The starting point for this thesis was the claim that memory is of a higher importance for Nietzsche and the understanding of his work than has been hitherto recognised. I made out this claim by arguing initially that for Nietzsche, memory is what makes us human, and by also noting the importance and unusual nature of Nietzsche’s picture of forgetting. Having established the significance of memory, it became clear that we need to understand what exactly Nietzsche means by the term. It became apparent that there were many uses and nuances and do it appeared valuable to separate out the various meanings into different types and subtypes of memory.
This separation generated four different types of memory. I will first recapitulate their definitions before summarising the arguments for their existence. Passive Memory was defined on p. 17 as being composed of two subtypes: Inhibitory Memory and Imposed Memory. Imposed Memory was defined as any memory which is imposed externally; and Inhibitory Memory was defined as any memory which tends to suppress action. Active Memory was defined on p. 21 as any use of memory which is both selected by the rememberer and tends to promote activity. Organic Memory was defined on p. 35 as any use of memory in which any of the following markers are present: i). it is physiologically based; or ii). it is stored via experiences of events that did not take place during the lifetime of the rememberer or iii). it is available to life beyond humanity. Collective Memory was defined on p. 62 as any use of memory or its contents in which the results could not be re-described on the basis of a sum over individual memories.
The argument for the first distinction between Passive Memory and Active Memory was driven by the way that Nietzsche sees activity as a major source of value and by his remarks to the effect that some memories were valuable and some were not. In particular, there was an identification in Nietzsche between passive and reactive memory and passive and reactive behaviour, all of which Nietzsche saw as less valuable. This led to the conclusion that some memories tended to promote activity and some tended to inhibit it, resulting in the two types. Passive Memory was linked to the phenomenon of ressentiment, a complex theme of Nietzsche’s which is nevertheless seen by him negatively, at least from the perspective of those experiencing it.
Passive Memory was shown to be made up of two subtypes: Inhibitory and Imposed. While they need not be identical, they will overlap quite significantly in the weak and those suffering from ressentiment, for those who have no control over some of what they remember will also have little freedom of action. This argument was primarily driven by the association in GM between the imposition of memories of public punishments and the inhibition of action in those who have such memories.
Active Memory was primarily argued for – see §2.2.2 – by contrasting it with Passive Memory on several axes. As mentioned, the first of these distinctions was by the valuation ascribed by Nietzsche, but distinctions were also shown in terms of power, bad conscience, the memory of the will, contest and competition, and effective self-creation.
There is a third major type of memory for Nietzsche: Organic Memory. While I claim that the first distinction between Passive Memory and Active Memory is true and useful to us today, Organic Memory is perhaps a less useful claim. Understanding what Nietzsche means by it remains an important pre-requisite for reading him however, because it can cause us to mistake useful claims about our memory with the wider concept of Organic Memory that Nietzsche also considers.
We saw that Organic Memory was a new type since Nietzsche extended it to previous generations of humans and also to the non-human world of plants. This contrasts with Passive Memory and Active Memory types in humans. It is probably beyond what we would accept today as falling within the standard meaning of the term ‘memory’ and reflects some of Nietzsche’s interest in biological views which are no longer current.
I argued that understanding this additional memory type could give us fresh perspectives on the important themes of Dionysus vs Apollo and the Übermensch. In the first case, forgetting is part of the value of the drives, while in the second case the special memory abilities of the Übermensch were linked to his ability to affirm the Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence.
My final task was to eliminate a misunderstanding. Several authors have claimed or assumed that Nietzsche recognises a type of Collective Memory. I argued that when authors have involved Nietzsche to support existence claims for Collective memory, they were mistaken. Often this occurred because they were confused by Nietzsche’s admittedly rather opaque references to the slightly strange Organic Memory type.
I conclude that understanding to which memory type Nietzsche is referring is valuable and important: it gives us better perspectives on what memory is and what Nietzsche means.
 F. W. Nietzsche and R. J. Hollingdale, Untimely Meditations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.
 F. W. Nietzsche, M. Clark, and A. J. Swensen, On the Genealogy of Morality: a Polemic. Hackett Pub. Co., Indianapolis, 1998.
 F. W. Nietzsche, G. Colli, and M. Montinari, Sämtliche Werke. dtv and Walter de Gruyter, Munich, 1988.
 F. W. Nietzsche, W. A. Kaufmann, and R. J. Hollingdale, The Will to Power. Vintage Books, New York, 1968.
 S. R. Luft, “The Secularization of Origins in Vico and Nietzsche,” The Personalist Forum, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 133–148, 1994.
 F. W. Nietzsche and R. J. Hollingdale, Human, All Too Human: a Book for Free Spirits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
 W. A. Kaufmann, Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1974.
 F. W. Nietzsche and R. J. Hollingdale, Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Penguin Books, London, 2003.
 J. Richardson, Nietzsche’s New Darwinism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008.
 F. W. Nietzsche, M. Clark, and B. Leiter, Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
 F. W. Nietzsche, A. Ridley, and J. Norman, The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols, and Other Writings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.
 E. Bertram and R. E. Norton, Nietzsche: Attempt at a Mythology. International Nietzsche Studies, University of Illinois Press, Champaign, 2009.
 G. Deleuze, Nietzsche and philosophy. Continuum Books, London, 2006.
 S. D. Hales, “Nietzsche on Logic,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 819–835, 1996.
 F. W. Nietzsche, R. Bittner, and K. Sturge, Nietzsche: Writings from the Late Notebooks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
 K. A. Pearson, A Companion to Nietzsche. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2009.
 A. Clark, “Intrinsic Content, Active Memory and the Extended Mind,” Analysis,
vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2005.
 R. Wollheim, The Thread of Life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
 J. Sutton, “Memory,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (E. N. Zalta, ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, summer 2010 ed., 2010.
 F. W. Nietzsche, B. Williams, J. Nauckhoff, and A. Caro, The Gay Science: With a Prelude in German Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.
 F. W. Nietzsche, R. Geuss, A. Nehamas, and L. Lo ̈b, Nietzsche: Writings from the Early Notebooks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009.
 J. Derrida and R. Beardsworth, “Nietzsche and the Machine,” Journal of Nietzsche Studies, no. 7, pp. 7–66, 1994.
 A. Kee, Nietzsche Against the Crucified. SCM Press, Norwich, 1999.
 C. D. Acampora, Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals: Critical Essays. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, 2006.
 K. Gemes and S. May, Nietzsche on Freedom and Autonomy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009.
 H. Staten, “The Problem of Nietzsche’s Economy,” Representations, no. 27, pp. 66–91, 1989.
 P. S. Loeb, “Finding the Übermensch in Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morality,” Journal of Nietzsche Studies, no. 30, pp. 70–101, 2005.
 R. Poole, “Memory, Responsibility, and Identity,” Social Research, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 263–286, 2008.
 A. Ridley, “Nietzsche’s Conscience,” Journal of Nietzsche Studies, no. 11, pp. 1– 12, 1996.
 P. Goldie, “Empathy with One’s Past,” Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 49,
no. s1, pp. 193–207, 2011.
 A. Margalit, The Ethics of Memory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
 N. Sheehan, A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam. Random House, London, 1988.
 M. M. Lewis, Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game. W.W. Norton, London, 2004.
 J. Lavrin, “A Note on Nietzsche and Dostoevsky,” Russian Review, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 160–170, 1969.
 F. Dostoyevsky, Notes from the Underground. Dover Publications, Mineola, 1992.
 D. J. Pratt, “[untitled],” Isis, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 342–343, 1995.
 J. S. Gamble, “The Indian Species of Mimosa,” Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Gardens, Kew), vol. 1920, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 1920.
 J. Richardson, “Nietzsche Contra Darwin,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 537–575, 2002.
 L. Lampert, “Review: [untitled],” The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 173–175, 2006.
 G. Parkes, “Nietzsche on the Fabric(ation) of Experience,” Journal of Nietzsche Studies, no. 9/10, pp. 7–35, 1995.
 M. Haar, “Life and Natural Totality in Nietzsche,” Journal of Nietzsche Studies, no. 3, pp. 67–97, 1992.
 A. François and R. Lapidus, “Life and Will in Nietzsche and Bergson,” SubStance, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 100–114, 2007.
 C. E. Scott, “Nietzsche: Feeling, Transmission, Phusis,” Journal of Nietzsche Studies, no. 16, pp. 49–79, 1998.
 F. W. Nietzsche, R. Geuss, and R. Speirs, The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
 A. Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation. Dover Publications, Mineola, 1966.
 P. M. Lützeler, “[untitled],” German Studies Review, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 205–206, 1998.
 A. Nehamas, Nietzsche: Life as Literature. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
 J. K. Winfree, “Before the Subject: Rereading The Birth of Tragedy,” Journal
of Nietzsche Studies, no. 25, pp. 58–77, 2003.
 G. Gambino, “Nietzsche and the Greeks: Identity, Politics, and Tragedy,” Polity,
vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 415–444, 1996.
 D. Thomas, “The Articulation of Time in Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy: Rethinking Deconstruction Through the Thematic of Temporality,” Journal of Nietzsche Studies, no. 9/10, pp. 113–131, 1995.
 Plato, Meno. Arc Manor, Rockville, 2009.
 R. Wicks, “Friedrich Nietzsche,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (E. N. Zalta, ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, summer 2011 ed., 2011.
 F. W. Nietzsche and R. J. Hollingdale, Thus Spoke Zarathustra: a Book for Everyone and No One. Penguin Books, London, 1961.
 B. Magnus, “Nietzsche’s Eternalistic Counter-Myth,” The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 604–616, 1973.
 T. Stern, “Nietzsche on Context and the Individual,” Nietzscheforschung, vol. 15, pp. 299–315, 2008.
 A. Funkenstein, “Collective Memory and Historical Consciousness,” History and Memory, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 5–26, 1989.
 J. Assmann and J. Czaplicka, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” New German Critique, no. 65, pp. 125–133, 1995.
 A. Lattas, “Introduction: Mnemonic Regimes and Strategies of Subversion,” Oceania, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 257–265, 1996.