"revenge is the will's revulsion against time and its it was".

The will is repulsed by

the fact that what has passed by is now dead "in a state of rigor mortis". But f we
look closer at Aristotles words "from which all conceptions of metaphysics derive"
he does not specifically say that the time that passes is non-being he merely
says it is without presence. But the modern conception of time sees it as
restrictive as a constant battle of overthrowing what was and progressing
onward. This thinking of the past as in a state of rigor mortis and without being is
what leads to revenge for nbietzsche and heidegger and revenge can exist on a
personal level as well as an external level. But Aristotles words don't call for this
at all. They merely express that what has passed is no longer present, it is the
subsequent thinkers on being and time who have impressed being on this
presence and thus being is what is present ie the "now". But for heidegger no
one has any right to determine time in terms of being because "as soon as
metaphysical thought poses this question, it has already decided for itself it it
understands by 'in being'". And this cannot stand because the metaphysicians
still havent asked the more essential question of what being is.

If we look at holderlins words “almost this river seems to travel backwards”. We

see the essential break from heideggers concept of the originary essence of time
to the now common modern conception of it. The common conception of time
sees time as a river: something constatntly moving forward with no real
connection with the past. Heideggers concept involves the “travel backward”.

“we did create the heaviest thought now lets create the being to which it will be
light and blissful”. This being who will consider it light and blissful is Nietzsche’s
Superman. The “heaviest thought” is the idea of the eternal recurrence of the
same. Heidegger believes the eternal recurrence of the same to be man’s
deliverence from revenge. But at the same time he is skeptical he says at the
same time that it is the thought “from which even Nietzsche had to shrink back in
terror”. Nietzsche is not the teacher of the actual eternal recurrence of the same
his Zarathustra is though: Zarathustra teaches the doctrine of the superman
because he is the teacher of the eternal recurrence of the same” (emphasis
added). Nietzsche cannot think through the absolute eternal recurrence of the
same this is why he gives the task to Zarathustra. When Nietzsche first published
this idea it was in his “Joyful Wisdom” but it is only vauely hinted at: “here the
idea is introduced, not as a metaphysical doctrine but as an ethical imperative: to
live as if “the eternal hourglass of existence” will continually be turned” (Lowith
216). Notice Lowith’s emphasis on the “as if”. Thus it can be seen that he was
not up to the task of being the preacher of the eternal recurrence and thus
assigned that duty to the main character of his next work (Thus Spoke
Zarathustra) “the teacher of “the doctrine of the…eternal recurrence of the
same”: Zarathustra. “In Zarathustra, in which eteral recurrence is the basic
inspiration, it is not presented as a hypothesis but as a metaphysical truth” (lowith
216) And who is professing this “metaphysical truth”? Not Nietzsche himself but
Zarathustra. Readers will notice that the writing Stlye of Zarathustra is much
different than Nietzsche’s customary style: rather than being a list of maxims and
aphorism it is confoundingly repetitious, and this is no accident, this repetition is
owing to Zarathustra’s emphasis on eternal “recurrence”. Zarathustra is the
manifestation of nietzsche’s concept of that being which will think the “heaviest
thought” lightly and blissfully, the being who will not shrink back from it. This
shrinking back to which Heidegger himself believes Nietzsche regressed to in the
“darkness of this last though of metaphysics”. Heidegger considers this vague
but profound concept which remains veiled—and not just by a curtain” is the “last
thought of western metaphysics” and remains to be taken up by a Zarathustra. It
is obvious both Nietzsche and Heidegger took this concept very seriously, but
Heidegger thinks that if people view the idea in passing they will miss it essential
truth and importance and “say this…is a kind of mysticism and does not belong in
the court of thought.” Or if we consider it further and see that “this though…
already…can be found in Heraclitus’ fragments” (or anywhere else) we are still
doing the thought no justice since we are basing our thought on this very
profound thought on another thinkers thought which we ourselves have not even
begun to think: “A thinker is not beholden to a thinker—rather, when he is
thinking, he holds on to what is to be thought Being” (95). And Nietzsche’s
thought deals directly with the question of what being is and in terms of what the
modern concept of being has hitherto been (but not akin to it).