Abstract

Nietzsche's concept of eternal recurrence has traditionally been understood according to two primary interpretations: the cosmological and hypothetical. Those who opt for the cosmological suggest that recurrence is a factual, almost scientific, account of the circularity of both time and events. In opposition, Magnus, and those who accept the hypothetical position, offer circularity as an attitudinal approach to existence. This article argues that both understandings are suspect when confronted with the remainder of Nietzschean thought. As an alternative I will suggest that recurrence can only be grasped in the remainder can only be grasped in the recognition of the Moment' as the what' of the return