- (March-June 1888) ( A ) I observe with astonishment that
science has today resigned itself to the apparent world; a real
world--whatever it may be like--we certainly have no organ for
knowing it. At this point we may ask: by means of what organ of
knowledge can we posit even this antithesis?-- That a world
accessible to our organs is also understood to be dependent upon
these organs, that we understand a world as being subjectively
conditioned, is not to say that an objective world is at all
possible. Who compels us to think that subjectivity is real,
essential? The "in-itself" is even an absurd conception; a
"constitutioning-itself" is nonsense; we possess the concept
"being," "thing," only as a relational concept-- The worst thing
is that with the old antithesis "apparent" and "true" the
correlative value judgment "lacking in value" and "absolutely
valuable" has developed. The apparent world is not counted as a
"valuable" world; appearance is supposed to constitute an
objection to supreme value. Only a "t