(Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence — Preface, aph. 7)

Yet the question arises: what if it is sometimes necessary that some part of us does not (be)lieve in this doctrine…..? What if, at times, this ultimate certainty of being in the world must be told “no” – must be opposed? By this part of us I do not mean the few free spirits who, by some miracle, still wander this earth, but rather, in the literal sense, the parts of our own spirit which, within us – like Nietzsche’s “three hundred fronts” (Beyond Good and Evil, §289) – have differentiated into separate spiritual worlds. What if life in the universe, every positive charge, every growth, the writing of this book and everything else, were only possible if one part of us never (be)lieved in the Eternal Return? As though Nietzsche himself were aware of this primordial necessity and might never have written a single line of The Will to Power had he not, with one part of his spirit, opposed the thought of the Eternal Return…

It is, therefore, beyond question that our truths also contain their opposite: disbelief in the Eternal Return. We have lingered too long in the land of the mind, within our own thoughts, not to know that mood in which we can no longer bear this idea – in which we begin to act treacherously toward it, taking into consideration other, opposing doctrines. In such moments, one part of our thought no longer sees eternal recurrence as the same, but only as self-similar, almost “Hindu-like,” in all its variations and alternatives – perhaps even with a promise of redemption, and therefore, in a moral sense, meaningful. Another part will cling to the Buddhist teaching, believing it will awaken in the next life as a caterpillar or as moss upon a stone beside a murmuring brook — for even that seems closer to eternity than returning once more into itself. Finally, the most defiant, darkest, and most nihilistic part of our thought will see in death the greatest comfort – the only form of eternity given to us – and, in the end, will deny the Eternal Return altogether.

Moreover, the Doctrine of the Eternal Return – like every other doctrine or claim of pure reason – is haunted by Descartes’ demon. Because it is in the nature of pure reason to doubt everything, we can never be entirely certain that this doctrine truly is the case. Perhaps the reason lies in the possibility with which we can least cope: the possibility of a hidden dimension of reality that can affect us without our awareness. Together with the notion of infinity, it is one of the greatest objections to the doctrine of Eternal Return – if not its greatest. It is hard to take that possibility as null, though our scientists all too readily do. For if there exists a hidden part of reality which we cannot perceive, sense, or experience – and which may nonetheless act upon us – then even the scientific, etiological proof of the nature of this world’s functioning, which we believe may one day be confirmed, might one day prove false, for it will have failed to include precisely those hidden possibilities of reality.

Thus, the secret of believing in the Eternal Return – however self-contradictory it may seem – perhaps lies in opposing it from time to time: in living and thinking “beyond it” for a while; which, after all, we too often do in the cold, wintry seasons such as this one – nihilistic at their root – in which we find ourselves today, listlessly passing the time, no longer believing in anything at all…..

“Can I believe this doctrine? — It is dreadful, and perhaps it is not true.” (Nietzsche, Nachlass, Herbst 1883, notebook 17.)