Novus Tempus, an institute for humanistic peace research with a focus on energies in a geostrategic context, was founded as an independent and self-financed institute in 2016. Under the direction of cum laude, Dipl.-Ing., MEng App.Sc, B.Arch., Werner Francis Schultze takes on geostrategic problems and perspectives arising from a globally networked world are examined. In addition to the use of finite resources and the use of renewable energies, social trends and behavioral patterns are also an area whose global impacts must be taken into account. We present our data to the interested public and thus offer a platform for public education, as an aid for political opinion-forming and decision-making.
Werner Francis Schultze
Werner Francis Schultze entered this world under the Southern Cross on November 28, 1966, in Wellington, New Zealand. He is a 14th-generation direct descendant of Katharina von Bora and Martin Luther, the reformer of Western Christianity.
Building on his foundations, a vocational training and self-employment, Schultze’s curiosity led him on a further path into the field of architecture – to search for answers to the questions that concerned. After completing my architecture studies, he gained experience in academic and professional activities within companies related to the professional field. Following his research drive, further study trips in Schultze’s interdisciplinary career – as part of the self-taught engineering course of the ‘studium generale‘ – took him to various locations, including Heidelberg, Berlin, Munich, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford and Brisbane.
In this context, Schultze expanded his knowledge of the classical fundamental disciplines, particularly physics and natural philosophy – whose symbolic linguistic expressions are reflected in the linguistic elements of mathematics – in order to be able to explain to our species a world that is sensually understandable, especially haptically perceptible, and thus plausible and logical for us to experience.
‘Philosophy and intellectual history can only be understood if they are penetrated at their source, their origin.’
Schultze’s further career focused on the scientific disciplines of sociology, economics and ecology as well as on metaphysical mental philosophy and exosociology in order to be able to synthesize ideas from these different disciplines and – as a project architect of architectural philosophy and construction history – to promote the transition to a new zeitgeist.
Schultze states:
All in all, these skills enable me to carry the torch of enlightenment, to share comprehensive knowledge and – in the spirit of a critical mind – to act as an editor of the rebirth of a thought.
As a Lutheran, I see it as my duty to expose and even warn against human abuse of power – wherever it occurs!
*****
Three Options in Lebensphilosophie; the Third Option Not Philosophy — A Response
by Werner Francis Schultze
Many thanks for sharing your thoughts on Nietzsche and the philosophy of life.
From an interdisciplinary perspective, I continue to find it deeply fascinating how the choice of words—and indeed the ways in which the world is described—reflects the interrelations between the various scientific disciplines: whether through explicit reference or through a more subtle, often only gradually discernible kinship of thought.
Particularly striking is the reference to the notion of interpretation, which emerges not only within philosophical discourse, but also in the domain of contemporary physics—especially in quantum mechanics, where the fundamental building blocks of reality present themselves either as particles or as waves, depending on the framework of observation. A similar interpretative dimension arises in the field of human perception, as described by the cognitive sciences—where perception itself is, at its core, an act of interpretation.
In this context—and while reflecting on the interpretative nature of all understanding—my attention is inevitably drawn to the use of the terms reality and actuality, whose subtle distinction in the German language allows for a certain conceptual precision. In English, however, this nuance is often glossed over or handled somewhat carelessly. One frequently encounters references to subjective or objective reality, while the term actuality seldom appears with comparable philosophical weight. In this, something essential is lost: a distinction between that which is merely imagined, and that which truly acts or unfolds in the world.
But before venturing too far ahead, let me return first to Nietzsche:
Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche employed both terms—Realität (reality) and Wirklichkeit (actuality)—in his writings. However, he did not consistently draw a strict distinction between them. In his 1873 essay On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense, Nietzsche criticises the human tendency to construct a seemingly fixed reality through language—even though such constructions ultimately rest on metaphors and illusions.
Nietzsche argues that language creates a second layer of reality—one that does not necessarily correspond to the actual world. This view is echoed in his concept of perspectivism, according to which there is no objective reality, but only a multiplicity of interpretations shaped by differing vantage points.
Although he uses both terms, Nietzsche’s focus lies less in terminological precision and more in a critical examination of how language and human constructs shape—and often distort—our perception of the world.
Wirklichkeit
The German term Wirklichkeit derives, conceptually, from the Latin actualitas, which itself stems from actus—meaning “action” or “actualisation.” It refers to that which is actively unfolding or realised, in contrast to potentia—that which merely could be.
Its Greek origin lies in Aristotle’s term ἐνέργεια (energeia)—literally “being-at-work” or “in-act-ness.” This stands in contrast to δύναμις (dynamis), which denotes potentiality or latent capacity.
The resulting Aristotelian triad is as follows:
- dynamis – the possible, not yet realised
- energeia – the active, presently unfolding
- entelecheia – the fulfilled, fully realised
In medieval scholasticism, energeia was translated into Latin as actualitas, which ultimately gave rise to the German notion of Wirklichkeit—that which is truly effective, that which is in the process of becoming, or at work in the world.
Reality
The term reality—as distinct from actuality or Wirklichkeit—has its own conceptual history. It derives from the Latin res, meaning “thing,” “object,” or “matter.” From this root emerged the scholastic realitas, originally denoting thingness—the quality of being a thing in itself, independent of its appearance or effect.
In German philosophy, Realität gained traction particularly in the 18th century, as thinkers increasingly turned to the question of the relation between thought and being. While Kant’s Transcendental Aesthetic focused on the realm of appearances, he also referred to the Ding an sich—the “thing-in-itself,” which can be postulated but never fully known. Within this tension between appearance and essence, a transformation occurred: reality began to be seen less as what is objectively given, and more as what appears to consciousness as given.
In modern epistemology—especially in the works of Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume—the notion of reality came to be shaped through a subjective lens. Reality became what is perceived, believed, or experienced as real. Whether such a reality exists outside of consciousness was often left unresolved—or even openly questioned. The result was a growing sense that each human being possesses a distinct reality: a subjective world-image formed by sensory impressions, memory, expectation, and cultural imprint.
Nietzsche’s perspectivism echoes and intensifies this view. There is no objective reality in the classical sense—only a multiplicity of interpretations, each bound to particular perspectives and shaped by power relations. For Nietzsche, reality is not what is, but what is interpreted as being—a functional construct that becomes “real” insofar as it exerts influence, not because it corresponds to some underlying essence.
The English language, by contrast, lacks much of the conceptual nuance to fully capture these distinctions. Reality is often used indiscriminately to denote both the subjectively experienced and the ostensibly objective. Phrases such as subjective reality and objective reality do exist, yet they remain semantically vague and prone to confusion. The term actuality, which might more closely approximate the German Wirklichkeit—that which is actively unfolding—is seldom used, and rarely carries philosophical weight.
Conclusion
Today, the term reality stands at a crossroads—between epistemological subjectivity and the inherited notion of a fixed world order. In a world shaped by plural perspectives, fragmented discourses, and virtual domains, it is becoming increasingly evident that reality is less what is, and more what is experienced as real—subjective, perspectival, and context-dependent.
I hope you enjoyed this summary, tracing the arc from Aristotle to Nietzsche. 
In any case, tomorrow I will be flying to Austria and Germany for three months, and I am already looking forward to engaging in an exchange of ideas upon my return—one that resonates with my interests. In the meantime, should you be interested, I have updated my website with a new essay entitled, “An Ethical Vow to the Doctorate.”
Feel free to follow the link:
https://www.novustempus.org/
With benevolent greetings,
Werner Francis Schultze
Neville Buch
Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)
- Changeling Leadership - April 21, 2025
- ‘Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?’ (David Pinder) - April 21, 2025
- Bob Dylan’s Ballad of a Thin Man - April 19, 2025