sets of ideas belong to the same topic.
Your material on Buddhism meets the third of these criteria: there are sources which explicitly link Buddhist samsara to Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. This may justify the inclusion of this material in the Nietzsche section, but not in the lead or elsewhere, since we don't have evidence that samsara belongs to the general topic of eternal return, only that it might have influenced Nietzsche.
Your section on "Ancient Historical Influences" does not have any clear connection to the topic. The notion of cyclical time is a common one, but it is not the same thing as the Stoic/Nietzschean eternal return. Hindus and Mayans believe that the world is routinely created and destroyed, but they do not believe that exactly the same events re-occur each time. If you think it's important to include this information regardless, you need to demonstrate that reliable sources also consider this to be important background. I haven't seen any such sources, and as it stands the material you've added does not have any clear connection to the rest of the article.
Are you aware of the article Eternal return (Eliade)? You might have a stronger argument for the inclusion of this content in that article than in this one. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is not scoped to the Stoic/Nietzschean concept of eternal return, but also how it has been interpreted, reworked and evolved. I think it adds to context to show that similar ideas existing even notionally (and in religious texts/symbols) at the time that Nietzsche formulated his version. I think this evolution can be best described by listing the main tenets of this concept, which is currently missing in this topic.
Related point: There is some content pre-existing content here around the science/physics of dynamical systems. One could argue that it adds context but the sources provided do not link it to Stoic/Nietzschean eternal return in any way Soothsayer79 (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the article Eternal return (Eliade) and it is quite messed up in many ways, needs a complete rewrite imho. If you are implying we use that destination as a trash can for all seemingly unrelated content, then we are merely polluting Wikipedia. I think the aim here should be to arrive at a consolidated understanding, and not to resort to offloading if we cannot immediately connect ideas Soothsayer79 (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also noticed that current cited sources for inclusion of Pythagoreanism really don't equate Pythagoras's idea of reoccuring events to eternal return in any way, unless its via the Stoics. While it is true that Nietzsche probably had an admiration for the Greek philosophers, we can merely suggest that he might have been influenced. As mentioned before there is similar scant suggestion in certain sources that Pythogoras was influenced by the Egyption concept of transmigration of the soul Soothsayer79 (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I undersatand - I am continuously citing sources for content that am adding to this article, please have a look again at the additions and tag as {{Citation needed}} where you think its still needed. Of course I cannot keep doing this in one massive edit, especiually if certain wikizens are undoing it all at once without engaging in discussion. As I mentioned, I am not restoring this toi a preferred version, but incrementally adding content based on feedback received in this Talk page.
Case in point, having accepted the burden of proof, I have added reliable citations to works that suggest Pythogoras might have taken the idea of Metempsychosis/transmigration from ancient Egypt (although also have questionable sources that these came via the Orphic doctrine, so not included those bits). Therefore this necessitates establishing a connection to the theological Hindu/Mayan/Egyptian cyclic symbolism. Seems Pythogoras/Stoics didn't prophesize much beyond making the mental leap from transmigration of souls to repeatabilty of existence (both notions existed but it was a great feat nonetheless) but Nietzsche happily inherited those ideas Soothsayer79 (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the updated defintion in the lead/first section, I think it improves on the earlier one. But happy to take suggestions on specific segments of it Soothsayer79 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is primarily abouts Nietzsche's concept using the term he coined, I think the flow of the article needs to improve to focus more on that aspect. On that line, I have moved some content out of the lead section. P. D. Ouspensky is still mentioned there and has his separate section after Nietzsche. I am thiniking of reworking that to a broader Post-Nietzsche section hoping Ouspensky can be accomodated therin. Good to get your views on this Soothsayer79 (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also becoming clear the many academics think this is an undeveloped concept compared to Nietzsches other contributions. I want to explore that a little more, and if I find sufficient/relevant content, also thinking of adding a Criticism/Critique section towards the end. There is scatterd comment throughout this article but am sensing more was said disputing the topic after Nietzsche than Nietzsche actually described about the Eternal Return Soothsayer79 (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to walk away from this for a few days and come back to it fresh. I'll just point out for now that the short citations you've added (Joost-Gaugier, Riedweg, Gregory) don't link to anything. Post-Nietzsche could definitely be expanded; there's probably a lot to be said about Gilles Deleuze in particular. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the useful feedback and the pointers, have upadated those links now. On a somewhat related note, here is some holiday reading, that I found quite interesting which perhaps hints at the general direction I find myself taking this article to: https://bigthink.com/thinking/eastern-philosophy/ Soothsayer79 (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

: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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I am not convinced with your argument, you seem to be adamant to attribute its birth to the greeks, when sources clearly indicate the idea existed. As I stated before, please tag any specific content that you think does not have reputable references, and please avoid reverting to your own version - that does not help collaboration. Open to WP:OR/N to get external input on this matter. I've requested a third opinion WP:3O on this to move beyond the frequent reverts. This has also reverted a lot of other useful edits that do not concern the main point of disagreement

Soothsayer79 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

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.

Viewpoint by Sojourner in the earth
Okay, here's my perspective: Soothsayer79 is adding content to this article which states or implies that the idea of eternal return did not originate in ancient Greece, but evolved from Hindu/Buddhist beliefs such as samsara and the four ages of the world. None of the references they've added to the article support this claim, and they haven't been able to present any relevant sources when challenged. Per WP:BURDEN (see especially footnote b), I believe the burden is on Soothsayer79 to provide a source that justifies the inclusion of this information in the article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Viewpoint by Soothsayer79
Think its important to take a neutral viewpoint here and to have references that reveal the core supporting ideas within Nietzsche's formulation existed in ancient cultures, albeit with varying levels of formalism. Citations for all such references (where similarities and links have been drawn by scholars) via Ancient-Egyptian-Thought/Hinduism/Buddhism have been provided and scholars generally agree that Nietzsche was influenced by a variety of sources, and that there is academic benefit in viewing eternal return in this light. Also Pythogaras, the idea of metempsychosis, his education in Egypt, his Orphic background merely demonstrate root ideas that existed at the time in and around the Athenians (citations provided for all such links). I understand that Philosophy is often considered polluted by the mention of theological reasoning, but whatever side you are on, its difficult to deny that Nietzsche drifted a little too close to a very prominent theological concept here. May I add that Sojourner in the earth (who is the original creator/owner of this article) is not challenging specific additions/citations, but choses to blank out any possible mention of pre-Greek influence, and other article improvements with it. Soothsayer79 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I came here expressing interest in responding to the third opinion request. However I don't feel able or willing to resolve this properly and so I will relist the request and let someone else respond here. Thank you to both editors for your summaries and I'm sure they will be useful for whoever does provide the third opinion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Third opinion request has been relisted. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion. In response to request for sources, multiple sources for every content added here has been provided. I would ask reviewers/editors to read the speciific sources and include {{Citation needed}} tags if further are needed. Multiple sources mentioned have stated that there are similarities between eternal return and the Buddhist concept of samsara for example Soothsayer79 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soothsayer79: Can I take this response to mean that you intend to disregard this third opinion and continue to force your content into the article? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping the third opinion would actually take the time to review the specific references and not merely restate the accusation. Nothing is forced here, all I ask is you challenge specific sections and citations provided. Soothsayer79 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is not on others to challenge your additions, but on you to justify your additions. My third opinion would have been much the same as Nemov's. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a circular argument. By placing content with reputable references that contextualise, any new content can be justified provided it doesn't turn in to a trajectory. Stating that again asking for blanket justification, without actually reading already provided citations is really not helping progress this discussion Soothsayer79 (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are indeed going round in circles here. You still seem not to understand that we are not challenging the parts but the whole. Unlike Nietzsche, I'm not a fan of repeating myself, but I don't know how to put it any clearer than I already did:

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'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)[reply]
I absolutely agree, lets do it that way. I have previously pointed out that there is nothing to link Nietzsches concept with classical antinquity (both greeks & stoics) so thats also WP:SYNTH without any references that can establish a strong relationship. So that we're not following double standards here, I will remove that content, until we can establish that it belongs in this article. Once you have added convincing evidence that Nietzshes concept was based on the ideas formalised by the greeks about Metempsychosis we can add it back with relevant citations. Please avoid original research Soothsayer79 (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll play along, just to demonstrate the kind of sources you should be providing for your content. I don't know why you're bringing up metempsychosis, there was nothing about that in the article until you put it in there. Anyway, here are three sources that explicitly link Nietzsche's eternal recurrence with classical antiquity.
John Sellars, Stoicism, p. 152: 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.
The first of those sources was already in the article, the other two are literally the first two results I got from Google Scholar. That's how easy it should be to find sources to justify the basic structure of an article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last two references are certainly stronger than what was there before, and based on this we can certainly mention Stoics as a possible source, but it is still very incomplete.
When mentioning Stoic philosophy in this context, we are either talking about palingenesis or metempsychosis which are very similar terms (we should use the actual terms here, otherwise we risk misinterpretation). What was mentioned in that section in relation to eternal return, has a name (it certainly wasn't called eternal return at the time, but only similar as your sources clarify).
So if you are linking these as possible sources/inspiration for Nietzsche's concept, then why not go further? Do we want to stop at the Greeks to satisfy our western ego of originality/ingenuity, I certainly hope not.
The below Mind Journal article by Frederick Pollock clearly states an earlier link with the east
Marcus Aurelius and the Stoic Philosophy by Frederick Pollock, Vol. 4, No. 13 (1879), pp. 53...
...the earlier Stoics were not content with the uniformity of nature as an observed similarity of results in similar conditions, but by a strangely fantastic addition they imagined the conditions themselves as recurring on a vast scale.
They held, in common with the Pythagoreans, that the world is periodically destroyed and regenerated. Internal evidence and tradition both tend to show that the Pythagoreans got this doctrine, together with that of the transmigration of souls, from India. It is true that the details of the Pythagorean teaching are not sufficiently known. But both doctrines are set forth at some length in mythical fashion by Plato; the recurring cycles of the world's life in the Politieus, the transmigration of souls in the Phadrus. And in both places, especially the latter, the points of likeness to Indian belief are almost too many to be accounted for by coincidence. Probably both Plato and the Stoics borrowed from the Pythagoreans, though M. Aurelius exhibits one curious coincidence in detail with the language of Hindu philosophy which suggests at least a possibility of later independent communications with the East.
There are more references in the article that also show(ed) the other viewpoint that Pythagoras could have been influenced by his time in Egypt. I think that also deserves to be included to maintain neutrality. Not restating that here, as the point is the same.
Secondly, the strongest argument for the inclusion of Buddhist thought is/was also included as a reference and comes from Richard Welbon, Guy (1975). The Buddhist nirvāna and its Western interpreters pp. 186–187
Among several aspects of Nietzsche's thought which could be examined profitably in light of his Indian studies, the following three interrelated items may be singled out as most important: the notion of eternal return and the accompanying idea of its creative potential as the two may relate to Indian theories of samsara; Nietzsche's Zarathustra compared to the bodhisattva ideal in Buddhism; and finally, his concept of transvaluation and its possible ties with his own understanding of the Buddhist nirvana
There is again a lot more information about Nietzsche's links to Buddhism, and not needed in this article as there a more generic topic Buddhism_and_Western_philosophy#Nietzsche already in Wikipedia. However, mention is needed as its an important link
Your 3rd source, mentioning Nietzsche trying to provide a scientific argumentation for it needs further exploration here. Why was he trying to do this? If you try to contexualise that, you will need to provide the theological foundations on which this seemed to be based.
Your version of the article is somewhat incomplete and does not provide a holistic view needed to better understand the topic. Soothsayer79 (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nietzsche didn't call it eternal return either, he called it Ewige Wiederkunft des Gleichen. This article is not about the phrase, it's about the concept. Nonetheless, it so happens in this case that reliable sources do consistently use the phrase "eternal return/recurrence" when talking about Stoic beliefs. I pointed this out above and gave you three examples: if you missed them, here they are again: [6] [7] [8].
With regard to the above extracts, no, I'm not 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)[reply]
Please escalate this. I still believe you are arguing in good faith but ownership tendencies WP:OWN are preventing you from allowing other editors to improve this article beyond your version. You are refusing to review citations which go against your own views, which seems to be an extremely primitive way to collaborate. Soothsayer79 (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the admins aren't interested. Forget about it, I'm done. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soothsayer79 You have had the opportunity to state your opinion. It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and accept the consensus. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the third WP:3O process has failed here, simply because the primary dispute has not been understood by reviewers. Sojourner in the earth requested more citations to support the explicit mention of Eternal return among scholars that link to pre-Greek thought; that was the WP:ETIQ to agree on specific facts, and use that outcome to decide inclusion. So I am asking once again, have you as a third reviewer, actually looked at the provided citations that support the inclusion of eastern influences in to this topic? Are the cited sources reliable and why in your opinion are they not suitable for inclusion?
    If you look at the discussion thread here, you will realise that Sojourner in the earth started out reviewing the specific references, asking for more relevant citations to support, and then when more were provided, suddenly decided that none of the updates should be included. The accusation of WP:OR/N was used but just thrown out there, without specifically highlighting which sentence/paragraph did not have a reliable citation. Appreciate your input, nut WP:3O reviewers have responsibilty to get into some level of details here to sufficiently determine if already provided justification in terms of citations are enough or more justification is needed, which I am ready to provide Soothsayer79 (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So far at least 4 editors have disagreed with your position. You don't have to agree with the consensus, but when it's against you it's time to move on. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change "tenant" to "tenet"[edit]

"One of core tenant..." should read "One of the core tenets of..." 189.129.111.91 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected thank you! Soothsayer79 (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eternal_return&oldid=1214464002"