Hume’s philosophy is definitely great in many respects. Hume’s ‘Custom and Habits’ [Empiricism] was merely the alarm bells that woke and prompted Kant from his dogmatic slumber [Rationalism], but he still have to resolve the problem.
Where Kant is greater than Hume where it count are the following;
Hume raised the ‘Problem of Induction’ but was never able to resolve it, since regardless of what his problem is, scientists continued to rely on induction and therefrom produce significant positive results for humanity.
Hume ‘Problem of Induction’ and ‘Theory of Constant Conjunction’ create the permanent horns of ‘Rationalism’ and ‘Empiricism’ and the twain could never be met.
Kant resolved Hume’s Problem of Induction and save Science-proper from ungroundlessness and rationality. In that sense Kant is greater relatively to Hume. Kant went on to propose an ethical system that is more efficient than Hume’s experience dependent model of morality.
Unfortunately Kant writing approach was really problematic, but his specific terms are necessary to get his philosophy through pre-conditionings. Given the sight of ‘diamonds’ therein his writings one has no choice but to dig, plod and shift through thickets of this thoughts.
H. J Paton, an Oxford and Kantian scholar expressed the difficulty as, reading and understanding the ‘Deduction’ [note merely one main point] was like crossing the Sahara desert.
Plato was very great. Kant relied on a lot of Plato’s philosophical views. Both of these philosophers covered very extensive philosophical subjects.
However, where it counts, Plato’s mind-independent Ideas, Forms and Universals lead philosophers to a sort of ungrounded ‘la la land,’ woo and be vulnerable to the seduction of sirens leading them to philosophical dead ends.
Kant highlighted this weakness and provided solutions to steer clear from its dangerous rocks.
At this point, I think it gets down to whether you can defend Kant’s opinions. To ask the questions and propose an opinion is considered philosophical. But I consider it merely the beginning. Kant proposed opinion on a variety of matters. Can you defend his opinions, rather than merely quote them?
In his Metaphysics of Morals, what is the point and purpose of having morals?
Secondly, Kant believed in indeterminate free-will. How does he justify indeterminacy?
Who should do it? If you mean me, then I have to remind you of the fact that this is a philosophy forum and not a kaffeklatsch forum. Try to think! Do you really know what “Father of the Modernity” means? What is modernity? The meaning of modernity is not automatically a positive one, but it can be a postive one. There are many people and many values. And obviously you know nothing about my values and nothing about the meaning of modernity.
The above is off topic from the OP.
The greatness of Kant re this OP is based on his significant philosophical theories and his overall philosophical framework, not the details as above.
Side note;
Re Moral, Kant has a set of books to support his ethical system, and you are merely relying on Metaphysics of Morals [MM]? You should consider the Groundwork and others before dealing with the MM.
Kant do not believe and accept an absolutely absolute free-will. One basis without going into the details is his Copernican Revolution.
If you want to critique his view, you should read his books to understand his arguments [not sure if you have done that] and then present your counter views based on what you understand.
It is very common for many to merely glance over his books, interpret his views wrongly [straw man] and argued against their own wrong interpretations.
Note, I don’t want to go into the details of this side note.
If you want you can open new threads on whatever points you want to discuss. I would not participate nor waste my time unless you shows understanding [not necessary agree] of Kant’s work.
I agree Hegel is very great as well with regards with various aspects of philosophy but not greater than Kant on where it matters, counts and the ultimate.
Hegel was influenced by Kant.
Kant demonstrated why the absolute, thing-in-itself [aka noumenon, Ding an Sich] is to be taken in term of negative employment;
Elsewhere he also showed why the thing-in-itself [aka Absolute] should NOT be reified.
If such an idea is to be used, then, it should only be used regulatively not constitutively.
From what I have read of Hegel’s main principle, he ignored all the above advice of Kant and reified the Absolute, aka the thing-in-itself.
My interpretation; Hegel was a victim and relapse on Kant’s warning on this;
That is the illusion where,
Here is another warning from Kant;
It is unfortunately Hegel lost his intellectual grip on the above and psychologically [subliminal] succumb to the seductive illusion of the ‘Absolute’. Schopenhauer also suffered the same corrupted virus.
This ‘Absolute’ is the same as the Absolute Brahman of Hindu and other Pantheists.
In contrast, Kant non-reification of the Absolute is similar to that of the core of Buddhism.
On the above basis and where it counts, Kant’s philosophy is ‘greater’ than of Hegel’s.
Noted.
For me, the focus was more on ‘Kant’ [not on the first name] and his philosophies. At least the wrong spelling of his name prove a point I am not obsessed nor idolized him as a person.
Of course, Kant had the correct judgement when it comes down to knowing the whole thing, as we are of course merely human beings in this vast Universal. He is indeed correct that we all often fall into pitfalls, because of being human beings, of over-speculation and misguided reason. Nonetheless, I believe that Kant was misguided into believing that we can never ‘truly’ know the Reality as it is, or what he calls Noumenon. For me, and many others, the underlying way to know this Absolute is simply to look at it ‘as it is’ - as what I believe is emphasized in Eastern philosophy, I believe. All things else falls into place, through intuition and with that, the use of reasoning and logic.
I don’t really buy the idea that he completely resolved the problem of induction, though he did offer an interesting response to it. His ethical system was pretty terrible as well, in my opinion.
Like all the others, Kant wasn’t wrong about everything, nor right about everything. Hegel had a greater challenge and started a lot of social trouble, eventually through Marx. They didn’t have it all right either.
From what I know about Hegel and Marx, Marx had merely misrepresented Hegel and turned his philosophy upside-down; from Idealism and contemplations on the Absolute to Materialism. But I do agree that Hegel ended up misguided and too attached to his philosophy.
