Elementary School?

After taking the "blog readability test," I've decided to post the opening paragraph of the second chapter of my forthcoming book to see if that raises the readability at all.
If not, you'll be seeing more.

Nietzsche proudly proclaims himself teacher of the eternal recurrence, yet the few references to the doctrine of eternal recurrence in his writings have resulted in decades-long debates on the proper understanding of this obscure idea. If the eternal recurrence is a coherent idea, it has serious implications for his positive ethical theory. A variety of tacks have been taken on this issue, but they tend to coalesce around two poles: either the eternal recurrence is a statement of determinism, or it serves as a test akin to Kant’s Categorical Imperative. If we follow the former interpretation, all of our actions (as well as our attitude towards those actions) would be unalterable, making the question of responsibility moot and effectively eliminating anything that could pass for “ethics.” The latter interpretation recognizes the inevitability of all actions implied by the apparently circularity of time, but nevertheless suggests we have the ability to alter our attitudes towards our lives and the universe as a whole. In either case, the significance of the eternal recurrence is central to the understanding of Nietzsche's ethical views; however, both tacks fail to recognize that, throughout his writings, Nietzsche attempts to dispense with the traditional free will/determinism dichotomy altogether. Using the traditional framework to interpret the eternal recurrence is thus mistaken.