What follows is taken from "Twilight of the Idols," by Friedrich Nietzsche. Translated by R. J. Hollingdale for the 1990 Penguin edition. It is a history of the development of the concept of a "real world."

Editors Note: all material enclosed in brackets was added by Christopher Jenson, all text in parenthesis and otherwise is Nietzsche's original work.

The Real World [territory], attainable to the wise, the pious, the virtuous man - he dwells in it, he is it.

(Oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, convinicing. Transcription of the proposition of ‘I, Plato, am the truth.’)

[This is the concept of the real world or ‘territory’ in ancient Greece and other contemporary societies. Access to the spiritual realm and to the words of Gods was direct, immediate, and literal.]

The real world, unattainable for the moment, but promised to the wise, the pious, the virtuous man (‘to the sinner who repents.’).

(Progress of the idea: it grows more refined, more enticing, more incomprehensible - it becomes Christian. . .)

[Access to ‘territory’ is not immediate any longer. The concept becomes more abstract and thus more ‘incomprehensible.’ The concept is also becoming much more metaphorical. One must earn the right to attain knowledge of the ‘territory’ by good works or perhaps through the grace of God.]

The real world, unattainable, undemonstrable, cannot be promised, but even when merely thought of a consolation, a duty, an imperative.

(Fundamentally the same old sun, but shining through mist and scepticism; the idea grown sublime, pale, northerly, Konigsbergian.)

[Nietzsche is referrring to Kant who lived in Konigsberg Germany. Kant is famous for his categorical imperative. “Treat others not as a means, but as an ends in themselves.” Covey’s metaphysics are almost identical to Kant’s. Kant made a distinction between the noumenal world and the phenomenal world. The noumenal world is the true world but it is not accessible to us because we can only view the world through our own perceptions. This world of perceptions is the phenomenal world. Covey's ‘territory’ matches up nicely with the noumenal, while his notion of a map matches up nicely with the phenomenal. Kant believed that we might be able to guess what the noumenal looks like by using reason. It appears Covey thinks we can guess what it looks like it by a multicultural historical analysis of values. The crucial point here is that we will always see things through our perceptions or use our own particular map. Granted these perceptions or maps can be changed, but then they just are different map or perception.]

The real world - unattainable? Unattained, at any rate. And if unattained also unknown. Consequently also no consolation, no redemption, no duty: how could we have a duty towards something unknown?

(The grey dawn. First yawnings of reason. Cockcrow of positivism.)

[Covey claims that he has attained the real world because multiple cultures in myriad times all came to the same conclusion about virtues such as integrity, honesty, etc. However, it clearly does not follow that since these virtues arose in all these cultures that they are a part of the real world or ‘territory’. If this were the case we would have to concede that something like slavery is a part of the territory too. Slavery arose in the American south, in Ancient Rome and Greece, and in many other cultures and times. This section also points out that since man has access only to his map or the world of his perceptions, this is the only basis he has for his moral principles. Even if God came and talked directly to someone today, that person would still perceive God’s words through his own perceptions and based on his own map. Since God’s word or the territory is unknowable, how can we have a duty towards him? Nietszche refers to this stage of development as the “cockcrow of positivism.” Positivism is an empirical philosophy founded on observation and experiment. Nietzsche does not believe that scientific enquiry has access to the real world either. Science too, is done through our perceptions.]

The ‘real world’ - an idea no longer of any use, not even a duty any longer - an idea grown useless, superfluous, consequently a refuted idea: let us abolish it!

(Broad daylight; breakfast; return of cheerfulness and bons sens; Plato blushes for shame; all free spirits run riot.)

[Plato blushes, because he is one of the earliest philosophers to have a concept of the real world. He called it the world of forms, see his allegory of the cave. At this stage we have the idea that all there is are maps or perceptions. An analogy is quite useful here. Imagine a soda bottle sitting on a table with people sitting all around it. One person can see the logo for the brand of soda it is from his position. Another person can see the nutritional facts from her position, etc. It is not possible to see the soda bottle from all angles at once. A perception comes from a particular perspective. There is no view from nowhere.]

We have abolished the real world: what world is left? The apparent world perhaps? … But no! with the real world we have also abolished the apparent world!

(Mid-day; moment of the shortest shadow; end of the longest error; zenith of mankind; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA)

[Incipit Zarathustra means Zarathustra begins. Zarathustra is the prophet of an ancient Persian religion called Zoroastrianism. Nietzsche uses Zarathustra as a character in his most famous work Thus Spoke Zarathustra. If the concept of the real world or territory is abolished then so is the concept of the perceived world or map, because these concepts are defined in terms of one another. Thus, there is no territory and no map.]