Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:49 am

Artimas wrote:Plato?
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.

Kant wrote:Misled by such a proof of the Power of Reason, the demand for the extension of Knowledge recognises no Limits. [A5] [B9]
The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty Space.

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.

He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable. All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:14 pm

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?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Wandering_Lands » Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:29 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant? and the reasons for your claim?


Hegel - he inverted Kant and brought into a more comprehending view in metaphysics and the nature of reality.
The One emanates the All, and the All returns to the One.
User avatar
Wandering_Lands
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:13 pm

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Arminius » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:11 am

Prismatic567 wrote:IMO, Emmanuel Kant is the greatest Western philosopher of all time.

Why can't you then write his name correctly? His name is Immanuel Kant.

Prismatic567 wrote:Kant improved on [and corrected] the philosophies of the ancients prior to his time up to Hume and changed the entire world by providing a new of thinking about how the human mind relates to the world [and reality].

Wikipedia wrote:Immanuel Kant (... 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) was a German philosopher who is widely considered to be a central figure of modern philosophy.


Kant (or/and Hegel) is (are) the „Father of Modernity“ („Vater der Moderne“).
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby phoneutria » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:19 am

I think you should take kant's dick out of your mouth.

...

*waits*
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3105
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Arminius » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:35 am

phoneutria wrote:I think you should take kant's dick out of your mouth.

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.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby phoneutria » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:59 am

Relax, hombre, it was an inside joke.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3105
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Arminius » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:10 am

phoneutria wrote:Relax, hombre, it was an inside joke.

:lol:

Should I believe that? :-k

B.t.w.: Why do you have a spider in your mouth? :)
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby phoneutria » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:48 am

Arminius wrote:
phoneutria wrote:Relax, hombre, it was an inside joke.

:lol:

Should I believe that? :-k


The last few posts here
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185985&start=50#lastpost

B.t.w.: Why do you have a spider in your mouth? :)


I'm going to let you in on a secret...

I'm a spider.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3105
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:14 am

James S Saint wrote: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?
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 am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:45 am

Wandering_Lands wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant? and the reasons for your claim?


Hegel - he inverted Kant and brought into a more comprehending view in metaphysics and the nature of reality.
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;
Kant wrote:The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment. B311

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;
Kant wrote:They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.


That is the illusion where,
Kant wrote:the Ideas produce what, though a mere Illusion, is nonetheless irresistible, and the harmful influence of which we can barely succeed in neutralizing even by means of the severest criticism.


Here is another warning from Kant;
Kant wrote:And since the Dialectical Illusion does not merely deceive us in our Judgments, but also, because of the Interest which we take in these [deceived] Judgments, has a certain natural attraction which it will always continue to possess,


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.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:51 am

Arminius wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:IMO, Emmanuel Kant is the greatest Western philosopher of all time.

Why can't you then write his name correctly? His name is Immanuel Kant.
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.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:26 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote: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?
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.

In other words, you are just a reputation salesman, having no idea of whether your product is actually good for anything. You're just the PR guy.

He mentions a "Categorical Imperative", an absolute highest priority for making decisions.
What is that imperative?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Wandering_Lands » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:31 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: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;
Kant wrote:The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment. B311

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;
Kant wrote:They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.


That is the illusion where,
Kant wrote:the Ideas produce what, though a mere Illusion, is nonetheless irresistible, and the harmful influence of which we can barely succeed in neutralizing even by means of the severest criticism.


Here is another warning from Kant;
Kant wrote:And since the Dialectical Illusion does not merely deceive us in our Judgments, but also, because of the Interest which we take in these [deceived] Judgments, has a certain natural attraction which it will always continue to possess,


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.


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.
The One emanates the All, and the All returns to the One.
User avatar
Wandering_Lands
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:13 pm

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby statiktech » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:45 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
statiktech wrote:
Peter Kropotkin wrote:Actually, everyone is missing the obvious choice. Who awoke Kant from his dogmatic slumbers?
Easy choice for the greatest philosopher of all time and it ain't Kant.

BTW, has anyone here actually read Kant? His critique might be the most badly written book
of all time and that is in English which actually IMPROVES his book. In German, it is a complete and
total mess. He uses jargon and overwritten crap to say nothing.

Kropotkin
At least you are doing some acceptable comparison here.

Hume was going to be my answer. The OP seems to assume that, since he built upon the ideas of Hume, Kant was ultimately the better philosopher, which I think is mistaken. Hume wasn't great because he influenced Kant; he influenced Kant because he was already great.
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.


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.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:48 pm

Wandering_Lands wrote: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.

True.

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.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Wandering_Lands » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:57 pm

James S Saint wrote: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.
The One emanates the All, and the All returns to the One.
User avatar
Wandering_Lands
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:13 pm

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:20 pm

statiktech wrote:I don't really buy the idea that he completely resolved the problem of induction, though he did offer an interesting response to it.

He didn't reveal the basic resolve to it (definitional logic).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Arminius » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:30 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Wandering_Lands wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant? and the reasons for your claim?


Hegel - he inverted Kant and brought into a more comprehending view in metaphysics and the nature of reality.
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;
Kant wrote:The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment. B311

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.

It is difficult to translate Kant's "Ding an sich". One would do better to not translate it and after the use of it to describe what is meant. The "Ding an sich" has much to do with "Erkenntnis" ("knowledge", "cognition"), "Erkenntnistheorie" ("theory of knowledge", "theory of cognition"). It is not possible to (exactly, really) know the Ding an sich.

Prismatic567 wrote:My interpretation; Hegel was a victim and relapse on Kant's warning on this;
Kant wrote:They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.

That is true. And, b.t.w., it refers also to the Ding an sich and to the sentences I said above. It is a problem of Erkenntnis.

Prismatic567 wrote:That is the illusion where,
Kant wrote:the Ideas produce what, though a mere Illusion, is nonetheless irresistible, and the harmful influence of which we can barely succeed in neutralizing even by means of the severest criticism.


Here is another warning from Kant;
Kant wrote:And since the Dialectical Illusion does not merely deceive us in our Judgments, but also, because of the Interest which we take in these [deceived] Judgments, has a certain natural attraction which it will always continue to possess,


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.

Schopenhauer (some people call him "Eurobuddhist") accpeted merely two philosophers before himself: Kant and Platon.

If Kant (or Hegel) is the father of the current modernity, the Occidental modernity, then Platon (or Aristoteles) was the father of the former modernity, the Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman modernity.

Or do we have to say: Hegel (or Kant) ... and Aristoteles (or Platon) ...? :-k

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187452&p=2518630#p2518539
Last edited by Arminius on Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:30 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby quantum » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:46 pm

Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

And answer is yes,
IT IS LADY JANE
LADY JANE LADY JANE LADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANE

LADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANE
LADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANE
LADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANE
LADY JANE
quantum
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:16 am

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Artimas » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:34 pm

No... just no.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3810
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:00 am

James S Saint wrote:In other words, you are just a reputation salesman, having no idea of whether your product is actually good for anything. You're just the PR guy.
Do you understand what "going off topic" means.

He mentions a "Categorical Imperative", an absolute highest priority for making decisions.
What is that imperative?
This is again off topic in the manner of your above question.

If you say;
1. The "Categorical Imperative" [CI] is the main "keystone" of Kant's philosophy.
2. The CI is a useless concept because of X, Y, Z.
3. Therefore Kant is not the greatest.
then, perhaps that is relevant.

The CI is central to Kant's ethical system, which is one the best ethical system I know of. However Kant is 'greatest' in consideration of his many other significant contributions to philosophy. Even without this ethical system, Kant is still the greatest.
Thus your CI question is irrelevant to this OP.

In any case, before you discuss CI let us know what you understand 'what is the Categorical Imperative" proper.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:12 am

statiktech wrote: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.
His resolution of the 'Problem of Induction' is sufficient enough for many purposes. Given Kant's time, he had limitations. However we can now use neuroscience and neuro-philosophy to refine the solution.

Kant's discovered ethical system was too far ahead of his time and even now. It is the best ethical system I know of that is most optimal for the future. Point is you need to understand his ethical system fully within a system and conceptual framework of reality. For the average person, one will need at least 2 years of sustained reading of Kant's work.

Kant readily tell us he was not introducing an ethical system that he invented by himself. What he did was discovering the natural inherent ethical system and its principles that are unfolding as humanity evolve with improvements continually.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Orbie » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:34 am

I consider Kant's Critique to be vastly inferior to Leibnitz's Monadology. The mathematical model's compare similarly between them.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:59 am

Orb wrote:I consider Kant's Critique to be vastly inferior to Leibnitz's Monadology. The mathematical model's compare similarly between them.

Leibniz defined a Monad in the Monadology (written 1714, published 1720) as a 'Simple Substance that enters into composites' (§1), one which is capable of 'Perception' (§15) and 'Appetition' (§16).

Kant allotted on significant chapter in criticizing Leibniz's Monad - a Simple Substance.
A Simple Substance is one that has no parts.
It is something equivalent to the claim of an absolute.

Kant accepted Leibniz's theory of Monad before his Critique of Pure Reason [CPR].
However in the CPR, Kant asserted and demonstrated Monads are illusory, but like the idea of God, it can be useful as long as it is not used constitutively or reified as real.

Kant thus explained away the idea of Monads, thus they cannot be superior to the Critical Philosophy of Kant explanation and conceptual framework of reality.

Here is a commentary by G J Mattey,
G J Mattey wrote:The expression ‘monad’ was coined by Leibniz in the eighteenth century. The metaphysics of monads is most famously spelled out in Leibniz’s article “Monadology.” Monads are simple substances which lack extension, figure and divisibility. They are the elements of all compound objects, “the real atoms of nature” (“Monadology,” §3). All monads, even non-living “bare” monads, are endowed with both perception and appetition.

Because of their simplicity, monads cannot come into being or cease to be by natural means, but only by creation or destruction. The only qualities of monads are intrinsic, and any change that comes about in them is due to an internal principle. The internal principles of monads are fully co-ordinated with one another, resulting in a harmonious correlation of changes in nature, which appears just as if monads were acting upon one another. (This is the so-called “pre-established harmony.”

From Kant’s point of view, monads are noumena, or beings of the understanding. Kant criticized the monadology in that it illicitly treats sensible appearances as if they were were objects of the understanding alone, thereby “intellectualizing” them (A271/B327). This criticism is laid out in “The Amphiboly of Concepts of Reflection,” which is described here.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot]