Note Ontology is merely a sub-topic of Philosophy that comprised, Epistemology, Logic, Metaphysics [sub- Ontology], Ethics and General. In addition, ultimate ontological claims are impossible.
Their ‘ontological’ claims cannot be independent of their own inherent human framework and conditions as countered by Kant’s Copernican Revolution.
Note I proposed a list of criteria which is open-ended and subject to consensus.
As I said, I proposed a list of criteria which is open-ended and subject to consensus. If you do not agree, then provide your criteria for discussion.
Theistic elements don’t count as they are very bias and based on emotions.
Theistic elements are handed down by an infallible God.
In this case, you would be claiming god to be the philosopher.
God’s messengers are merely puppets on strings.
The fact is God does not exists.
The Buddha and other non-theistic philosophers relied on their own reflective thinking and experience, and they are not God’s loudspeakers.
Jesus, Moses, Paul, Muhammad were claimed to be philosophers. Note my point above.
God’s messengers are merely puppets on strings.
And God does not exist.
That is YOUR naive unprovable and un-demonstrable philosophy. Again, it is back to “what is good is whatever I personally like”.
… you just don’t get it.
Truth and wisdom are not subject to “consensus” any more than mathematics. Is “2+2=4” only when the majority vote it to be true? Is “A <> A” if they decide that it isn’t? Was the Earth really flat merely because most people thought so?
Haha … “propose\d whatever you think is right … as long as I think so too.”
.,.according to your naive theory (handed down by fallible propagandists).
That would depend on whether I said that God did the writing or whether God merely did the inspiring. Did Gravity propose the existence of gravity or did gravity inspire Newton to propose it?
Haha … again, unlike your communist propagandists.
Like you would have a clue.
Irrelevant.
You talk as if you actually had an interest in rational thought. When you first came here, I tested to see if that was real because I would enjoy such a discussion. It wasn’t. And more than that, although you propose logic, you showed that you know nothing about it and can’t distinguish logic or rational thought from your own biased stubbornness and anti-religion propaganda. They have a familiar phrase to explicate that condition; “You don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground”. - strictly metaphor of course.
But if you ever really want to discuss real philosophical concerns, void of your prejudices, Kant worship, Communist agenda, and blindness, let me know.
I agree Kant’s popularity is over-hyped and underrated because most people who think Kant is great do not understand the full extent and essence of his philosophy. They just follow the respect most serious philosophers had for Kant.
There is no denial amongst ‘serious’ philosophers (after Kant and heavily criticize his other principles) who would acknowledge Kant as the father of modern philosophy based on his very famous work, i.e.
-the reconciliation of Empiricism and Rationalism which had been going in parallel lines since the times of Thales.
The above whilst significant is merely one of Kant great contributions to the philosophy community.
To appreciate the full extent of Kant’s work, one may have to put in considerable time which some have claimed one need 3-5 years of sustained reading and reflections. Personally I have invested a lot of time to study Kant’s work and it is still work in progress and I need to put in more time.
IMO, the greatest work besides the specific philosophical concepts, ideas and theories, what is great about Kant is he ‘teaches one how to fish’ by providing a very extensive and well structured philosophical framework for one to philosophize reality.
One of his claims;
The soundness of Kant’s philosophies is that they are parallel and comparable to the core principles of Eastern philosophies intellectually.
Since Eastern philosophies has been successfully in the practical fields, so Kant’s philosophy has a lot of room to be extended to the practical and actual human actions.
I have read most of Nietsczhe’s major books and he is great but I did not sense anything extraordinary great in his works. Nietsczhe acknowledged Kant’s contribution to philosophy in certain areas and at the same time criticized Kant heavily is other areas. However, I noted he missed certain critical nuances of Kant’s work that are critical to make full sense.
Discuss philosophy with you?? your sense of philosophy is so skewed by the following;
I note you are heavily driven by the existential dilemma and philosophically you are a mere desperado like a cornered wounded tiger trapped inside a very tall silo.
Your throwing silly defenses and drivels above out of desperation to deflect the pains & sufferings you bring to yourself is one result of it.
As far as my approach is concern, I don’t give consideration to ‘who’ but as long as there is any philosophical worth in any point raised by anyone, then I will respond [within the rules of this forum] and that is only for my own sake, i.e. to refresh the philosophical ideas I have. I am not here to please anyone or meet their expectations.
That would be fine if you actually knew anything concerning my philosophizing … which you don’t. And that reflects, as I said, your own prejudices and biases (without even hearing what you are criticizing).
You shouldn’t talk to yourself in public. It’s a bad sign related to that psychosis you keep preaching about … [size=85]always accusing of their own guilt[/size].
“Why is Kant the greatest philosopher?
Because he preaches my perverse agenda!”
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.
In that sense, Hume may be the best, and the worst. It may be unwise, to awaken a slumber, an idlyll, where, creation it’s self has perhaps not intended to go toward.
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.
It’s the Emperor’s New Cloth with Kant and so many other weird philosophers, they get blinded by fancy wording, and thinks all this nonsense actually have meaning.
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.
… you just don’t get it.
