Apr 15, 2026 05:40 AM
https://aeon.co/essays/the-mysticism-of-...nal-return
EXCERPTS: One reason it might seem odd to call Nietzsche a mystic is that he himself went to great lengths to oppose certain forms of mysticism. [...] The kind of mysticism Nietzsche opposed is often called apophatic mysticism. ... Apophatic writers view God as that which cannot be named or even conceived of. The closer you are to freeing yourself of ideas and conceptions, the closer you are to God. It is a negative attempt to understand God; one grasps Him by grasping what He isn’t...
The apophatic isn’t, however, the only form of mysticism. It can be contrasted with a rival ‘cataphatic’ tradition. Cataphatic mysticism [...] sees reality as inherently revelatory. Rather than flying from speech and negating appearances, the cataphatic, Kourie holds, ‘indicates a moving towards speech, and effects affirmative mysticism... This form of mysticism neither rejects reality nor negates the self. The cataphatic delights in haecceity – in the ‘this-ness’ of every object. It is this form of mysticism that Nietzsche embraced, minus the God part.
[...] It is no surprise that the same book that begins by celebrating the extraordinary beauty of mundane things culminates in Nietzsche’s ‘most dangerous’ idea, an idea that shapes his cataphatic mysticism: the doctrine of eternal recurrence...
[...] The insight into the eternal recurrence – the flash of lightning – is that everything, every item of existence, has always recurred and is destined to recur ad infinitum. This is not a claim about some other world. It concerns precisely what we see, touch, smell and taste. All things, all experiences, all events, all thoughts will recur in the very same way they have come to pass. You have lived this life exactly this way countless times before. [...] This is the idea that Nietzsche came to believe with the same force that Paul discovered his faith in Jesus.
[...] Since Nietzsche considered himself to have discovered a cosmological truth, he planned to devote a number of years to scientific study in order to rigorously defend the doctrine. But after some early attempts at formulating a proof for his theory, he abandoned this course. ... he soon realised was that his experience was incapable of being grounded in scientific thought...
[...] But there still seems to be something distinctly odd about a profoundly atheistic thinker like Nietzsche holding convictions based on something akin to a religious experience. Atheism per se doesn’t preclude beliefs based on powerful numinous or unexplainable experiences, even if many atheists have historically doubted their epistemic reliability.
[...] Nietzsche’s response to his insight was a distinct form of mysticism. He came to view everything around him as endowed with its own privileged status as eternal. While Nietzsche certainly rejected pantheism – nature is not divine – the eternality that he attributes to all things is nonetheless a traditional attribute of God...
[...] Nietzsche’s language is replete with logic-defying symbolism, multisensory and erotic imagery, confessions of ineffability, and recourse to an incantatory rhythm. These are all classic markers of the language of mysticism. The atheist who lamented God’s lingering ‘shadow’ over Europe and its culture-sapping, genius-frustrating consequences has become, through his encounter with the eternal recurrence, strikingly close in his language to that of the religious contemplative...
[...] Nietzsche’s discovery of eternal recurrence was not only the fountain of his cataphatic mysticism, it was also a moment of dramatic personal conversion. To grasp the infinite echo of one’s own life is to be placed under a new and terrible demand: to live in such a way that one could will its every detail again and again. Life becomes not something to be endured, but something to be crafted – an aesthetic whole worthy of its own repetition. Even if Nietzsche was mistaken about the truth of eternal recurrence, the challenge it poses remains. It confronts us with the question of whether our lives are merely being lived, or whether they are being affirmed – not once, but eternally... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPTS: One reason it might seem odd to call Nietzsche a mystic is that he himself went to great lengths to oppose certain forms of mysticism. [...] The kind of mysticism Nietzsche opposed is often called apophatic mysticism. ... Apophatic writers view God as that which cannot be named or even conceived of. The closer you are to freeing yourself of ideas and conceptions, the closer you are to God. It is a negative attempt to understand God; one grasps Him by grasping what He isn’t...
The apophatic isn’t, however, the only form of mysticism. It can be contrasted with a rival ‘cataphatic’ tradition. Cataphatic mysticism [...] sees reality as inherently revelatory. Rather than flying from speech and negating appearances, the cataphatic, Kourie holds, ‘indicates a moving towards speech, and effects affirmative mysticism... This form of mysticism neither rejects reality nor negates the self. The cataphatic delights in haecceity – in the ‘this-ness’ of every object. It is this form of mysticism that Nietzsche embraced, minus the God part.
[...] It is no surprise that the same book that begins by celebrating the extraordinary beauty of mundane things culminates in Nietzsche’s ‘most dangerous’ idea, an idea that shapes his cataphatic mysticism: the doctrine of eternal recurrence...
[...] The insight into the eternal recurrence – the flash of lightning – is that everything, every item of existence, has always recurred and is destined to recur ad infinitum. This is not a claim about some other world. It concerns precisely what we see, touch, smell and taste. All things, all experiences, all events, all thoughts will recur in the very same way they have come to pass. You have lived this life exactly this way countless times before. [...] This is the idea that Nietzsche came to believe with the same force that Paul discovered his faith in Jesus.
[...] Since Nietzsche considered himself to have discovered a cosmological truth, he planned to devote a number of years to scientific study in order to rigorously defend the doctrine. But after some early attempts at formulating a proof for his theory, he abandoned this course. ... he soon realised was that his experience was incapable of being grounded in scientific thought...
[...] But there still seems to be something distinctly odd about a profoundly atheistic thinker like Nietzsche holding convictions based on something akin to a religious experience. Atheism per se doesn’t preclude beliefs based on powerful numinous or unexplainable experiences, even if many atheists have historically doubted their epistemic reliability.
[...] Nietzsche’s response to his insight was a distinct form of mysticism. He came to view everything around him as endowed with its own privileged status as eternal. While Nietzsche certainly rejected pantheism – nature is not divine – the eternality that he attributes to all things is nonetheless a traditional attribute of God...
[...] Nietzsche’s language is replete with logic-defying symbolism, multisensory and erotic imagery, confessions of ineffability, and recourse to an incantatory rhythm. These are all classic markers of the language of mysticism. The atheist who lamented God’s lingering ‘shadow’ over Europe and its culture-sapping, genius-frustrating consequences has become, through his encounter with the eternal recurrence, strikingly close in his language to that of the religious contemplative...
[...] Nietzsche’s discovery of eternal recurrence was not only the fountain of his cataphatic mysticism, it was also a moment of dramatic personal conversion. To grasp the infinite echo of one’s own life is to be placed under a new and terrible demand: to live in such a way that one could will its every detail again and again. Life becomes not something to be endured, but something to be crafted – an aesthetic whole worthy of its own repetition. Even if Nietzsche was mistaken about the truth of eternal recurrence, the challenge it poses remains. It confronts us with the question of whether our lives are merely being lived, or whether they are being affirmed – not once, but eternally... (MORE - missing details)
