John affirmed his belief in a literal Eternal Recurrence shortly before he passed. My own view is that all metaphysics is a sort of picture language meant to impress us to follow a given ethic. Christianity with its heaven above and hell below is meant to say that “one thing is needful,” to ask for forgiveness and escape an unforgiven fate. This is true even if there is a heaven and hell above. Agnostically, it doesn’t matter if there is a heaven and hell; rhetorically, they are just saying it is good to seek to forgive and be forgiven. Likewise, Nietzsche, who suffered his daily life, created a metaphysics that recommended he accept that very life, without seeking for one better after the grave. Amor fati. His metaphysics is a justification for amor fati. The question is, can we say “Yes” in this way, if this is just a parable that is not literally scientifically true? John took it as literally true. Nietzsche seemed to suffer profoundly from the idea that it might be literally true, and may have backed off from it as a scientific idea.

It is a metaphysics, sure, but as to whether it is scientifically sound? Science changes too much to base an ethics upon. Rather than asking IF it is true, ask how life lives when we ASSUME it to be true.

Daniel