A Deeper Look at Wealth / Part II: Wealth and Metaphysics

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen

”…what is there in the whole world worth more than a peaceful family life and work?.”

Doctor Zhivago, by Boris Pasternak

In a series of four articles unfolding over the summer, my friend Anton, who lives in Oxford (UK) and works in the financial services sector, and I will examine the familiar term “wealth” and aim to gain a deeper understanding of its meaning. Below is the second article in this series. It analyses wealth from a metaphysical perspective, but as in the first article, which was published on June 13, 2025, with a philosophical bent. Just as with the first part, Anton provided the text while I handled the editing.

Wealth and Metaphysics

Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for reading this series’ previous article on wealth. In it, we explored a philosophical perspective to deepen our understanding of this concept.
We have received thoughtful feedback that has been truly humbling. One reader pointed out an essential dimension of wealth that transcends the monetary realm: personal wealth. In today’s article, we will delve into this aspect, drawing upon metaphysical insights to further illuminate our notion of wealth.

What Metaphysics Is (and What It Is Not)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes, “Metaphysics’ is notoriously hard to define.” I concur. Capturing the essence of the question, “What is metaphysics?” in just a few lines is a daunting task that could occupy a lifetime or even several lifetimes.
Nevertheless, we should strive for a brief definition to ground our discussion in something tangible. The term traces back to Aristotle’s work of the same name, which addresses the principles of things, seeking to understand “being as such,” the “first causes of things,” and “that which does not change.”

In the context of our exploration of wealth, a metaphysical inquiry prompts us to ask: “What is the first cause or ultimate principle of wealth?” Before we seek to answer this question, a few preliminary observations about metaphysics are necessary.

It has often been claimed that metaphysics primarily (or solely) concerns itself with the unseen and immaterial aspects of our existence, leading some to conflate it with theology. While there are significant connections between theology and metaphysics, this view is misleading and does not accurately represent the discipline. Theology engages with the supernatural order of reality or revealed truths. In contrast, as the foundation of philosophical inquiry, metaphysics investigates the natural order of reality, striving to uncover its most profound core to achieve a more comprehensive and precise understanding of existence.

The key distinction is that metaphysics concerns something that the human mind does (e.g., philosophy), whereas theology deals with something that the human mind receives, namely, revelation. What we are doing here is the former: we are applying our cognitive faculties to explore the concept of wealth.

The natural order of reality encompasses material elements, such as stones, trees, and gold, and immaterial aspects, including knowledge, love, and ideas. Accordingly, an accurate engagement with metaphysics necessitates considering this natural order’s visible and invisible dimensions. Wealth exemplifies this duality; it manifests in tangible forms (land, gold, property, art) and intangible constructs (value, perception, relationships, knowledge).

Given the expansive nature of metaphysical inquiry, it is essential to establish a conceptual framework for our exploration. To this end, I would like to draw upon the insights of 20th-century Romanian philosopher Nae Ionescu. Ionescu articulates metaphysics as a constellation of distinct, albeit interrelated, perspectives on existence that historians of ideas, such as Frederick Copleston, meticulously document in comprehensive multi-volume works.

For Ionescu, each metaphysical position represents an absolute, forever unique, due to the individuality of the inquirer. This assertion is grounded in the premise that each person who contemplates these profound questions is distinctive; there will never be another individual precisely like you, esteemed reader.

In our initial discourse, we invoked Heraclitus’s thoughts to underscore the dynamic nature of the world and humanity. Yet, despite this flux, one constant remains: the enduring questions posed by the human condition. The constancy of human nature ensures that texts from antiquity, such as Homer’s “Iliad” and “Odyssey” and Sophocles’ Theban plays, retain their relevance as sources of inspiration across the ages.

Thus, it is reasonable to anticipate a connection among the various responses to metaphysical inquiries, even amidst their apparent disparities. This connection is underscored by a shared objective: the quest to understand existence. Although the contemporary milieu may differ significantly from that of ancient Greece, fundamental human experiences, suffering, love, aspiration, disappointment, life cycle and ageing remain constant. The essence of existence persists, manifesting in diverse contexts, technologies, and governance structures.
In its most profound sense, wealth is intimately tied to the nature of the human person, who continues to grapple with the same metaphysical questions across time. Accordingly, we will aim to deepen our understanding of wealth through its intrinsic relationship with the human experience.

The Dimensions of the Human Person

In his work “I and Thou,” the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber posits that each individual is profoundly interconnected with others. If I recall correctly, Buber asserts that there is never simply an “I,” but always an “I-and-thou.” This perspective, with which I align, starkly contrasts with that of Jean-Paul Sartre, who famously claimed in his play “No Exit” that “hell is other people.” Sartre did not intend to demonise humanity but rather articulated, in very forceful terms, the notion that the individual exists solely as such. I find myself in disagreement with this view.

Yes, ontologically, a person is defined as “an individual substance (of a rational nature),” as Boethius stated. However, this definition implies that each individual possesses intrinsic and inalienable worth simply by being unique. Furthermore, this “individual substance” is not “thrown into existence,” as Martin Heidegger suggested, a notion Sartre endorsed.

Instead, every person is situated within a moral universe, and because this universe is ethical, it is inherently social. This is why Aristotle, in “Politics,” referred to the human being as a “political animal” by nature. Notably, the term “political,” as a friend of mine who specialises in Latin pointed out, translates to “social.” Thus, the “individual substance” is never solitary but is always part of a community: “I-and-thou.”
Wealth illustrates this multi-dimensional aspect of the human experience.

Wealth and the Human Person(s)

In discussing the concept of asset possession, one must acknowledge that the expression “I possess this asset” is, in essence, a collective assertion, wherein “we possess this asset” more accurately reflects the relational nature of ownership. This “we” encompasses not only the individual but also extends to the familial, social, and communal context in which one exists. The assets in question can manifest as material entities, such as gold, or as immaterial resources, such as knowledge.

This discourse transcends legal definitions of ownership; it delves into the implications of asset utilisation, particularly as it relates to our overarching definition of wealth, as introduced in prior discussions. Wealth is inherently a collective construct; it is inaccessible without the support and involvement of others. As such, the distribution of one’s financial or intellectual resources must account for the contributions of familial and communal ties. The question arises: what value does knowledge or material wealth hold if not shared with one’s spouse, children, family, and broader community?

Practical applications of this sharing philosophy are evident in using material wealth, such as establishing educational funds for children, assisting the impoverished, and contributing to charitable organisations or local religious institutions. These avenues illustrate the acknowledgement of our interconnectedness and the responsibility to use our wealth in ways that honour and empower our relationships with others.

Furthermore, it is imperative to recognise that the human experience encompasses more than mere material accumulation. Throughout history, figures such as King Solomon have exemplified the prioritisation of wisdom over tangible riches, with the biblical narrative illustrating a request for discernment rather than conventional assets. This philosophical inquiry resonates with the ancient Greeks, notably Socrates, who advocated for a deeper understanding of wealth as an internal virtue rather than external accumulation.

Returning to the principal inquiry of this exploration, “What is the primal cause, or the ultimate principle, of wealth?” We elucidate that the foundational principle of wealth is rooted in our relational dynamics. This intrinsic bond enriches our existence in multifaceted ways. Metaphysically, one could argue that wealth is inextricably intertwined with the essence of humanity itself, emerging from the complex interplay between individuals. Future discussions in this series will further examine wealth through a cultural lens, drawing upon prominent literary works to enhance our understanding of this multifaceted concept.

Ladies and Gentlemen

Feel free to send your messages to smk@incrementum.li. Many thanks, indeed!

I wish you an excellent start to the day and weekend!

Yours truly,

Stefan M. Kremeth
CEO & Head of Wealth Management
Incrementum AG – we love managing assets

Tel.: +423 237 26 60
Cell: +41 79 303 48 39
Im alten Riet 153
9494 Schaan/Liechtenstein
Mail: smk@incrementum.li