Subject: re: more e.r.
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 95 18:47:42 MDT
From: "Nathan Bauer" <njbauer-AT-acs.ucalgary.ca>


To Nathan Widder (et al),

To begin with, Nietzsche does not claim "that eternal return is
his original doctrine".  Or rather, he does not claim this all
the time.  In ECCE HOMO he suggests a link with ancient Greek
thought:  "The doctrine of the 'eternal recurrence,' that is, of
the unconditional and infinitely repeated circular course of all
things-- this doctrine of Zarathustra might in the end have been
taught already by Heraclitus.  At least the Stoa has traces of
it, . . ." ("B.ofT.",3 in ECCE HOMO)

Now, your view that, by e.r., Nietzsche meant only the return of
difference seems to be based upon several questionable
assumptions:

1) That the portions of 1062 which disagree with your hypothesis
can be interpreted as sarcasm.  I can see how the 2nd reference
to "eternal novelty" might be read in this way, but what about the
first mention of it near the beginning of the note?  Here, the
sarcasm seems to be directed squarely against those who believe
in the "miraculous power of infinite novelty in [the world's]
forms and states."

2) You appear to dismiss those passages that  argue against your
hypothesis.  Examples of this include the end of note 1065 and,
more importantly, note 1066, where Nietzsche presents the e.r. of
the same _and_ insists on its distinctiveness from "mechanistic
theory."  Here, the e.r. of the same is offered as Nietzsche's
hypothesis rather than as the nihilistic consequences of the
scientific spirit.

3) You ignore crucial passages in his published writings,
especially T.S.Z., even though Nietzsche repeatedly insists in
the last months of his active life that this work is the key to
understanding his thoughts on e.r.

Now, I want to restate my own position, for I don't believe that
I have made my position clear.  I am _not_ claiming that Nietzsche
insisted on the return of the same over the return of difference.
Rather, I believe that both of these cosmological/physical
hypotheses are present in WILL TO POWER.  It is only by ignoring
or "bending" certain passages that either hypothesis can be
claimed as the one "true" version of e.r. in the thought of
Nietzsche.

Finally, in considering Nietzsche's views on this subject, it is
important for us to ask ourselves why both of these cosmological
versions of e.r. are absent or only cursorily mentioned in his
published works.  Some have suggested that his true thoughts on
e.r. are found only in his notes (I believe that Heidegger is the
champion of this view), but Nietzsche's statements in ECCE HOMO
would seem to argue against this.
I think it's more likely that he deliberately left these
cosmological theories out, whether because he was not convinced
of them, or perhaps for other reasons.  Nonetheless, he did
believe that, regardless of their validity, the consequences of
the thought of e.r. were meaningful in their own right.  I agree
with him.

Sorry if I've been repeating myself, but I wanted to clarify my
views on this matter.  (Kind of fitting in a discussion on e.r.
anyways).

Bye,
   Nathan (njbauer-AT-acs.ucalgary.ca)


	--- from list nietzsche-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------