In this essay, we attempt to ascertain the place of the holy book in the metaphysical (strong) thought systems of the Peripatetic philosophers and the postmetaphysical philosophies of Vattimo and Caputo, considering Eliade's archaic (primitive) ontology. The following queries are at the heart of this article: Are we creatures who endeavor to perceive reality to some extent? Or can it take on the function of the universal arbitrator, able to climb to the position of defining boundaries between various (opposite, competing) conceptions of reality by discerning between the real and the unreal in their purest form? These queries highlight the areas of distinction between classical and modern philosophical systems and post-modern thought. Post-modern philosophers contend that the best we can do is attempt to bear witness to reality, and that metaphysical systems' creation of meta-narratives amount to nothing more than the presenting of a particular historical interpretation or point of view as a universal meta-narrative. Metaphysical perspectives, both classical and contemporary, acknowledge that the human intellect is capable of becoming the ultimate arbiter. The question of whether or not humans can directly pierce reality is the key difference between these two methodologies. Although Vattimo and Caputo acknowledge that people may only reach reality indirectly— that is, through interpretation—through things like culture, tradition, language, and so on, metaphysical philosophies contend that humans can reach truth directly by piercing the realm of interpretation
