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. (shrink)

This dissertation examines Nietzsche's enigmatic concept of the Ubermensch. Many endeavors have been made to elucidate this term and all have confronted certain problematic areas concerning the Ubermensch. First, there are very few direct references to the term, and this applies not only to the published works but also Nietzsche's notes. Secondly, and more importantly, whenever Nietzsche does comment on the Ubermensch he does so with a vagueness that always leaves one puzzled concerning the concept. What results is a questioning (...) of the reasons for this lack of clarity: does it derive from the concept itself or from an inability on Nietzsche's part to expound on the Ubermensch? ;In attempting to answer this question, Nietzsche's relation to Dionysus is examined since he suggests that his entire philosophy is a result of a Dionysian Experience of man and existence, and not a Socratic experience. What is contrasted are two perspectives on existence: the Socratic which is grounded in the Greek term , and the Dionysian which is based on . Both of these perspectives offer a corresponding telos in correlation to their experiences of man and existence. The Socratic, which Nietzsche presents as the major influence on Western philosophy, seeks a telos which corresponds to its desire for , a telos of an Eternal nature. The Dionysian perspective, on the other hand, recognizing the Primordial Unity of existence and the aesthetic nature of man seeks a telos which complements a non-metaphysical existence; a telos termed by Nietzsche the Ubermensch. ;From these proceeding I conclude that the Ubermensch is necessarily vague as it is a non-descript term based on aesthetic projection rather than Socratic . The Ubermensch is a Dionysian telos that represents an ability to project a future derived out of the process of Uberwindung rather than a definitive, descriptive telos that would be universal for all men. Hence, the Ubermensch must remain amorphous for to clarify it once and for all would be to Socratically project in Error. (shrink)