What do you believe about the topic of Meta-physics?


  • More or less Plato’s forms
  • Kantian – it can’t be known
  • “Coward in the face of reality/Backdoor philosophy” according to Nietzsche
  • Doubt that there could be another choice, but not quite convinced by any of the above.
0 voters

I chose the last one. I tend to follow Nietzsche on this, but for some reason, I decide not to. I reckon the whole concept of meta-physic should not be regarded as one. For me, labelling it as Nietzsche did is somewhat hash; I don’t believe there is such a thing as the “intellectual coward”; I don’t think that Kant was a “cunning Christian” either.

I feel that a kind of compromise could be included here. Maybe meta-physics is the natural product of the human reasoning, just to contra the idea of the real world. In order to make a relative judgement, the mind must come up with two counter entities, only then one has the base to say things like right and wrong, good and bad… very much like what Kant said about pure reason. I suspect that we could divide the world into what’s physically perceivable and what’s not, but after all, I believe in total continuality.

I guess I’m just trying to say: don’t argue over mere concepts, especially those that are laden with the ambiguity of language: “meta” as beyond… I mean, beyond what? What’s beyond? Why needs to even think about beyond in the first place? Oh this is confusing, I wish someone would write something like “critique of impure reason”…

actually, metaphysics is very common, very used and very appealing to most everyone…

what metaphysics?

why mathematics of course…

but yes, it is just idealist non-sense…


I recall from somewhere that you’re a bit of Nietzsche quoter right?

But I also recall from somewhere that you’re against Nietzsche on many grounds - now obviously on the issue of meta-physics.

What? Has my most entrusted thinker all but fooled me? I believed when he said that meta-physics was totally abolished at the time, in the Twilight.

no, I am no enemy of Nietzsche… in fact quite the opposite…

the metaphysics he abolished were those surrounding god/gods/prime movers… his arguments apply not only to christianity (as most falsely assume) but to the nihilism behind specifically god centered moral systems, and behind moral systems in general… the meaning is simply not there… it is arbitrary…

I was simply highlighting that meta-physics is much more than god…


I’m not sure where you get the idea that Nietzsche actually distinguished meta-pysics into so many criterias as you jsut said. I thought he meant that metaphysics is the “decadent” way of dealing with reality, just like “Christianity” and nihilism. But my real question is: what is reality? isn’t it a relative concept?

where did I get the idea of Nietzsche’s philosophy? by reading and studing ALL his books… and yes, Nietzsche was a philologist by training… language itself is metaphysical…

reality is a relative concept… yeah, I agree with that…

then again… concepts are never real (tangible) are they?


Well then, jsut exactly where do you stand on this issue?

Somebody who takes it easy, sometimes they crack me up, you know, by not expressing their attitude…

i like Nietzsche alot, because I think that he is absolutely clear about things, or at least he thought so.

I stand with Hume and Nietzsche…

it cannot be known…

but it is fun to argue…


“fun to argue”…

should’ve known how could one take it easy endlessly in an online forum like this :wink:

I kind of stand with Nietzsche, I reckon he steped in the right direction… still, i believe in a compromise whatever you wana call it. and i think his will to power is just so as “system” like as christianity…

what? i’m attacking my intellectual hero?

not really… you aren’t attacking him directly… it might be argued that the “system” created behind the power is nothing but a will to a system like christianity, Nietzsche would counter by claiming that the new “system” is not a system in the christian sense… the christian system is to be followed by everyone… the ubermensch’s “system” that he creates is followed by no one but him… there is a difference… more later…


in twilight, he said that system is the lack of the will to integrity. he who creates a system, is fundamentally based on some convictions - refusal to accept the effect of his own personality… what? i’m merely repeating?

christianity is based on the whole fact that god is there. he said if he could overcome that fact, then the whole religion is done, since it’s a system. hence i argue that it’s the same case with nietzsche; if i could defy the idea of conviction, i can say that there is nothing wrong with system

the world is system, the laws and the “eternal reccurences” as he said himself, so to defy the idea of system, is the attempt to be free of the constrains of what might be the reality, so wouldn’t one say that act is “decadent” in the sense that not willing to accept the truth?

no, the world is the world… the language with which we describe the world is the system…

there is no “truth”… to claim that “truth” exists for all is decadence…


are the translations of the twilight so bloody different? or n changes his ideas during writting?

i could give you some stright quote to prove what i posted correctly represents n’s views, at least in twilight…

which books exactly do you get your ideas about n from?

yes the translations can be very different…

as I said, I get my interpretation of his work from all his writings…

The Birth of Tragedy
Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks
On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense
Untimely Meditations:
I: David Strauss: the Confessor and the Writer
II: On the Use and Abuse of History for Life
III: Schopenhauer as Educator
IV: Richard Wagner in Bayreuth
Human, All Too Human
Mixed Opinions and Maxims
The Wanderer and His Shadow
The Dawn
Idylls From Messina
The Gay Science
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Beyond Good and Evil
On the Genealogy of Morals
The Case of Wagner
Twilight of the Idols
Nietzsche contra Wagner
The Antichrist
Ecce Homo

plus the notes he wrote in Will to Power (but not the spin his sister put on them…)

and yes, I have complete hard copies of all of them except the dawn (also called daybreak)

and you can easily find most all of these published on the web…


i see you got a little busy in the philosophy forum there… do you reckon d’trop’s on crack or something… :laughing:

is there a best translated version or something? i’m going to try to read zarathustra, do you know any prestigious versions?

I recommend kaufmann’s or hollingdale’s translations…
(Faber and Lehmann have a nice translation of HATH)

although it could be argued that if you only read one interpreter, you will get the interpreter’s bias (this argument has merit) so if you can find copies translated by several different people you may want to read them all and find the differences…


I am in agreement with Imp on all his points concerning this topic…the metaphysical realm is for dreamers, not thinkers.

aren’t you folks economic!

read different translations? wow have you actually done that imp? would i do that, yeah maybe, when i grow a beard like the man’s…

somebody actually voted for kant. show yourself mister.

Actually there are more than one votes for Kant, but I made one of them. Nothing beyond what we see cannot truly be proven, nor can it be denied.

i don’t understand…

you said meta is for dreamers; but kant essentially accepted the existence of the meta. so eare you classifying yourself as a dreamer?

i say you’re definitely not nietzschen, cause for his: the whole concept of meta is nothing but a joke, no?