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.
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.
