Ewige Wiederkunft, or similar expression. Eternal recurrence (or
‘return’) is among N’s most famous and widely discussed concepts. Eternal recurrence makes its first appearance at the end of the first edition of GS (GS341), in 1882. However, N discusses related ideas earlier (UM2.2, 9) and also earlier in GS (GS285, 334). The concept plays a very important role in Z (at EHZ1, N claims it is the central thought of that book), and appears regularly in N’s notebooks in 1885 and 1886. It gets a mention (albeit an important one) at BGE56. Thereafter, N gives less attention to the concept, although he does not disown it.
Generally speaking, there are two broad (and not mutually exclusive) ways of interpreting eternal recurrence. Either it is a metaphysical/cosmological claim concerning reality; or it is a test of – or element within – the highest affirmation of life. On the first of these interpretations, the whole of the real exhibits only so many possible combinations, which are interlinked and follow in a definite order. Thus in infinite time, the real must repeat itself in a vast ‘year’. On each cycle, exactly the same entities and events occur. N discusses and attempts to demonstrate this cosmological view mainly in his notebooks (see 1884.26.284, 1885.36.15, 1886.35.54–5, 1886.5.6–7, 54, 1888.13.14 – most of these are collected together as the last chapter of The Will to Power). However, many of the presuppositions of the argument, such as a
ETERNAl RECuRRENCE 119
deterministic view of events, are also found in published writings. In published writings, N occasionally comes close to stating eternal recurrence in its cosmological sense (e.g. BGE56).
The second interpretation is more important, not least because on its own the first is irrelevant with respect to human values or behaviours. To affirm eternal recurrence means to exist in such a way as to celebrate eternal recurrence as if it were a cosmological truth, to desire its truth. Only that form of life that has (i) overcome
nihilism, (ii) overcome also the temptation of pity for higher types
that are incapable of further development, (iii) overcome likewise the nausea at the thought of the periods of history dominated by
ressentiment or degeneration, and (iv) loves its fate (the notion
of amor fati), would be able to affirm the eternal recurrence of all things. Nihilism must be overcome because the affirmation of eternal recurrence is an assigning of value, but one that is immanent, rather than founded upon some origin or telos (end or purpose). Pity must be overcome because to will eternal recurrence is also to will the destruction even of higher humans, and in general one must will the rule which is the triumph of the ‘small’. Fate must be loved because the eternal recurrence demands a willing higher than just a reconciliation with or acceptance of fate (Z2.20, BGE56). That is, an affirmation, even a longing for (GS341). Moreover, affirmation of eternal recurrence is the love not only of the whole course of things, but specifically of my place within them. The love of fate must include gratitude towards the cruelty of accident and my own foolishnesses (i.e. the past must be redeemed), and desire for my own ‘going under’ (my self-overcoming so as to further the development of the human thereafter).
It might seem odd to talk about the development of the human in this context. That, though, is precisely the point: eternal recurrence demands that we free our thought from any false sense of purposes (i.e. from teleology) or origins. The ‘year’ has no beginning or end (or every moment is both beginning and end). What is important are moments of beauty and perfection in achievement, and moments of the feeling of the growth of power. The great human being returns ascending. Eternal recurrence is the affirmation of the moment, which is always in some sense the kairos (BGE274 – the right moment) and an opportunity to generate a future (the idea of a watershed, where things are delicately balanced and could go ‘either way’ – see Z4.1).
Likewise, it might seem odd to talk about eternal recurrence being some kind of test of one’s health and affirmative strength, since my attitude towards eternal recurrence is among the things that recur. A first answer to this is that, again, this is part of the point: the love of fate is premised upon the notion that I must joyfully consider that which is no one’s responsibility, not even my own, to be a product of my will. A second answer to this query requires that we distinguish between eternal recurrence as a view from outside of time (transcendent), and as a view from within (immanent). In Z3.2, when Zarathustra challenges that Spirit of Gravity, the latter jumps off and sits down on a rock – that is, sits by the side of the path, rather than on it. The dwarf is viewing eternal recurrence as if from the outside, and as if it did not contain the dwarf himself. That is, the dwarf is trying to think the whole thing as merely a cosmological truth claim. Viewed from the inside, eternal recurrence is not really about the deterministic repetition of things and events and associated metaphysical ideas. Rather, the thought pertains only to total affirmation of the moment. Accordingly, Z3 culminates in the various symbols of circularity becoming a wedding ring, symbolizing not a moving cycle so much as a bond of love (Z3.16). To be sure, in explicating the thought of eternal recurrence, it may be necessary to talk about circles of time, endless repetitions and so forth. Perhaps, however, this is necessary only as a first stage, and is not the core of the thought.
eternity
Ewigheit. In Christian thought, and in much of European
metaphysics, ‘eternity’ is a transcendent feature of the divine with respect to the created, or of the genuinely real with respect to mere appearance. It means either timeless, or time itself without end. In either case, eternity relies upon an opposition to the transient,
becoming character of appearances and the finite character of
human lives. See for example Plato, Timaeus 37c where ‘time’ is the ‘image of eternity’; Republic 608c; John 6:40 on ‘eternal life’; and finally also see Kant’s The Critique of Pure Reason where the form of time is unchanging but is not itself an object of experience (e.g. B224–5). N, however, rejects the distinction between apparent being and real being. Without a transcendent ‘eternal’