Topics Philosophers

Question Nietzsche seemed to believe that eternal recurrence was a reality if time were infinite, which we know it is not. Therefore, does anyone now take his views on this matters seriously (other than metaphorically as a guide to the type of life one might lead)?

Accepted:
December 4, 2006

Comments

Nietzsche was very careful in his presentation of the notion of 'eternalrecurrence'. In his published work, it is always put forward as a hypothesis --the purpose of which is, as you say, something like a guide. Mainly innotebooks did he experiment with trying to demonstrate it as a metaphysicaltruth. Assuming for the moment that we disregard Nietzsche's well-knownscepticism concerning the standard modes of metaphysical argumentation, theargument does indeed require as one of its assumptions the infinite extent oftime. But this is not the only assumption: he also requires a broadlydeterministic conception of cause and effect, the idea that all events areinextricably interconnected, and the principle of the conservation of energy.And many of these assumptions, also, he himself challenges elsewhere.

In brief, in order to take seriously the eternal recurrence as ametaphysical claim, you would need to redefine almost beyond recognition manyof the constituent concepts. One such attempt, controversial and difficult, isin G. Deleuze, especially in his book on Nietzsche and in Difference andRepetition.

Question Nietzsche seemed to believe that eternal recurrence was a reality if time were infinite, which we know it is not. Therefore, does anyone now take his views on this matters seriously (other than metaphorically as a guide to the type of life one might lead)? Accepted:December 4, 2006

Question Nietzsche seemed to believe that eternal recurrence was a reality if time were infinite, which we know it is not. Therefore, does anyone now take his views on this matters seriously (other than metaphorically as a guide to the type of life one might lead)?

Accepted:
December 4, 2006