Nietzsche, Heidegger and the Eternal Return

Abstract

There is little doubt that Nietzsche was a major influence on Heidegger. In his work Nietzsche, however, Heidegger is guilty of nothing less than a gross misinterpretation of Nietzsche— specifically on the issue of the eternal return. This misinterpretation arises out of an attempt to appropriate Nietzsche and reinterpret him in such a way that he is rendered a prelude to Heidegger's own philosophy. Whether willful or not, Heidegger 's misinterpretation of the eternal return is the result of his reckless interpretive method, his failure to consider the many facets of Nietzsche's thought, and his insistence on interpreting Nietzsche on purely metaphysical grounds. goal of Heidegger's analysis of Nietzsche is to first prove that the eternal return was a metaphysical doctrine, and second, not to harmonize this interpretation with the rest of Nietzsche's philosophy, but to attempt to prove that this harmonization lies at the heart of Nietzsche's philosophy as the revaluation of all values. The doctrine of the eternal return of the same coheres in the most intimate way with that of will to power. unity of these teachings may be seen historically as the revaluation of all values hitherto (Heidegger 118). This however is quite an undertaking since, on close examination, the eternal return and the will to seem mutually exclusive; for, the eternal return would 'cap,' or conclude, the infinitely variable flux of the will to as always becoming—often described by Nietzsche in appealing to Heraclitus. Heidegger discusses this in relation to Alfred Baeulmer. He quotes Alfred Baeumler's claim that only one can be valid: either the doctrine of eternal return or the doctrine of will to power and adds to that, According to Baeumler's account, the doctrine of eternal recurrence implies bringing Becoming to a standstill. With his either/or, Baeumler presupposes that Heraclitus teaches the