The thesis of the following piece is that the eternal return of difference is the onto-ethicality of humanity. The idea of eternal return has emerged in various religions and societies throughout time — namely, the theory argues the universe goes through repeating stages of transformation in an infinite cycle. Though this idea of cyclical time lost traction with the rise of Christianity, Nietzsche reintroduced the concept, which became fundamental to his work, Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In presenting the idea of eternal recurrence, Nietzsche tasks us with the dilemma: what would we do if this were true? Rather than wallowing in despair at the fear of having to endlessly relive the tragic human condition, Nietzsche encourages us to embrace eternal recurrence — as this, he argues, is the ultimate expression of love for life and for life on Earth. However, the author of this piece argues all theory and conceptualization of the eternal return (even Nietzsche’s) takes a backseat to the “highest feeling” of the eternal return.
There’s no question the United States — and the globe — has been experiencing crisis and turmoil. Crisis Theory emerged as a response to assist those who faced unimaginable horrors while serving in WWII — can it help us now? How can we apply Crisis Theory to the U.S.’s political climate, institutions, policies, and laws; personal therapy sessions and individual mental health; and response to the COVID-19 global pandemic in order to enact positive change?
How has mate selection changed over time? How does assortative dating affect future populations?
Can extreme religious behavior or ideation be considered an addiction in the same way drug and substance abuse is? How can this categorization affect the way we understand mental health issues?
Can understanding the political trauma of the past help to contextualize the present?
What are the political ramifications of the different ways in which ideas are transferred from one culture to another?
How does religious violence occur? How do different ideologies justify violence? What is it about religious violence that seems to make it more violent?
Is religion inherently more violent than other ideologies? Do all ideologies have the propensity for violence?
How is a person defined? Is there a construct that accurately addresses the complexity of personhood?