The Joy of Madness and the Love of Mania—Rethinking Nietzsche’s Critique of Metaphysics

关于尼采对形而上学的批判，学界向来说法不一且各有理据，其中，同意尼采超出形而上学的一方常将柏拉图哲学视作尼采背离传统形而上学的有力例证。本文将反对此种同意立场，自觉站在坚持尼采形而上学家身份的海德格尔一方，认为从柏拉图到尼采，形而上学既展现着因历史性批判活动带来的出新之“变”，又作为始终存在的奠基性领域道说着“不变”的奥秘。对比柏拉图与尼采后，本文发现，表征着酒神精神乃至强力意志的“癫狂”状态与柏拉图描绘的“迷狂”状态存在一定程度的相合和差异，这些异同恰恰以小见大式地体现了形而上学局部的变与整体的不变。由癫狂及其根基所提供出的可能性早在形而上学奠基之始已有所蕴含等重要事实，不仅有助于重思尼采对形而上学的批判，更能为形而上学的现代理解注入一份活力。As for Nietzsche’s criticism of metaphysics, the academic circles have always been different and have their own reasons. Among them, those who agree that Nietzsche is beyond metaphysics often regard Plato’s philosophy as a powerful example of Nietzsche’s deviation from traditional metaphysics. This article will oppose this position of consent and consciously stand on the side of Heidegger who adheres to Nietzsche’s metaphysical identity. It believes that from Plato to Nietzsche, metaphysics not only shows new’ changes’ brought about by historical critical activities, but also speaks of the mystery of “unchanged” as a fundamental field that always exists. After comparing Plato and Nietzsche, this paper finds that there is a certain degree of consistency and difference between the “madness” state, which represents the Dionysian spirit and even the will to power, and the “mania” state depicted by Plato. These similarities and differences just reflect the local change and the overall invariance of metaphysics. The possibility provided by madness and its foundation has already been contained at the beginning of the foundation of metaphysics, which not only helps to rethink Nietzsche’s criticism of metaphysics, but also injects vitality into the modern understanding of metaphysics.