" At the same time, they mean to stand at the
beginning
of all; hence, to rule.
Heidegger - Nietzsche - v1-2
True, he tells the dwarf, "It is either You or me!
" and he knows that he is the stronger one; still, he is not yet master of his own strength; he must test it and thus attain it for the first time, in confrontation.
Whither the con- frontation tends, and what domain of provenance and dominion the thought of thoughts occupies, we have in the meantime considered.
With one eye on this domain we may now proceed to interpret the remainder of Zarathustra's tale.
Moment and Eternal Recurrence 177
Zarathustra is approaching his ownmost thought, fearing it more intensely with each advancing step. "Then suddenly I heard a dog nearby howling. " It is now a dog that comes into Zarathustra's vicinity, not an eagle with a serpent coiled about its throat; and now we hear, not the singing of songbirds, but a "howling. " Now all the images turn counter to the mood of the thought of eternal return.
When the dog howls Zarathustra's thoughts "race back" to his child- hood. The reference to childhood shows that we are now retreating to the earlier history of Zarathustra, the thinker of the thought of return, and also to the vast prehistory of that thought-to the genesis and emergence of nihilism. At some point in his childhood Zarathustra saw a dog, "bristling, its head raised, shivering in the stillest midnight, when even dogs believe in ghosts. " The scene, with all its counter- images, is thus defined in greater detail. It is midnight, the most remote time, the hour that is farthest removed from midday-midday being the time of the most luminous, shadowless moment. "For at that instant the full moon, silent as death, rose over the house and then stood still, a round, glowing coal; stood still on the flat roof, as though trespassing on a stranger's property. . . . " Instead of the brilliant sun it is the full moon that is shining here; it too is a light, but a merely borrowed light, the most pallid reflection of actual illumination, a diaphanous ghost of light. Yet it shines enough to affright the dogs and set them baying-"since dogs believe in thieves and ghosts. " At that time the child took pity on the dog that took fright at a ghost and yowled and raised a great din. In such a world compassion is most likely to be found among children-who comprehend nothing of what is happening and who are not of age with respect to being.
"And when I heard such howling once again I took pity. " Zarathus- tra reports that even now-though he is no longer a child-he slip~ into the mood of pity and compassion, imagining on the basis of that mood how the world must look. Through Zarathustra's words, Nietz- sche is here alluding to the time when Schopenhauer and Wagner determined his outlook on the world. Both of them taught, albeit in divergent ways, a form of pessimism-ultimately the flight into disso- lution, into nothingness, into sheer suspension, into a sleep which promised itself an awakening only in order that it might go on sleeping undisturbed.
178 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
Meanwhile, Nietzsche himself had renounced all slumbering and dreaming; for he had already begun to question. The world of Scho- penhauer and Wagner became questionable to him early on, earlier than even he knew, already at the time he was writing the third and fourth of his Untimely Meditations, "Schopenhauer as Educator" and "Richard Wagner in Bayreuth. " However much in both of these writ- ings he appeared to be an advocate of Schopenhauer's and Wagner's, and however much he wanted to be precisely that, here already we see a struggle for release, though not yet a real awakening. Nietzsche was not yet his own man, was not yet hard by his own thought. He first had to pass through the prehistory of that thought, and through the limbo that always leaves us so perplexed-a limbo of past experiences which we cannot truly come to terms with and of things to come which we cannot yet truly penetrate. Where exactly was Zarathustra? "Was I dreaming? Was I awakening? At one stroke I stood among wild cliffs, alone, bleak, in the bleakest moonlight. " Bleakness pervades the period
1874 to 1881, the years Nietzsche once described as the period in which his life plunged to its nadir. Nevertheless, the bleakness of this lunar light was peculiarly bright, bright enough to enable him to see and to be visionary, especially when he heard the howling of a dog, having in the meantime developed an ear for that miserable specimen which is more whelp than human being and which has lost all pride, believing only in its own believing and nothing more.
And what did Zarathustra descry in this bleak lunar light? "A man was lying there! " The italic print lends special emphasis to what is seen: a human being lying prostrate on the ground-not erect and standing. Yet this is not enough. "And, truly, what I now saw was unlike anything I had ever seen. " A man lying on the ground may be nothing unusual; and the experience that human beings do not often rouse themselves to stand, do not take a stand, that they generally lurch on with the help of crutches and supports, is a common one; and that humankind is in a wretched state is the customary jeremiad of pessimism, with all its inexhaustible twists and turns. Yet the way in which Zarathustra saw humanity at that moment was a way it had never been seen before. A human being, prostrate. But of what sort, and in what circumstances? "I saw a young shepherd, writhing, chok-
Moment and Eternal Recurrence 179
ing in spasms, his face distorted; a thick black snake hung out of his mouth. " It is a young man, then, one who has barely left his child- hood behind; perhaps he is the very one who heard the howling dog, namely, Zarathustra. A young shepherd, one who intends to guide and lead. He lies prostrate in the bleak light of illusion. "Had he been sleeping? A snake crawled into his mouth-and there it bit fast. "
By nuw we are sufficiently prepared to discern in the "thick black snake" the counterimage of the serpent that winds itself about the ea- gle's throat, the eagle in turn soaring in the midday sky and holding effortlessly in the heights. The black snake is drear monotony, ulti- mately the goallessness and meaninglessness of nihilism. It is nihilism itself. Nihilism has bitten the young shepherd during his sleep and is now firmly entrenched. Only because the shepherd was not vigilant could the power of the snake assert itself, could the snake wriggle its way into the young shepherd's mouth, incorporating itself in him. When Zarathustra sees the young shepherd lying there, he does the first thing anyone would do. He pulls at the snake, tugs at it, "-in vain! "
The implication is that nihilism cannot be overcome from the out- side. We do not overcome it by tearing away at it or shoving it aside- which is what we do when we replace the Christian God with yet another ideal, such as Reason, Progress, political and economic "So- cialism," or mere Democracy. Try as we might to cast it aside, the black snake attaches itself ever more firmly. Zarathustra thus immedi- ately gives up such rescue operations. "With one cry," he now relates, "it cried out of me. " What is this it? Zarathustra replies, "All my goodness and my wickedness. " Zarathustra's complete essence and his entire history precipitate in him and cry out, "Bite! You must bite! " W e need not say a great deal more in order to make the meaning of the passage perfectly clear. The black snake of nihilism threatens to inc~r porate humanity altogether; it must be overcome by those who are themselves inflicted with it and endangered by it. All tugging-all that frantic activity from the outside, all temporary amelioration, all mere
repulsion, postponement, and deferment-all this is in vain. Here nothing avails if human beings themselves do not bite into the danger, and not blindly, not just anywhere. We must bite off the head of the
180 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
black snake, its properly definitive and leading part, which looms at the forefront.
Nihilism will be overcome only from the ground up, only if we grapple with the very head of it; only if the ideals which it posits and from which it derives fall prey to "criticism," that is, to enclosure and overcoming. Yet such overcoming transpires only in the following way: everyone who is affected-and that means each of us-must bite into the matter for himself or herself; for if we leave it to another to tug at the darkling need that is our own, all will be futile.
-But the shepherd bit as my cry urged him to, bit with a good bite! He spewed out the snake's head, spat it far away, and leapt to his feet.
No longer a shepherd, no longer human, but as one transformed, il- luminated--one who laughed!
What sort of gaiety gives vent to such laughter? The gaiety of the gay science. Now, at the end of our long path, we recognize-and we recognize it as no accident but as the most intrinsic necessity-that at the conclusion of the treatise which Nietzsche entitled The Gay Science the thought of eternal return of the same is communicated for the first time. For this thought is the bite that is to overcome nihilism in its very foundation. Just as Zarathustra is no one else than the thinker of this thought, so too is the bite nothing other than the over- coming of nihilism. Thus it becomes transparently clear that the young shepherd is Zarathustra himself. In this vision Zarathustra is advancing toward himself. With the full force of his complete essence he must call out to himself, "You must bite! " Toward the end of the tale that Zarathustra recounts to the seamen-those searchers and re- searchers-Zarathustra poses this question to them: "Who is the shep- herd into whose gorge the snake crawled? " We can now reply that it is Zarathustra, the thinker of the thought of eternal return. Zarathustra's ownmost animals, his eagle and his serpent, exalt him only after he has overcome the world of the howling dog and the black snake. Zara- thustra becomes a convalescent only after he has passed through a period of illness, only after he has come to know that the black snake that chokes us pertains to knowledge as such, that the knower must also come to terms with the disgust occasioned by the contemptible human being as something that is necessary.
Moment and Eternal Recurrence 181
Now for the first time we can recognize the inner correspondence of the two passages from Part III of Thus Spoke Zarathustra on which we have been commenting. Now we understand why Zarathustra replies as follows to his animals, who wish to perform for Zarathustra's enjoy- ment the delightful ditty of the eternal return of the same in the loveli- est words and tones: "The intense disgust with man-this choked, me, this had crawled into my throat, this and also what the soothsayer had said: 'It is all alike, nothing is worthwhile, knowledge chokes. ' " Who- ever takes the thought of eternal return to be a ditty belongs among those who flee from genuine knowledge, inasmuch as such knowledge "chokes. " Thus in the episode entitled "The Convalescent," with ex- plicit reference to the section "On the Vision and the Riddle," precise- ly at the point when Zarathustra begins to respond to the animals' ditty, we hear the following:
"Oh, you rascally jesters and barrel organs, be still now! " replied Zara- thustra, smiling once again. "How well you know what had to be fulfilled in seven days-and how that beast wriggled down my throat and choked me! But I bit its head off and spewed it far away from me.
And you? You've made a hurdy-gurdy song out of it! Here am I, lying here, weary of this biting and spewing, still sick from my own redemption. And you looked on all the while?
These two distinct episodes, "On the Vision and the Riddle" and "The Convalescent," hence coalesce, both in terms of their content and their place in the work in question. We achieve a more balanced understanding of the book as a whole. Yet we must guard against the presumption that we now belong among those who really understand. Perhaps we too are mere onlookers. Perhaps we do not heed the second question Zarathustra poses straightaway to the crew. He asks not only "Who is the shepherd? " but also "Who is the human being into whose gorge all that is heaviest and blackest will creep? " The answer is that it is the one who thinks-in company with others-the thought of eter- nal return. Yet he or she is not thinking the thought in its essential domain until the black snake has penetrated the gorge and its head has been bitten off. The thought is only as that bite.
As soon as we understand this we realize why Zarathustra grows fearful when he thinks the thought of the moment, and why the dwarf,
182 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
rather than answering, simply vanishes. The moment cannot be thought before the bite has occurred, because the bite answers the question as to what the gateway itself-the moment-is: the gateway of the moment is that decision in which prior history, the history of nihilism, is brought to confrontation and forthwith overcome.
The thought of eternal return of the same is only as this conquering thought. The overcoming must grant us passage across a gap that seems to be quite narrow. The gap opens between two things that in one way are alike, so that they appear to be the same. On the one side stands the following: "Everything is nought, indifferent, so that noth- ing is worthwhile-it is all alike. "And on the other side: "Everything recurs, it depends on each moment, everything matters-it is all alike. "
The smallest gap, the rainbow bridge of the phrase it is all alike, conceals two things that are quite distinct: "everything is indifferent" and "nothing is indifferent. "
The overcoming of this smallest gap is the most difficult overcoming in the thought of eternal return of the same as the essentially overcom- ing thought. If one takes the thought ostensibly "for itself' in terms of its content-"Everything turns in a circle"-then it is perhaps sheer delusion. But in that case it is not Nietzsche's thought. Above all, it is not the thought "for itself," inasmuch as for itself it is precisely the overcoming thought, and this alone.
If we survey once again at a single glance our presentation of Nietz- sche's thought of eternal return of the same, we cannot but be struck by the fact that our explicit discussion of the thought's content has receded markedly before our constant emphasis on the right way of approaching the thought and its conditions. The conditions may be reduced to two-and even these cohere and constitute but one.
First, thinking in terms of the moment. This implies that we trans- pose ourselves to the temporality of independent action and decision, glancing ahead at what is assigned us as our task and back at what is given us as our endowment.
Second, thinking the thought as the overcoming of nihilism. This implies that we transpose ourselves to the condition of need that arises with nihilism. The condition requires of us that we meditate on the
Moment and Eternal Recurrence 183
endowment and decide about the task. Our needy condition itself is nothing other than what our transposition to the moment opens up to us.
Yet what accounts for the fact that with this thought it is precisely thinking, and the conditions of thinking, that are emphasized so essen- tially? What else could it be but the thought's "content," what it gives us to think? Accordingly, the content does not really go into abeyance, as it seemed to; rather, it comes to the fore in a singular way. For now the conditions of the thought-process as such thrust their way to the forefront. With the thought in question, what is to be thought recoils on the thinker because of the way it is to be thought, and so it compels the thinker. Yet it does so solely in order to draw the thinker into what is to be thought. To think eternity requires that we think the moment, that is, transpose ourselves to the moment of being-a-self. " To think the recurrence of the same is to enter into confrontation with the "it is all alike," the "it isn't worthwhile'; in short, with nihilism.
Only by way ofnihilism and the moment is the eternal recurrence of the same to be thought. Yet in such thinking the thinker as such slips into the ring of eternal recurrence, indeed in such a way as to help achieve the ring, help decide it.
Whence does it arise that precisely in the fundamental thought of Nietzsche's philosophy the recoil of what is to be thought on the think- er-and the thinker's being drawn into what is thought-come so deci- sively to light? Is it because this kind of relation between thought and thinker is instituted in Nietzsche's philosophy alone? Or does such a relation obtain in every philosophy as such? If the latter, to what extent is this the case? With that question we arrive at the second major division of our lecture course.
• See chapter 4 of Being and Time, sections 25-27. Cf. p. 24, above.
25. The Essence of a Fundamental Metaphysical Position; The Possibility of Such Positions in the History of
Western Philosophy
Whenever we think the thought of eternal recurrence of the same, what is to be thought recoils on the one who is thinking,· and the thinker is drawn into the thought. The reason for this is not simply the fact that the eternal recurrence of the same is being thought, but that this particular thought thinks being as a whole. We call such a thought "metaphysical. " Because the thought of return is the metaphysical thought in Nietzsche's case, it is characterized by the relationship of the recoil that includes and the inclusion that recoils. Of course, there must be a special reason for the fact that this relationship comes to prevail in such a conspicuous way precisely with Nietzsche, and that reason can lie only in Nietzsche's metaphysics; we can say where and how and why it lies there only if we have defined what we call meta- physics by means of a sufficiently clear concept. Such a concept must clarify what we mean by a "fundamental position. " In the designation "fundamental metaphysical position" the word metaphysical is not ap- pended in order to indicate a special case among "fundamental posi- tions. " Rather, the word metaphysical designates the domain that is opened up as metaphysical only by virtue of the articulation of a fun- damental position. If this is so, then what does the phrase fundamental
metaphysical position mean?
The title of this section, which indicates the task we have just out-
lined, bears a subtitle. The subtitle invokes the possibility of a
The Essence of a Fundamental Metaphysical Position 185
fundamental metaphysical position in the history of Western philos- ophy. Here it is not so much a matter of referring to the manifold approximations to such fundamental metaphysical positions and to their historical sequence. Rather, what we must emphasize is the fact that what we are calling a fundamental metaphysical position pertains expressly to Western history, and to it alone, helping to determine that history in an essential way. Something like a fundamental metaphysi- cal position was possible heretofore only in our tradition; and to the extent that such positions are attempted in the future as well, what has prevailed up to now will remain in force as something not overcome, not assimilated. Here we intend to discuss the possibility of a funda- mental metaphysical position in the most fundamental sense of the phrase, and not to sketch some sort of historiographical account. In accordance with what we have said, this fundamental discussion will nonetheless be essentially historical.
Since in the present lecture course we are to portray Nietzsche's fundamental metaphysical position, our discussion of that concept can only be of a preparatory nature. Furthermore, a well-rounded, essen- tial consideration of the matter is quite impossible: we lack all the prerequisites for such a consideration.
It behooves our tentative characterization of the concept fundamen- tal metaphysical position to begin with the word and concept meta- physical. We use the word to designate matters germane to "metaphysics. " The latter has for centuries referred to that range of questions in philosophy which philosophy sees as its proper task. Meta- physics is thus the rubric indicative of philosophy proper; it always has to do with a philosophy's fundamental thought. Even the customary meaning of the word, that is to say, the meaning that has come into general and popular use, still reflects this trait, albeit in a faint and fuzzy way. When we speak of something metaphysical we are pointing to reasons lying behind something else, or perhaps going out beyond that thing in some inscrutable way. We sometimes employ the word in a pejorative way, whereby those "reasons behind" a thing are taken as mere figments and, at bottom, absurdities; at other times we use the word metaphysical positively, taking it as referring to the impalpable and ultimate, the decisive. In either case, however, our thinking hov-
186 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
ers in indeterminacy, insecurity, and obscurity. The word refers more to the end and limits of our thinking and inquiring than to their proper beginning and unfolding.
Yet when we refer merely to the devaluation the word metaphysics has suffered we are not entertaining the proper significance of that word. The word and its origins are quite strange; odder still is its his- tory. And yet the configuration of the Western intellectual world and thereby the world in general depends to an essential extent on the power and preeminence of this word and its history. In history, words are often mightier than things and deeds. The fact that we ultimately still know very little about the power of this word metaphysics and its hegemony makes us realize how paltry and extrinsic our knowledge of the history of philosophy has remained, and how ill-prepared we are to enter into confrontation with that history, its fundamental positions, and the unifying and determinative forces within those positions. His- tory of philosophy is not a matter for historiography, but a matter of philosophy. The first philosophical history of philosophy was that of Hegel. He never elaborated that history in book form, but presented it in lecture courses taught at Jena, Heidelberg, and Berlin.
Hegel's history of philosophy is the only philosophical history heretofore, and it will remain the only one until philosophy is forced to think historically-in a still more essential and original sense of that word-taking its ownmost grounding question as its point of departure. Wherever this is already occurring, in its initial stages, it still seems as if it is all nothing more than a slightly altered formulation of the earlier "historiographical" interpretation of the history of philosophy. The fur- ther illusion arises that historical observation restricts itself to what has been and does not have the courage-does not even have the capacity - t o say something "new" of its own. The illusion will persist as long as there is no one who surmises-and is able to estimate the implica- tions of-the following fact: in spite of the ascendant power of technol- ogy and of the universally technicized "mobilization" of the globe, hence in spite of a quite specific preeminence of an ensnared nature, an altogether distinct fundamental power of Being is on the rise; this power is history-which, however, is no longer to be represented as an object of historiography. We allude to these matters here simply be-
The Essence ofa Fundamental Metaphysical Position 187
cause the following historical meditation on the essence of metaphysics may well seem to be nothing more than a highly abridged excerpt from some handbook or other on the history of philosophy.
Metaphysics is the name for the full range of philosophy's proper questions. If these questions are many, they are nonetheless guided by one single question. In truth, drawn as they are into that question, they are in effect but one question. Every question, and especially the one question of philosophy, as a question is always bathed in a light that emanates from the question itself. That is why the very inception of inquiry at the grand commencement of Western philosophy pos- sesses some knowledge of itself. Such autochthonous knowledge of philosophic inquiry initially defines itself by circumscribing and com- prehending what it is asking about. Philosophy inquires into the arche. We translate that word as "principle. " And if we neglect to think and question rigorously and persistently, we think we know what "prin- ciple" means here. Arche and archein mean "to begin.
" At the same time, they mean to stand at the beginning of all; hence, to rule. Yet this reference to the designated arche will make sense only if we simul- taneously determine that ofwhich and for which we are seeking the arche. We are seeking it, not for some isolated event, not for unusual and recondite facts and relationships, but purely and simply for being. Whenever we say the word das Seiende, we are referring to everything
that is. But when we inquire into the arche of being, all being-as a whole and in entirety-is placed in question. With the question con- cerning the arche, something about being as a whole has already been said. Being as a whole has now become visible for the first time as being and as a whole.
Whenever we inquire into the arche we experi~nce being as a whole at the very beginning, the very rise of its presence and radiance. When the sun begins to radiate its light we speak of "sunrise"; accordingly, we conceive of the upsurgence of what is present as such as a rise. We are asking about the arche of being as a whole, about its rise, to the extent that this rising pervades being in terms of both what it is and how it is. Thus we are asking about a kind of dominion. We mean to acquire knowledge concerning the rise and dominion of being as a whole; such knowledge of the arche is therefore to know what being is insofar as it
188 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
is being. Accordingly, the question of philosophy, as an inquiry into the arche, may be posed in the following form: What is being, insofar as it is viewed as being? Ti to on hei on? Quid est ens qua ens? This question, once its manner of inquiry has thus been established, may be simplified to the following formula: Ti to on? What is being? To ask this question, to find the answer to it once it has been posed and secured, is the primary and proper task of philosophy-it is prate philo- sophia. At its very commencement Western philosophy delineates philosophic inquiry in terms of the question ti to on? In that com- mencement Western philosophy comes to its essential conclusion. It is Aristotle in particular who achieves this essential clarification of philo- sophic inquiry in the most lucid way. Hence at the outset of one of his essential treatises (Metaphysics, VII, 1) Aristotle writes the following words: Kai de kai to palai te kai nun kai aei dzetoumenon kai aei aporoumenon, ti to on? "And so it is asked, from ancient times to the present, and on into the future, even though the paths to this question stop short or are utterly lacking,-What is being? "
In order for us to understand-and that means to assist in asking- this apparently quite simple question, it is important from the outset to attain clarity concerning the following point, a point we will have to think about again and again: inasmuch as being is put in question with a view to the arche, being itself is already determined. If we ask whence and in what way being rises and, as rising, comes to presence, being itself is already defined as the upsurging and as what holds sway and presences in such upsurgence. The Greeks called such rising- presencing governance physis. The. latter word means something else, something more, than our word nature. At all events, the following becomes clear: when the arche is sought, being itself is defined more closely, determined in a correspondingly far-reaching and penetrating way.
A peculiar experience arises as part and parcel of this process: in addition to beings that come to the fore on their own, there seem to be other beings that are first produced by human beings-whether such production occur in handicraft manufacture, in artistic performances, or in the ordered conduct of public affairs. Accordingly, one proceeds to make a distinction with respect to being as a whole between what is
The Essence ofa Fundamental Metaphysical Position 189
preeminently and straightforwardly physis, namely, on physei, and what is on technei, thesei, and nomoi. "'
The definitive meditation on being will always first cast its eye on being as physis-ta physei onta-there to perceive what being as such is. Such knowledge, related as it is to physis, is an episteme physike, "physics," though not at all in the contemporary sense of that word. It is of course nonetheless true that physics today has a great deal of work to do, more than it is aware of, or can possibly be aware of. "Physics" is perspective on, and circumspection within, being as a whole; yet its view to the arche always sets the standard. Thus within the philosoph- ical meditation on being (that is, on physis) there are studies that enter more deeply into being and its various regions, for instance, the inani- mate or animate; and there can also be studies that concentrate less on the characteristic details of a given region than on the question of what being is when viewed as a whole. If we designate the first series of investigations with the word physike, in the sense of scientia physica, then the second series is in a certain sense posterior to it; yet although it follows in the wake of the first series, the second series contains the ultimate and genuine studies. Viewed from the outside, in terms of the order, division, and sequence of the investigations and in terms of the kind of knowledge that is attained in treatises that come post physicam, such studies may be given the Greek designation meta ta physika. At the same time, what we have already indicated readily opens onto a further insight: inquiry into the arche asks what determines and domi- nates being as a whole in its governance. The question ti to on? in- quires out beyond being as a whole, although the question always and everywhere relates precisely back to it. Such knowledge of the physika is not merely post physicam but trans physicam. Metaphysics, meta ta physika, is knowledge and inquiry that posit being as physis. Meta- physics does so in such a way that in and through the positing it. inquires out beyond being, asking about being as being. To inquire into the arche-to ask the question ti to on? -is metaphysics. Or, to put it the other way around, metaphysics is the inquiry and the search
• That is to say, a distinction between beings that rise and come to presence under their own power and those that derive from the arts and crafts (teclmei), or are set down in words (thesei), or are proclaimed in laws (nomoi).
190 THE ETERNAL RECURRf~NCE OF THE SAMF.
that always remains guided by the sole question "What is being? " We therefore call this question the guiding question of metaphysics. *
The question "What is being? " inquires so universally and so en- compassingly that all the efforts incited by it at first and for quite some time afterwards strive after this one thing-to find an answer to the question and to secure that answer. The more this question becomes the guiding question, and the longer it remains such, the less the question itself becomes an object of inquiry. Every treatment of the guiding question is and remains preoccupied with the answer, preoc- cupied with finding the answer. The latter has assumed sundry con- figurations ever since the commencement of Western philosophy with the Greeks, as philosophy pursued its circuitous route through the age of Christendom and into the age of modernity and modernity's con- quest of the world, up to Nietzsche. Yet no matter how varied the configurations have been, they remain unified by the framework of the sole guiding question; once it is posed, the question seems to pose itself automatically-and hence to recede as a question. The question is not unfolded along the lines of its own articulation.
With the responses to this wholly undeveloped guiding question, certain positions adopted toward being as such and toward its arche arise. Being itself, as it is definitively experienced from the outset- whether as physis or as the creation of some Creator or as the realiza- tion of an absolute spirit-and the way being is defined in its arche provide the ground on which, and the respect in which, the guiding question troubles itself about the proffered answers. The questioners themselves, and all those who pattern and ground their essential knowledge and action within the realm of the prevailing response to the guiding question, have adopted a stance toward being as a whole, a stance in relation to being as such, in conformity to the guiding question-whether or not they are aware of the guiding question as such. Because the stance in question originates from the guiding ques- tion and is simultaneous with it, and because the guiding question is what is properly metaphysical in metaphysics, we call the stance that
• See Volume I of this series, section II, pp. 67-68, for further discussion of the
Leitfrage.
The Essence of a Fundamental Metaphysical Position 191
derives from the undeveloped guiding question the fundamental meta- physical position. "'
The concept fundamental metaphysical position may be grasped in propositional form as follows: The fundamental metaphysical position expresses the way in which the one who poses the guiding question remains enmeshed in the structures of that question, which is not explicitly unfolded; thus enmeshed, the questioner comes to stand within being as a whole, adopting a stance toward it, and in that way helping to determine the location of humanity as such in the whole of beings.
All the same, the concept of a fundamental metaphysical position is not yet clear. Not only the concept but also the historically developed fundamental positions themselves are necessarily in and for themselves altogether opaque and impenetrable. That is the reason we invariably represent the fundamental metaphysical positions-for instance, those of Plato, or of medieval theology, or of Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel-so extrinsically, according to the various doctrines and propositions expressed in them. The best we can do is to say what predecessors influenced these philosophers and what standpoint they adopt in mat- ters of ethics or in the question of the demonstrability of God's exis- tence or with regard to the issue of the "reality of the external world. " We invoke sundry "aspects," which apparently just happen to be there and which we take up as evident, totally ignorant of the fact that there can be such aspects only because a fundamental metaphysical position has been adopted here. The position in question is adopted because knowledge and thought themselves stand under the dominion of the guiding question from the very beginning. And the guiding question itself is not developed.
The concept of a fundamental metaphysical position and the corre- sponding historical positions themselves attain essential clarity and definition only when the guiding question of metaphysics and thereby metaphysics itself in its essence come to be developed. It is almost
• Die metaphysische Grundstellung, literally, "the metaphysical ground position. " Readers must hea1 in the word fundamental the German word Grund. Heidegger always and everywhere contraposes the guiding question of metaphysics to its grounding ques- tion, die Grundfrage.
192 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
superfluous to say that an original, thoughtful stance adopted with regard to a particular metaphysics is possible and fruitful only if that metaphysics is itself developed in terms of its own fundamental posi- tion and only if the way in which it responds to the guiding question can be defined. The mutually prevailing fundamental positions must first of all be worked out in and for every genuinely philosophical confrontation.
The essence of what we are calling a fundamental metaphysical position develops with and in the unfolding of the guiding question of metaphysics. Such unfolding of the guiding question is not solely and not even primarily motivated by the desire to achieve a better concep- tion of the fundamental metaphysical position as such. Rather, the determining ground of the development of the guiding question is to be sought in a renewed posing of the question, indeed, in a more original asking of that question. Yet that is not a matter we shall be able to treat here. What we are to communicate now is rather the bare result of the development of the guiding question. We shall present it in a highly compressed, well-nigh arid form, in textbook fashion, so that the inner articulation of the guiding question becomes visible-if only as a skeleton devoid of flesh and blood.
The guiding question of Western philosophy is, "What is being? " To treat this question as stated and posed is simply to look for an answer. To develop the question as it is formulated, however, is to pose the question more essentially: in asking the question one enters explicitly into those relationships that become visible when one assimi- lates virtually everything that comes to pass in the very asking of the question. When we treat the guiding question we are transposed forth- with to a search for an answer and to everything that has to be done on behalf of that search. Developing the guiding question is something essentially different-it is a more original form of inquiry, one which does not crave an answer. It takes the search for an answer far more seriously and rigorously than any straightforward treatment of the guid- ing question can-given the particular stance such treatment has adopted. An answer is no more than the final step of the very asking; and an answer that bids adieu to the inquiry annihilates itself as an answer. It can ground nothing like knowledge. It rests content with the
The Essence ofa Fundamental Metaphysical Position 193
sheer opinions it traces and in which it has ensconced itself. A ques- tion-especially a question that involves being as a whole-can be appropriately answered only if it is adequately posed in the first place. The guiding question of philosophy is adequately posed only when it is developed. Here the development assumes such proportions that it transforms the very question, bringing to light the guiding question as such in its utter lack of originality. For that reason we call the question "What is being? " the guiding question, in contrast to the more original question which sustains and directs the guiding question. The more original question we call the grounding question.
Whenever we present the development of the guiding question "schematically," as we are now doing, we easily awaken the suspicion that here we are merely making inquiries concerning a question. To question questioning strikes sound common sense as rather un- wholesome, extravagant, perhaps even nonsensical. If it is a matter of wanting to get to beings themselves-and in the guiding question this is surely the case-then the inquiry into inquiry seems an aberration. In the end, such an attitude, asking about its asking, seems nothing short of noxious or self-lacerating; we might call it "egocentric" and "nihilistic" and all the other nasty names we so easily come by.
That the development of the guiding question appears to be merely inquiry piled on top of inquiry-this illusion persists. That an inquiry concerning inquiry ultimately looks like an aberration, a veritable walk down the garden path-this illusion too cannot be squelched. Con- fronting the danger that only a few or no one at all will be able to muster the courage and the energy required to think through and ex- amine thoroughly the development of the guiding question; and in the expectation that these few might stumble against something quite dif- ferent from a question that is posed merely for its own sake or a piec:;e of sheer extravagance, we shall here undertake to sketch briefly the articulation of the developed guiding question.
The question asks ti to on? What is being? We shall begin to expli- cate the question by following the direction the inquiry itself takes, gradually unraveling all the matters we come across.
What is being? What is meant is being as such, neither some par- ticular being nor a group of beings nor even all of them taken together,
194 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
but something essentially more: what is meant is the whole, being taken as a whoie from the outset, being taken as such unity. Outside of this one, this being, there is no other, unless it be the nothing. Yet the nothing is not some kind of being which is merely other. How matters stand with the nothing is not the question we are now to pursue. We only wish to keep in mind the full range of the area we are approaching when we ask the question "What is being, being as a whole, this unity that admits no other? " Let us then resolve not to forget in anything that follows what it was that rose to meet us in our first tentative step in the question concerning being, namely, the incontrovertible happenstance that we stumbled across the nothing.
Seen from the point of view of the question iself, that which the question is heading toward is the matter to be interrogated-we may call it the field of the question. Yet this field-being as a whole-is not staked out in our questioning merely so that we can take cognizance of its incalculable abundance; nor is it our intention merely to make being a familiar station on our way; rather, the question aims right from the start at being insofar as it is being. With regard to the field of interrogation, we are asking about something that is peculiar to it, something that is most its own. What name shall we give it? If we interrogate being solely with a view to the fact that it is being, interro- gate being as being, then with the question as to what being is we are aiming to discover what makes being a being. We are aiming to dis- cover the beingness of being-in Greek, the ousia of on. We are inter- rogating the Being of beings.
In the field of the question, in the very staking out of the field, the goal of the question is itself already established-what we are asking for in the matter interrogated, to wit, the Being of beings. Just as we collided against the nothing when we undertook to set the field of the question in relief, so here the staking out of the field and the establish- ment of the goal that is at stake condition one another reciprocally. And if we may say that the nothing looms at the border of this ques- tion, then, in accordance with the reciprocity of the field and the goal of the question, we may experience the proximity of the nothing also in the goal, that is, in the Being of beings; provided, of course, that we are actually inquiring, that our aim is true, that we are on target. To be
The Essence ofa Fundamental Metaphysical Position 195
sure, the nothing seems to be an utter nullity; it is as though we were doing it too great on honor when we call it by name. Yet this utterly common affair proves to be so uncommon that we can experience it only in unusual experiences. The meanness of the nothing consists precisely in the circumstance that it is capable of seducing us into thinking that our empty chatter-our calling the nothing an utter nul- lity-can really shunt the matter aside. * The nothing of being follows the Being of being as night follows day. When would we ever see and experience the day as day if there were no night! Thus the most durable and unfailing touchstone of genuineness and forcefulness of thought in a philosopher is the question as to whether or not he or she experiences in a direct and fundamental manner the nearness of the nothing in the Being of beings. Whoever fails to experience it remains forever outside the realm of philosophy, without hope of entry.
If inquiry were no more than what the superficial view often readily takes it to be; if it were simply a fleeting being-on-the-lookout for something, or a dispassionate scrutiny of an object of inquiry, or a passing hit-or-miss glance at a given goal; if inquiry were any of these things, then our unfolding of the question would already be at an end. And yet we have scarcely begun. We are seeking the Being of beings; we are trying to reach it. To that end we must approach being itself and bring it into our ken. Whatever is interrogated is questioned in a number of specific respects, never in an altogether general way, inas- much as the latter runs counter to the very essence of questioning. And so we come to what is asked for. The field is examined in a dual perspective, inasmuch as it is surveyed by a preliminary view toward the goal. The being as such is viewed with respect to what it is, what it looks like, hence with respect to its intrinsic composition. We may call this the constitution of the being. At the same time, a being that. is constituted in this or that fashion has its way to be-as such, being is either possible or actual or necessary. Thus the guiding question,
• When Heidegger refers to the nothing as "this utterly common affair" (dieses Ge- meinste), and when he invokes the "meanness" of the nothing (das Gemeine am Nichts), he adds a new dimension to Hegel's play on the words mein, meinen, Mei- nung, and Allgemeine, discussed on p. 100, above. Being as a whole is not the universal; its common border is with the nothing. And there is something insidious in the intimacy of being and the nothing.
196 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF' THE SAME
besides having its field and its goal, possesses above all its range of vision. Within that range it thinks beings as such according to a two- fold respect. Only in terms of both respects, as they are reciprocally related, can the Being of beings be defined.
When we first hear it, and even long afterwards, the guiding ques- tion "What is being? " sounds altogether indefinite; its universality ap- pears to be engaged in a contest with its haziness and impalpability. All highways and byways seem to be open to its fortuitous search. A re- examination and testing of the various steps involved in the question seems to be without prospect. Certainly-as long as one leaves the question undetermined! Yet our prior explications ought to have made it clear by now that this question possesses a very definite though pre- sumably very complex articulation, one which we have hardly fath- omed and are even less able to master. Of course, we would mistake this articulation from top to bottom if we were to wield it academically and technically in the form of a merely "scientific" formulation-if, for example, we expected to be able to test the steps involved in the question as though they resembled the directly graspable, calculable result of an "experiment. "
Our inquiry into the guiding question is separated from that kind of procedure by a veritable gulf. And being as a whole, itself the field of the question, can never be patched together out of isolated assortments of beings. All the same, the guiding question too in each case sustains an exceptional relationship with a particular region of beings within the field, a region that therefore assumes special importance. This fact has its grounds in the essence of inquiry itself, which, the more sweep- ing it is at the start, the more closely it wants to approach what it is interrogating, in order to survey it with an inquiring gaze. If it is ulti- mately the question concerning being that is involved here, the first thing we have to heed is the fact that being, in its constitution and its ways to be, discloses not only an articulated abundance but also a number of orders and stages which shed light on one another. Here it is by no means a matter of indifference which orders of being become definitive for the illumination of the others-whether, for instance, living beings are conceived in terms of lifeless ones, or the latter in terms of the former.
The Essence ofa Fundamental Metaphysical Position 197
Whatever the particular case, each time the guiding question is posed one region of beings becomes definitive for our survey of being as a whole. In each case the guiding question unfolds in itself some- thing that sets the standard. By this "setting the standard" we· under- stand the preeminence of an exceptional region within being as a whole. The remaining beings are not actually derived from that excep- tional region; yet that region provides the light that illumines them all.
26. Nietzsche's Fundamental Metaphysical Position
In the foregoing we have attempted to portray Nietzsche's fundamental thought-the eternal return of the same-in its essential import, in its domain, and in the mode of thinking that is expressly proper to the thought itself, that is, the mode demanded by the thought as such. In that way we have laid the foundation for our own efforts to define Nietzsche's fundamental metaphysical position in Western philosophy. The effort to circumscribe Nietzsche's fundamental metaphysical posi- tion indicates that we are examining his philosophy in terms of the position assigned it by the history of Western philosophy hitherto. At the same time, this means that we are expressly transposing Nietzsche's philosophy to that sole position in which it can and must unfold the forces of thought that are most proper to it, and this in the context of an inescapable confrontation with prior Western philosophy as a whole. The fact that in the course of our presentation of the doctrine of return we have actually come to recognize the region of thought that must necessarily and preeminently take precedence in every fruitful reading and appropriating of Nietzschean thought may well be an im- portant gain; yet when viewed in terms of the essential task, namely, the characterization of Nietzsche's fundamental metaphysical position, such a gain remains merely provisional.
We shall be able to define Nietzsche's fundamental metaphysical position in its principal traits if we ponder the response he gives to the question concerning the constitution of being and being's way to be. Now, we know that Nietzsche offers two answers with regard to being as a whole: being as a whole is will to power, and being as a whole is
Nietzsche's Fundamental Metaphysical Position 199
eternal recurrence of the same. Yet philosophical interpretations of Nietzsche's philosophy have up to now been unable to grasp these two simultaneous answers as answers, indeed as answers that necessarily cohere, because they have not recognized the questions to which these answers pertain; that is to say, prior interpretations have not explicitly developed those questions on the basis of a thoroughgoing articulation of the guiding question. If, on the contrary, we approach the matter in terms of the developed guiding question, it becomes apparent that the word "is" in these two major statements-being as a whole is will to power, and being as a whole is eternal recurrence of the same-in each case suggests something different. To say that being as a whole "is" will to power means that being as such possesses the constitution of that which Nietzsche defines as will to power. And to say that being as a whole "is" eternal recurrence of the same means that being as a whole is, as being, in the manner of eternal recurrence of the same. The determination "will to power" replies to the question of being with respect to the latter's constitution; the determination "eternal recur-
rence of the same" replies to the question of being with respect to its way to be. Yet constitution and manner of being do cohere as determi- nations of the beingness of beings.
Accordingly, in Nietzsche's philosophy will to power and eternal recurrence of the same belong together. It is thus right from the start a misunderstanding-better, an outright mistake-of metaphysical pro- portions when commentators try to play off will to power against eter- nal recurrence of the same, and especially when they exclude the latter altogether from metaphysical determinations of being. In truth, the coherence ofboth must be grasped. Such coherence is itself essentially defined on the basis of the coherence of constitution and way to be as reciprocally related moments of the beingness of beings. The constitu: tion of beings also specifies in each case their way to be-indeed, as their proper ground.
What fundamental metaphysical position does Nietzsche's philos- ophy assume for itself on the basis of its response to the guiding ques- tion within Western philosophy, that is to say, within metaphysics?
Nietzsche's philosophy is the end of metaphysics, inasmuch as it reverts to the very commencement of Greek thought, taking up such
200 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
thought in a way that is peculiar to Nietzsche's philosophy alone. In this way Nietzsche's philosophy closes the ring that is formed by the very course of inquiry into being as such and as a whole. Yet to what extent does Nietzsche's thinking revert to the commencement? When we raise this question we must be clear about one point at the very outset: Nietzsche by no means recovers the philosophy of the com- mencement in its pristine form. Rather, here it is purely a matter of the reemergence of the essential fundamental positions of the com- mencement in a transformed configuration, in such a way that these positions interlock.
What are the decisive fundamental positions of the commencement? In other words, what sorts of answers are given to the as yet un- developed guiding question, the question as to what being is?
The one answer-roughly speaking, it is the answer of Parmenides -tells us that being is. An odd sort of answer, no doubt, yet a very deep one, since that very response determines for the first time and for all thinkers to come, including Nietzsche, the meaning of is and Being -permanence and presence, that is, the eternal present.
The other answer-roughly speaking, that of Heraclitus-tells us that being becomes. The being is in being by virtue of its permanent becoming, its self-unfolding and eventual dissolution.
To what extent is Nietzsche's thinking the end? That is to say, how does it stretch back to both these fundamental determinations of being in such a way that they come to interlock?
With one eye on this domain we may now proceed to interpret the remainder of Zarathustra's tale.
Moment and Eternal Recurrence 177
Zarathustra is approaching his ownmost thought, fearing it more intensely with each advancing step. "Then suddenly I heard a dog nearby howling. " It is now a dog that comes into Zarathustra's vicinity, not an eagle with a serpent coiled about its throat; and now we hear, not the singing of songbirds, but a "howling. " Now all the images turn counter to the mood of the thought of eternal return.
When the dog howls Zarathustra's thoughts "race back" to his child- hood. The reference to childhood shows that we are now retreating to the earlier history of Zarathustra, the thinker of the thought of return, and also to the vast prehistory of that thought-to the genesis and emergence of nihilism. At some point in his childhood Zarathustra saw a dog, "bristling, its head raised, shivering in the stillest midnight, when even dogs believe in ghosts. " The scene, with all its counter- images, is thus defined in greater detail. It is midnight, the most remote time, the hour that is farthest removed from midday-midday being the time of the most luminous, shadowless moment. "For at that instant the full moon, silent as death, rose over the house and then stood still, a round, glowing coal; stood still on the flat roof, as though trespassing on a stranger's property. . . . " Instead of the brilliant sun it is the full moon that is shining here; it too is a light, but a merely borrowed light, the most pallid reflection of actual illumination, a diaphanous ghost of light. Yet it shines enough to affright the dogs and set them baying-"since dogs believe in thieves and ghosts. " At that time the child took pity on the dog that took fright at a ghost and yowled and raised a great din. In such a world compassion is most likely to be found among children-who comprehend nothing of what is happening and who are not of age with respect to being.
"And when I heard such howling once again I took pity. " Zarathus- tra reports that even now-though he is no longer a child-he slip~ into the mood of pity and compassion, imagining on the basis of that mood how the world must look. Through Zarathustra's words, Nietz- sche is here alluding to the time when Schopenhauer and Wagner determined his outlook on the world. Both of them taught, albeit in divergent ways, a form of pessimism-ultimately the flight into disso- lution, into nothingness, into sheer suspension, into a sleep which promised itself an awakening only in order that it might go on sleeping undisturbed.
178 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
Meanwhile, Nietzsche himself had renounced all slumbering and dreaming; for he had already begun to question. The world of Scho- penhauer and Wagner became questionable to him early on, earlier than even he knew, already at the time he was writing the third and fourth of his Untimely Meditations, "Schopenhauer as Educator" and "Richard Wagner in Bayreuth. " However much in both of these writ- ings he appeared to be an advocate of Schopenhauer's and Wagner's, and however much he wanted to be precisely that, here already we see a struggle for release, though not yet a real awakening. Nietzsche was not yet his own man, was not yet hard by his own thought. He first had to pass through the prehistory of that thought, and through the limbo that always leaves us so perplexed-a limbo of past experiences which we cannot truly come to terms with and of things to come which we cannot yet truly penetrate. Where exactly was Zarathustra? "Was I dreaming? Was I awakening? At one stroke I stood among wild cliffs, alone, bleak, in the bleakest moonlight. " Bleakness pervades the period
1874 to 1881, the years Nietzsche once described as the period in which his life plunged to its nadir. Nevertheless, the bleakness of this lunar light was peculiarly bright, bright enough to enable him to see and to be visionary, especially when he heard the howling of a dog, having in the meantime developed an ear for that miserable specimen which is more whelp than human being and which has lost all pride, believing only in its own believing and nothing more.
And what did Zarathustra descry in this bleak lunar light? "A man was lying there! " The italic print lends special emphasis to what is seen: a human being lying prostrate on the ground-not erect and standing. Yet this is not enough. "And, truly, what I now saw was unlike anything I had ever seen. " A man lying on the ground may be nothing unusual; and the experience that human beings do not often rouse themselves to stand, do not take a stand, that they generally lurch on with the help of crutches and supports, is a common one; and that humankind is in a wretched state is the customary jeremiad of pessimism, with all its inexhaustible twists and turns. Yet the way in which Zarathustra saw humanity at that moment was a way it had never been seen before. A human being, prostrate. But of what sort, and in what circumstances? "I saw a young shepherd, writhing, chok-
Moment and Eternal Recurrence 179
ing in spasms, his face distorted; a thick black snake hung out of his mouth. " It is a young man, then, one who has barely left his child- hood behind; perhaps he is the very one who heard the howling dog, namely, Zarathustra. A young shepherd, one who intends to guide and lead. He lies prostrate in the bleak light of illusion. "Had he been sleeping? A snake crawled into his mouth-and there it bit fast. "
By nuw we are sufficiently prepared to discern in the "thick black snake" the counterimage of the serpent that winds itself about the ea- gle's throat, the eagle in turn soaring in the midday sky and holding effortlessly in the heights. The black snake is drear monotony, ulti- mately the goallessness and meaninglessness of nihilism. It is nihilism itself. Nihilism has bitten the young shepherd during his sleep and is now firmly entrenched. Only because the shepherd was not vigilant could the power of the snake assert itself, could the snake wriggle its way into the young shepherd's mouth, incorporating itself in him. When Zarathustra sees the young shepherd lying there, he does the first thing anyone would do. He pulls at the snake, tugs at it, "-in vain! "
The implication is that nihilism cannot be overcome from the out- side. We do not overcome it by tearing away at it or shoving it aside- which is what we do when we replace the Christian God with yet another ideal, such as Reason, Progress, political and economic "So- cialism," or mere Democracy. Try as we might to cast it aside, the black snake attaches itself ever more firmly. Zarathustra thus immedi- ately gives up such rescue operations. "With one cry," he now relates, "it cried out of me. " What is this it? Zarathustra replies, "All my goodness and my wickedness. " Zarathustra's complete essence and his entire history precipitate in him and cry out, "Bite! You must bite! " W e need not say a great deal more in order to make the meaning of the passage perfectly clear. The black snake of nihilism threatens to inc~r porate humanity altogether; it must be overcome by those who are themselves inflicted with it and endangered by it. All tugging-all that frantic activity from the outside, all temporary amelioration, all mere
repulsion, postponement, and deferment-all this is in vain. Here nothing avails if human beings themselves do not bite into the danger, and not blindly, not just anywhere. We must bite off the head of the
180 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
black snake, its properly definitive and leading part, which looms at the forefront.
Nihilism will be overcome only from the ground up, only if we grapple with the very head of it; only if the ideals which it posits and from which it derives fall prey to "criticism," that is, to enclosure and overcoming. Yet such overcoming transpires only in the following way: everyone who is affected-and that means each of us-must bite into the matter for himself or herself; for if we leave it to another to tug at the darkling need that is our own, all will be futile.
-But the shepherd bit as my cry urged him to, bit with a good bite! He spewed out the snake's head, spat it far away, and leapt to his feet.
No longer a shepherd, no longer human, but as one transformed, il- luminated--one who laughed!
What sort of gaiety gives vent to such laughter? The gaiety of the gay science. Now, at the end of our long path, we recognize-and we recognize it as no accident but as the most intrinsic necessity-that at the conclusion of the treatise which Nietzsche entitled The Gay Science the thought of eternal return of the same is communicated for the first time. For this thought is the bite that is to overcome nihilism in its very foundation. Just as Zarathustra is no one else than the thinker of this thought, so too is the bite nothing other than the over- coming of nihilism. Thus it becomes transparently clear that the young shepherd is Zarathustra himself. In this vision Zarathustra is advancing toward himself. With the full force of his complete essence he must call out to himself, "You must bite! " Toward the end of the tale that Zarathustra recounts to the seamen-those searchers and re- searchers-Zarathustra poses this question to them: "Who is the shep- herd into whose gorge the snake crawled? " We can now reply that it is Zarathustra, the thinker of the thought of eternal return. Zarathustra's ownmost animals, his eagle and his serpent, exalt him only after he has overcome the world of the howling dog and the black snake. Zara- thustra becomes a convalescent only after he has passed through a period of illness, only after he has come to know that the black snake that chokes us pertains to knowledge as such, that the knower must also come to terms with the disgust occasioned by the contemptible human being as something that is necessary.
Moment and Eternal Recurrence 181
Now for the first time we can recognize the inner correspondence of the two passages from Part III of Thus Spoke Zarathustra on which we have been commenting. Now we understand why Zarathustra replies as follows to his animals, who wish to perform for Zarathustra's enjoy- ment the delightful ditty of the eternal return of the same in the loveli- est words and tones: "The intense disgust with man-this choked, me, this had crawled into my throat, this and also what the soothsayer had said: 'It is all alike, nothing is worthwhile, knowledge chokes. ' " Who- ever takes the thought of eternal return to be a ditty belongs among those who flee from genuine knowledge, inasmuch as such knowledge "chokes. " Thus in the episode entitled "The Convalescent," with ex- plicit reference to the section "On the Vision and the Riddle," precise- ly at the point when Zarathustra begins to respond to the animals' ditty, we hear the following:
"Oh, you rascally jesters and barrel organs, be still now! " replied Zara- thustra, smiling once again. "How well you know what had to be fulfilled in seven days-and how that beast wriggled down my throat and choked me! But I bit its head off and spewed it far away from me.
And you? You've made a hurdy-gurdy song out of it! Here am I, lying here, weary of this biting and spewing, still sick from my own redemption. And you looked on all the while?
These two distinct episodes, "On the Vision and the Riddle" and "The Convalescent," hence coalesce, both in terms of their content and their place in the work in question. We achieve a more balanced understanding of the book as a whole. Yet we must guard against the presumption that we now belong among those who really understand. Perhaps we too are mere onlookers. Perhaps we do not heed the second question Zarathustra poses straightaway to the crew. He asks not only "Who is the shepherd? " but also "Who is the human being into whose gorge all that is heaviest and blackest will creep? " The answer is that it is the one who thinks-in company with others-the thought of eter- nal return. Yet he or she is not thinking the thought in its essential domain until the black snake has penetrated the gorge and its head has been bitten off. The thought is only as that bite.
As soon as we understand this we realize why Zarathustra grows fearful when he thinks the thought of the moment, and why the dwarf,
182 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
rather than answering, simply vanishes. The moment cannot be thought before the bite has occurred, because the bite answers the question as to what the gateway itself-the moment-is: the gateway of the moment is that decision in which prior history, the history of nihilism, is brought to confrontation and forthwith overcome.
The thought of eternal return of the same is only as this conquering thought. The overcoming must grant us passage across a gap that seems to be quite narrow. The gap opens between two things that in one way are alike, so that they appear to be the same. On the one side stands the following: "Everything is nought, indifferent, so that noth- ing is worthwhile-it is all alike. "And on the other side: "Everything recurs, it depends on each moment, everything matters-it is all alike. "
The smallest gap, the rainbow bridge of the phrase it is all alike, conceals two things that are quite distinct: "everything is indifferent" and "nothing is indifferent. "
The overcoming of this smallest gap is the most difficult overcoming in the thought of eternal return of the same as the essentially overcom- ing thought. If one takes the thought ostensibly "for itself' in terms of its content-"Everything turns in a circle"-then it is perhaps sheer delusion. But in that case it is not Nietzsche's thought. Above all, it is not the thought "for itself," inasmuch as for itself it is precisely the overcoming thought, and this alone.
If we survey once again at a single glance our presentation of Nietz- sche's thought of eternal return of the same, we cannot but be struck by the fact that our explicit discussion of the thought's content has receded markedly before our constant emphasis on the right way of approaching the thought and its conditions. The conditions may be reduced to two-and even these cohere and constitute but one.
First, thinking in terms of the moment. This implies that we trans- pose ourselves to the temporality of independent action and decision, glancing ahead at what is assigned us as our task and back at what is given us as our endowment.
Second, thinking the thought as the overcoming of nihilism. This implies that we transpose ourselves to the condition of need that arises with nihilism. The condition requires of us that we meditate on the
Moment and Eternal Recurrence 183
endowment and decide about the task. Our needy condition itself is nothing other than what our transposition to the moment opens up to us.
Yet what accounts for the fact that with this thought it is precisely thinking, and the conditions of thinking, that are emphasized so essen- tially? What else could it be but the thought's "content," what it gives us to think? Accordingly, the content does not really go into abeyance, as it seemed to; rather, it comes to the fore in a singular way. For now the conditions of the thought-process as such thrust their way to the forefront. With the thought in question, what is to be thought recoils on the thinker because of the way it is to be thought, and so it compels the thinker. Yet it does so solely in order to draw the thinker into what is to be thought. To think eternity requires that we think the moment, that is, transpose ourselves to the moment of being-a-self. " To think the recurrence of the same is to enter into confrontation with the "it is all alike," the "it isn't worthwhile'; in short, with nihilism.
Only by way ofnihilism and the moment is the eternal recurrence of the same to be thought. Yet in such thinking the thinker as such slips into the ring of eternal recurrence, indeed in such a way as to help achieve the ring, help decide it.
Whence does it arise that precisely in the fundamental thought of Nietzsche's philosophy the recoil of what is to be thought on the think- er-and the thinker's being drawn into what is thought-come so deci- sively to light? Is it because this kind of relation between thought and thinker is instituted in Nietzsche's philosophy alone? Or does such a relation obtain in every philosophy as such? If the latter, to what extent is this the case? With that question we arrive at the second major division of our lecture course.
• See chapter 4 of Being and Time, sections 25-27. Cf. p. 24, above.
25. The Essence of a Fundamental Metaphysical Position; The Possibility of Such Positions in the History of
Western Philosophy
Whenever we think the thought of eternal recurrence of the same, what is to be thought recoils on the one who is thinking,· and the thinker is drawn into the thought. The reason for this is not simply the fact that the eternal recurrence of the same is being thought, but that this particular thought thinks being as a whole. We call such a thought "metaphysical. " Because the thought of return is the metaphysical thought in Nietzsche's case, it is characterized by the relationship of the recoil that includes and the inclusion that recoils. Of course, there must be a special reason for the fact that this relationship comes to prevail in such a conspicuous way precisely with Nietzsche, and that reason can lie only in Nietzsche's metaphysics; we can say where and how and why it lies there only if we have defined what we call meta- physics by means of a sufficiently clear concept. Such a concept must clarify what we mean by a "fundamental position. " In the designation "fundamental metaphysical position" the word metaphysical is not ap- pended in order to indicate a special case among "fundamental posi- tions. " Rather, the word metaphysical designates the domain that is opened up as metaphysical only by virtue of the articulation of a fun- damental position. If this is so, then what does the phrase fundamental
metaphysical position mean?
The title of this section, which indicates the task we have just out-
lined, bears a subtitle. The subtitle invokes the possibility of a
The Essence of a Fundamental Metaphysical Position 185
fundamental metaphysical position in the history of Western philos- ophy. Here it is not so much a matter of referring to the manifold approximations to such fundamental metaphysical positions and to their historical sequence. Rather, what we must emphasize is the fact that what we are calling a fundamental metaphysical position pertains expressly to Western history, and to it alone, helping to determine that history in an essential way. Something like a fundamental metaphysi- cal position was possible heretofore only in our tradition; and to the extent that such positions are attempted in the future as well, what has prevailed up to now will remain in force as something not overcome, not assimilated. Here we intend to discuss the possibility of a funda- mental metaphysical position in the most fundamental sense of the phrase, and not to sketch some sort of historiographical account. In accordance with what we have said, this fundamental discussion will nonetheless be essentially historical.
Since in the present lecture course we are to portray Nietzsche's fundamental metaphysical position, our discussion of that concept can only be of a preparatory nature. Furthermore, a well-rounded, essen- tial consideration of the matter is quite impossible: we lack all the prerequisites for such a consideration.
It behooves our tentative characterization of the concept fundamen- tal metaphysical position to begin with the word and concept meta- physical. We use the word to designate matters germane to "metaphysics. " The latter has for centuries referred to that range of questions in philosophy which philosophy sees as its proper task. Meta- physics is thus the rubric indicative of philosophy proper; it always has to do with a philosophy's fundamental thought. Even the customary meaning of the word, that is to say, the meaning that has come into general and popular use, still reflects this trait, albeit in a faint and fuzzy way. When we speak of something metaphysical we are pointing to reasons lying behind something else, or perhaps going out beyond that thing in some inscrutable way. We sometimes employ the word in a pejorative way, whereby those "reasons behind" a thing are taken as mere figments and, at bottom, absurdities; at other times we use the word metaphysical positively, taking it as referring to the impalpable and ultimate, the decisive. In either case, however, our thinking hov-
186 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
ers in indeterminacy, insecurity, and obscurity. The word refers more to the end and limits of our thinking and inquiring than to their proper beginning and unfolding.
Yet when we refer merely to the devaluation the word metaphysics has suffered we are not entertaining the proper significance of that word. The word and its origins are quite strange; odder still is its his- tory. And yet the configuration of the Western intellectual world and thereby the world in general depends to an essential extent on the power and preeminence of this word and its history. In history, words are often mightier than things and deeds. The fact that we ultimately still know very little about the power of this word metaphysics and its hegemony makes us realize how paltry and extrinsic our knowledge of the history of philosophy has remained, and how ill-prepared we are to enter into confrontation with that history, its fundamental positions, and the unifying and determinative forces within those positions. His- tory of philosophy is not a matter for historiography, but a matter of philosophy. The first philosophical history of philosophy was that of Hegel. He never elaborated that history in book form, but presented it in lecture courses taught at Jena, Heidelberg, and Berlin.
Hegel's history of philosophy is the only philosophical history heretofore, and it will remain the only one until philosophy is forced to think historically-in a still more essential and original sense of that word-taking its ownmost grounding question as its point of departure. Wherever this is already occurring, in its initial stages, it still seems as if it is all nothing more than a slightly altered formulation of the earlier "historiographical" interpretation of the history of philosophy. The fur- ther illusion arises that historical observation restricts itself to what has been and does not have the courage-does not even have the capacity - t o say something "new" of its own. The illusion will persist as long as there is no one who surmises-and is able to estimate the implica- tions of-the following fact: in spite of the ascendant power of technol- ogy and of the universally technicized "mobilization" of the globe, hence in spite of a quite specific preeminence of an ensnared nature, an altogether distinct fundamental power of Being is on the rise; this power is history-which, however, is no longer to be represented as an object of historiography. We allude to these matters here simply be-
The Essence ofa Fundamental Metaphysical Position 187
cause the following historical meditation on the essence of metaphysics may well seem to be nothing more than a highly abridged excerpt from some handbook or other on the history of philosophy.
Metaphysics is the name for the full range of philosophy's proper questions. If these questions are many, they are nonetheless guided by one single question. In truth, drawn as they are into that question, they are in effect but one question. Every question, and especially the one question of philosophy, as a question is always bathed in a light that emanates from the question itself. That is why the very inception of inquiry at the grand commencement of Western philosophy pos- sesses some knowledge of itself. Such autochthonous knowledge of philosophic inquiry initially defines itself by circumscribing and com- prehending what it is asking about. Philosophy inquires into the arche. We translate that word as "principle. " And if we neglect to think and question rigorously and persistently, we think we know what "prin- ciple" means here. Arche and archein mean "to begin.
" At the same time, they mean to stand at the beginning of all; hence, to rule. Yet this reference to the designated arche will make sense only if we simul- taneously determine that ofwhich and for which we are seeking the arche. We are seeking it, not for some isolated event, not for unusual and recondite facts and relationships, but purely and simply for being. Whenever we say the word das Seiende, we are referring to everything
that is. But when we inquire into the arche of being, all being-as a whole and in entirety-is placed in question. With the question con- cerning the arche, something about being as a whole has already been said. Being as a whole has now become visible for the first time as being and as a whole.
Whenever we inquire into the arche we experi~nce being as a whole at the very beginning, the very rise of its presence and radiance. When the sun begins to radiate its light we speak of "sunrise"; accordingly, we conceive of the upsurgence of what is present as such as a rise. We are asking about the arche of being as a whole, about its rise, to the extent that this rising pervades being in terms of both what it is and how it is. Thus we are asking about a kind of dominion. We mean to acquire knowledge concerning the rise and dominion of being as a whole; such knowledge of the arche is therefore to know what being is insofar as it
188 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
is being. Accordingly, the question of philosophy, as an inquiry into the arche, may be posed in the following form: What is being, insofar as it is viewed as being? Ti to on hei on? Quid est ens qua ens? This question, once its manner of inquiry has thus been established, may be simplified to the following formula: Ti to on? What is being? To ask this question, to find the answer to it once it has been posed and secured, is the primary and proper task of philosophy-it is prate philo- sophia. At its very commencement Western philosophy delineates philosophic inquiry in terms of the question ti to on? In that com- mencement Western philosophy comes to its essential conclusion. It is Aristotle in particular who achieves this essential clarification of philo- sophic inquiry in the most lucid way. Hence at the outset of one of his essential treatises (Metaphysics, VII, 1) Aristotle writes the following words: Kai de kai to palai te kai nun kai aei dzetoumenon kai aei aporoumenon, ti to on? "And so it is asked, from ancient times to the present, and on into the future, even though the paths to this question stop short or are utterly lacking,-What is being? "
In order for us to understand-and that means to assist in asking- this apparently quite simple question, it is important from the outset to attain clarity concerning the following point, a point we will have to think about again and again: inasmuch as being is put in question with a view to the arche, being itself is already determined. If we ask whence and in what way being rises and, as rising, comes to presence, being itself is already defined as the upsurging and as what holds sway and presences in such upsurgence. The Greeks called such rising- presencing governance physis. The. latter word means something else, something more, than our word nature. At all events, the following becomes clear: when the arche is sought, being itself is defined more closely, determined in a correspondingly far-reaching and penetrating way.
A peculiar experience arises as part and parcel of this process: in addition to beings that come to the fore on their own, there seem to be other beings that are first produced by human beings-whether such production occur in handicraft manufacture, in artistic performances, or in the ordered conduct of public affairs. Accordingly, one proceeds to make a distinction with respect to being as a whole between what is
The Essence ofa Fundamental Metaphysical Position 189
preeminently and straightforwardly physis, namely, on physei, and what is on technei, thesei, and nomoi. "'
The definitive meditation on being will always first cast its eye on being as physis-ta physei onta-there to perceive what being as such is. Such knowledge, related as it is to physis, is an episteme physike, "physics," though not at all in the contemporary sense of that word. It is of course nonetheless true that physics today has a great deal of work to do, more than it is aware of, or can possibly be aware of. "Physics" is perspective on, and circumspection within, being as a whole; yet its view to the arche always sets the standard. Thus within the philosoph- ical meditation on being (that is, on physis) there are studies that enter more deeply into being and its various regions, for instance, the inani- mate or animate; and there can also be studies that concentrate less on the characteristic details of a given region than on the question of what being is when viewed as a whole. If we designate the first series of investigations with the word physike, in the sense of scientia physica, then the second series is in a certain sense posterior to it; yet although it follows in the wake of the first series, the second series contains the ultimate and genuine studies. Viewed from the outside, in terms of the order, division, and sequence of the investigations and in terms of the kind of knowledge that is attained in treatises that come post physicam, such studies may be given the Greek designation meta ta physika. At the same time, what we have already indicated readily opens onto a further insight: inquiry into the arche asks what determines and domi- nates being as a whole in its governance. The question ti to on? in- quires out beyond being as a whole, although the question always and everywhere relates precisely back to it. Such knowledge of the physika is not merely post physicam but trans physicam. Metaphysics, meta ta physika, is knowledge and inquiry that posit being as physis. Meta- physics does so in such a way that in and through the positing it. inquires out beyond being, asking about being as being. To inquire into the arche-to ask the question ti to on? -is metaphysics. Or, to put it the other way around, metaphysics is the inquiry and the search
• That is to say, a distinction between beings that rise and come to presence under their own power and those that derive from the arts and crafts (teclmei), or are set down in words (thesei), or are proclaimed in laws (nomoi).
190 THE ETERNAL RECURRf~NCE OF THE SAMF.
that always remains guided by the sole question "What is being? " We therefore call this question the guiding question of metaphysics. *
The question "What is being? " inquires so universally and so en- compassingly that all the efforts incited by it at first and for quite some time afterwards strive after this one thing-to find an answer to the question and to secure that answer. The more this question becomes the guiding question, and the longer it remains such, the less the question itself becomes an object of inquiry. Every treatment of the guiding question is and remains preoccupied with the answer, preoc- cupied with finding the answer. The latter has assumed sundry con- figurations ever since the commencement of Western philosophy with the Greeks, as philosophy pursued its circuitous route through the age of Christendom and into the age of modernity and modernity's con- quest of the world, up to Nietzsche. Yet no matter how varied the configurations have been, they remain unified by the framework of the sole guiding question; once it is posed, the question seems to pose itself automatically-and hence to recede as a question. The question is not unfolded along the lines of its own articulation.
With the responses to this wholly undeveloped guiding question, certain positions adopted toward being as such and toward its arche arise. Being itself, as it is definitively experienced from the outset- whether as physis or as the creation of some Creator or as the realiza- tion of an absolute spirit-and the way being is defined in its arche provide the ground on which, and the respect in which, the guiding question troubles itself about the proffered answers. The questioners themselves, and all those who pattern and ground their essential knowledge and action within the realm of the prevailing response to the guiding question, have adopted a stance toward being as a whole, a stance in relation to being as such, in conformity to the guiding question-whether or not they are aware of the guiding question as such. Because the stance in question originates from the guiding ques- tion and is simultaneous with it, and because the guiding question is what is properly metaphysical in metaphysics, we call the stance that
• See Volume I of this series, section II, pp. 67-68, for further discussion of the
Leitfrage.
The Essence of a Fundamental Metaphysical Position 191
derives from the undeveloped guiding question the fundamental meta- physical position. "'
The concept fundamental metaphysical position may be grasped in propositional form as follows: The fundamental metaphysical position expresses the way in which the one who poses the guiding question remains enmeshed in the structures of that question, which is not explicitly unfolded; thus enmeshed, the questioner comes to stand within being as a whole, adopting a stance toward it, and in that way helping to determine the location of humanity as such in the whole of beings.
All the same, the concept of a fundamental metaphysical position is not yet clear. Not only the concept but also the historically developed fundamental positions themselves are necessarily in and for themselves altogether opaque and impenetrable. That is the reason we invariably represent the fundamental metaphysical positions-for instance, those of Plato, or of medieval theology, or of Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel-so extrinsically, according to the various doctrines and propositions expressed in them. The best we can do is to say what predecessors influenced these philosophers and what standpoint they adopt in mat- ters of ethics or in the question of the demonstrability of God's exis- tence or with regard to the issue of the "reality of the external world. " We invoke sundry "aspects," which apparently just happen to be there and which we take up as evident, totally ignorant of the fact that there can be such aspects only because a fundamental metaphysical position has been adopted here. The position in question is adopted because knowledge and thought themselves stand under the dominion of the guiding question from the very beginning. And the guiding question itself is not developed.
The concept of a fundamental metaphysical position and the corre- sponding historical positions themselves attain essential clarity and definition only when the guiding question of metaphysics and thereby metaphysics itself in its essence come to be developed. It is almost
• Die metaphysische Grundstellung, literally, "the metaphysical ground position. " Readers must hea1 in the word fundamental the German word Grund. Heidegger always and everywhere contraposes the guiding question of metaphysics to its grounding ques- tion, die Grundfrage.
192 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
superfluous to say that an original, thoughtful stance adopted with regard to a particular metaphysics is possible and fruitful only if that metaphysics is itself developed in terms of its own fundamental posi- tion and only if the way in which it responds to the guiding question can be defined. The mutually prevailing fundamental positions must first of all be worked out in and for every genuinely philosophical confrontation.
The essence of what we are calling a fundamental metaphysical position develops with and in the unfolding of the guiding question of metaphysics. Such unfolding of the guiding question is not solely and not even primarily motivated by the desire to achieve a better concep- tion of the fundamental metaphysical position as such. Rather, the determining ground of the development of the guiding question is to be sought in a renewed posing of the question, indeed, in a more original asking of that question. Yet that is not a matter we shall be able to treat here. What we are to communicate now is rather the bare result of the development of the guiding question. We shall present it in a highly compressed, well-nigh arid form, in textbook fashion, so that the inner articulation of the guiding question becomes visible-if only as a skeleton devoid of flesh and blood.
The guiding question of Western philosophy is, "What is being? " To treat this question as stated and posed is simply to look for an answer. To develop the question as it is formulated, however, is to pose the question more essentially: in asking the question one enters explicitly into those relationships that become visible when one assimi- lates virtually everything that comes to pass in the very asking of the question. When we treat the guiding question we are transposed forth- with to a search for an answer and to everything that has to be done on behalf of that search. Developing the guiding question is something essentially different-it is a more original form of inquiry, one which does not crave an answer. It takes the search for an answer far more seriously and rigorously than any straightforward treatment of the guid- ing question can-given the particular stance such treatment has adopted. An answer is no more than the final step of the very asking; and an answer that bids adieu to the inquiry annihilates itself as an answer. It can ground nothing like knowledge. It rests content with the
The Essence ofa Fundamental Metaphysical Position 193
sheer opinions it traces and in which it has ensconced itself. A ques- tion-especially a question that involves being as a whole-can be appropriately answered only if it is adequately posed in the first place. The guiding question of philosophy is adequately posed only when it is developed. Here the development assumes such proportions that it transforms the very question, bringing to light the guiding question as such in its utter lack of originality. For that reason we call the question "What is being? " the guiding question, in contrast to the more original question which sustains and directs the guiding question. The more original question we call the grounding question.
Whenever we present the development of the guiding question "schematically," as we are now doing, we easily awaken the suspicion that here we are merely making inquiries concerning a question. To question questioning strikes sound common sense as rather un- wholesome, extravagant, perhaps even nonsensical. If it is a matter of wanting to get to beings themselves-and in the guiding question this is surely the case-then the inquiry into inquiry seems an aberration. In the end, such an attitude, asking about its asking, seems nothing short of noxious or self-lacerating; we might call it "egocentric" and "nihilistic" and all the other nasty names we so easily come by.
That the development of the guiding question appears to be merely inquiry piled on top of inquiry-this illusion persists. That an inquiry concerning inquiry ultimately looks like an aberration, a veritable walk down the garden path-this illusion too cannot be squelched. Con- fronting the danger that only a few or no one at all will be able to muster the courage and the energy required to think through and ex- amine thoroughly the development of the guiding question; and in the expectation that these few might stumble against something quite dif- ferent from a question that is posed merely for its own sake or a piec:;e of sheer extravagance, we shall here undertake to sketch briefly the articulation of the developed guiding question.
The question asks ti to on? What is being? We shall begin to expli- cate the question by following the direction the inquiry itself takes, gradually unraveling all the matters we come across.
What is being? What is meant is being as such, neither some par- ticular being nor a group of beings nor even all of them taken together,
194 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
but something essentially more: what is meant is the whole, being taken as a whoie from the outset, being taken as such unity. Outside of this one, this being, there is no other, unless it be the nothing. Yet the nothing is not some kind of being which is merely other. How matters stand with the nothing is not the question we are now to pursue. We only wish to keep in mind the full range of the area we are approaching when we ask the question "What is being, being as a whole, this unity that admits no other? " Let us then resolve not to forget in anything that follows what it was that rose to meet us in our first tentative step in the question concerning being, namely, the incontrovertible happenstance that we stumbled across the nothing.
Seen from the point of view of the question iself, that which the question is heading toward is the matter to be interrogated-we may call it the field of the question. Yet this field-being as a whole-is not staked out in our questioning merely so that we can take cognizance of its incalculable abundance; nor is it our intention merely to make being a familiar station on our way; rather, the question aims right from the start at being insofar as it is being. With regard to the field of interrogation, we are asking about something that is peculiar to it, something that is most its own. What name shall we give it? If we interrogate being solely with a view to the fact that it is being, interro- gate being as being, then with the question as to what being is we are aiming to discover what makes being a being. We are aiming to dis- cover the beingness of being-in Greek, the ousia of on. We are inter- rogating the Being of beings.
In the field of the question, in the very staking out of the field, the goal of the question is itself already established-what we are asking for in the matter interrogated, to wit, the Being of beings. Just as we collided against the nothing when we undertook to set the field of the question in relief, so here the staking out of the field and the establish- ment of the goal that is at stake condition one another reciprocally. And if we may say that the nothing looms at the border of this ques- tion, then, in accordance with the reciprocity of the field and the goal of the question, we may experience the proximity of the nothing also in the goal, that is, in the Being of beings; provided, of course, that we are actually inquiring, that our aim is true, that we are on target. To be
The Essence ofa Fundamental Metaphysical Position 195
sure, the nothing seems to be an utter nullity; it is as though we were doing it too great on honor when we call it by name. Yet this utterly common affair proves to be so uncommon that we can experience it only in unusual experiences. The meanness of the nothing consists precisely in the circumstance that it is capable of seducing us into thinking that our empty chatter-our calling the nothing an utter nul- lity-can really shunt the matter aside. * The nothing of being follows the Being of being as night follows day. When would we ever see and experience the day as day if there were no night! Thus the most durable and unfailing touchstone of genuineness and forcefulness of thought in a philosopher is the question as to whether or not he or she experiences in a direct and fundamental manner the nearness of the nothing in the Being of beings. Whoever fails to experience it remains forever outside the realm of philosophy, without hope of entry.
If inquiry were no more than what the superficial view often readily takes it to be; if it were simply a fleeting being-on-the-lookout for something, or a dispassionate scrutiny of an object of inquiry, or a passing hit-or-miss glance at a given goal; if inquiry were any of these things, then our unfolding of the question would already be at an end. And yet we have scarcely begun. We are seeking the Being of beings; we are trying to reach it. To that end we must approach being itself and bring it into our ken. Whatever is interrogated is questioned in a number of specific respects, never in an altogether general way, inas- much as the latter runs counter to the very essence of questioning. And so we come to what is asked for. The field is examined in a dual perspective, inasmuch as it is surveyed by a preliminary view toward the goal. The being as such is viewed with respect to what it is, what it looks like, hence with respect to its intrinsic composition. We may call this the constitution of the being. At the same time, a being that. is constituted in this or that fashion has its way to be-as such, being is either possible or actual or necessary. Thus the guiding question,
• When Heidegger refers to the nothing as "this utterly common affair" (dieses Ge- meinste), and when he invokes the "meanness" of the nothing (das Gemeine am Nichts), he adds a new dimension to Hegel's play on the words mein, meinen, Mei- nung, and Allgemeine, discussed on p. 100, above. Being as a whole is not the universal; its common border is with the nothing. And there is something insidious in the intimacy of being and the nothing.
196 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF' THE SAME
besides having its field and its goal, possesses above all its range of vision. Within that range it thinks beings as such according to a two- fold respect. Only in terms of both respects, as they are reciprocally related, can the Being of beings be defined.
When we first hear it, and even long afterwards, the guiding ques- tion "What is being? " sounds altogether indefinite; its universality ap- pears to be engaged in a contest with its haziness and impalpability. All highways and byways seem to be open to its fortuitous search. A re- examination and testing of the various steps involved in the question seems to be without prospect. Certainly-as long as one leaves the question undetermined! Yet our prior explications ought to have made it clear by now that this question possesses a very definite though pre- sumably very complex articulation, one which we have hardly fath- omed and are even less able to master. Of course, we would mistake this articulation from top to bottom if we were to wield it academically and technically in the form of a merely "scientific" formulation-if, for example, we expected to be able to test the steps involved in the question as though they resembled the directly graspable, calculable result of an "experiment. "
Our inquiry into the guiding question is separated from that kind of procedure by a veritable gulf. And being as a whole, itself the field of the question, can never be patched together out of isolated assortments of beings. All the same, the guiding question too in each case sustains an exceptional relationship with a particular region of beings within the field, a region that therefore assumes special importance. This fact has its grounds in the essence of inquiry itself, which, the more sweep- ing it is at the start, the more closely it wants to approach what it is interrogating, in order to survey it with an inquiring gaze. If it is ulti- mately the question concerning being that is involved here, the first thing we have to heed is the fact that being, in its constitution and its ways to be, discloses not only an articulated abundance but also a number of orders and stages which shed light on one another. Here it is by no means a matter of indifference which orders of being become definitive for the illumination of the others-whether, for instance, living beings are conceived in terms of lifeless ones, or the latter in terms of the former.
The Essence ofa Fundamental Metaphysical Position 197
Whatever the particular case, each time the guiding question is posed one region of beings becomes definitive for our survey of being as a whole. In each case the guiding question unfolds in itself some- thing that sets the standard. By this "setting the standard" we· under- stand the preeminence of an exceptional region within being as a whole. The remaining beings are not actually derived from that excep- tional region; yet that region provides the light that illumines them all.
26. Nietzsche's Fundamental Metaphysical Position
In the foregoing we have attempted to portray Nietzsche's fundamental thought-the eternal return of the same-in its essential import, in its domain, and in the mode of thinking that is expressly proper to the thought itself, that is, the mode demanded by the thought as such. In that way we have laid the foundation for our own efforts to define Nietzsche's fundamental metaphysical position in Western philosophy. The effort to circumscribe Nietzsche's fundamental metaphysical posi- tion indicates that we are examining his philosophy in terms of the position assigned it by the history of Western philosophy hitherto. At the same time, this means that we are expressly transposing Nietzsche's philosophy to that sole position in which it can and must unfold the forces of thought that are most proper to it, and this in the context of an inescapable confrontation with prior Western philosophy as a whole. The fact that in the course of our presentation of the doctrine of return we have actually come to recognize the region of thought that must necessarily and preeminently take precedence in every fruitful reading and appropriating of Nietzschean thought may well be an im- portant gain; yet when viewed in terms of the essential task, namely, the characterization of Nietzsche's fundamental metaphysical position, such a gain remains merely provisional.
We shall be able to define Nietzsche's fundamental metaphysical position in its principal traits if we ponder the response he gives to the question concerning the constitution of being and being's way to be. Now, we know that Nietzsche offers two answers with regard to being as a whole: being as a whole is will to power, and being as a whole is
Nietzsche's Fundamental Metaphysical Position 199
eternal recurrence of the same. Yet philosophical interpretations of Nietzsche's philosophy have up to now been unable to grasp these two simultaneous answers as answers, indeed as answers that necessarily cohere, because they have not recognized the questions to which these answers pertain; that is to say, prior interpretations have not explicitly developed those questions on the basis of a thoroughgoing articulation of the guiding question. If, on the contrary, we approach the matter in terms of the developed guiding question, it becomes apparent that the word "is" in these two major statements-being as a whole is will to power, and being as a whole is eternal recurrence of the same-in each case suggests something different. To say that being as a whole "is" will to power means that being as such possesses the constitution of that which Nietzsche defines as will to power. And to say that being as a whole "is" eternal recurrence of the same means that being as a whole is, as being, in the manner of eternal recurrence of the same. The determination "will to power" replies to the question of being with respect to the latter's constitution; the determination "eternal recur-
rence of the same" replies to the question of being with respect to its way to be. Yet constitution and manner of being do cohere as determi- nations of the beingness of beings.
Accordingly, in Nietzsche's philosophy will to power and eternal recurrence of the same belong together. It is thus right from the start a misunderstanding-better, an outright mistake-of metaphysical pro- portions when commentators try to play off will to power against eter- nal recurrence of the same, and especially when they exclude the latter altogether from metaphysical determinations of being. In truth, the coherence ofboth must be grasped. Such coherence is itself essentially defined on the basis of the coherence of constitution and way to be as reciprocally related moments of the beingness of beings. The constitu: tion of beings also specifies in each case their way to be-indeed, as their proper ground.
What fundamental metaphysical position does Nietzsche's philos- ophy assume for itself on the basis of its response to the guiding ques- tion within Western philosophy, that is to say, within metaphysics?
Nietzsche's philosophy is the end of metaphysics, inasmuch as it reverts to the very commencement of Greek thought, taking up such
200 THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME
thought in a way that is peculiar to Nietzsche's philosophy alone. In this way Nietzsche's philosophy closes the ring that is formed by the very course of inquiry into being as such and as a whole. Yet to what extent does Nietzsche's thinking revert to the commencement? When we raise this question we must be clear about one point at the very outset: Nietzsche by no means recovers the philosophy of the com- mencement in its pristine form. Rather, here it is purely a matter of the reemergence of the essential fundamental positions of the com- mencement in a transformed configuration, in such a way that these positions interlock.
What are the decisive fundamental positions of the commencement? In other words, what sorts of answers are given to the as yet un- developed guiding question, the question as to what being is?
The one answer-roughly speaking, it is the answer of Parmenides -tells us that being is. An odd sort of answer, no doubt, yet a very deep one, since that very response determines for the first time and for all thinkers to come, including Nietzsche, the meaning of is and Being -permanence and presence, that is, the eternal present.
The other answer-roughly speaking, that of Heraclitus-tells us that being becomes. The being is in being by virtue of its permanent becoming, its self-unfolding and eventual dissolution.
To what extent is Nietzsche's thinking the end? That is to say, how does it stretch back to both these fundamental determinations of being in such a way that they come to interlock?
