Kant vs Nietzsche

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

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Erik_ » Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:44 pm

An example of what I was trying to get at:

I like the movie Scarface, I prefer it over the Godfather collection. I prefer Scarface, because I can relate to it more, I can identity with the main character better. But I can acknowledge that the Godfather collection is superior to the Scarface movie, as there is better acting, better structure, more depth to the story, etc -- even though it gets kind of boring at many times, like Plato, and because I don't relate to the characters on a personal level, like I do in Scarface.

That's an example of how one can prefer something, yet think something else, which is non-prefered or less preferred, is generally superior/better.

Could I have worded my question differently? Of course - I could have just asked him: " Who do you think is better? Nietzsche or Kant? ".

But at the same time, Fixed Cross didn't need to get snide and pissy over a triviality.
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Mar 20, 2015 8:14 pm

Erik, it seems you have still not understood my objection.

Let me take another approach and straight-out say that philosophy is and always has been a singular endeavor. It all strives for one and the same thing: the truth about man. Kant made an attempt, Nietzsche made an attempt. Kant failed, his work is all but irrelevant now. Nietzsche succeeded, his work is deeply relevant and as with all the greatest human work (i.e. the wheel, metallurgy, geometry, etc) grows in relevance as time passes. No one will remember Kant's ideas in the future. This is why I do not prefer him. He is meaningless now. He did not accomplish the task that he took on.

The second part I need to clarify is that my own mode of thought is singular, philosophical, rigorous, logic-oriented, and has always been. My illogical, 'crazy' posts are the excess, the sparks that fly off the metal as it is forged. My writing on Nietzsche explores and fleshes out his logic, his hard, systematic thought. I think you may not have grasped this before, even though my early entries in this thread were clear enough about the criteria I use to judge the worth of the two men. Responding to mr. reasonable's statement that he likes Kant's systematic thought:

I actually prefer [Kants] moral ideas, they're his true reason and quality. As far as identification and systemization of conceptions of knowledge and reason are concerned, I find him incoherent, or simply wrong. Nietzsche went a lot deeper into the abstract, the pure examination of reason, and went beyond what he correctly identified as Kant's rather naive assumptions.

This means that I consider Nietzsche to be greater, not by a mere inspirational or poetic standard, but in the field that is supposed (by those who do not understand that Nietzsche is a logician, i.e. those who do not understand Nietzsche) to be Kant's forte - the rigorous quest for truth and truth-models, i.e. philosophy.

I figured that you had to have understood this if you had read my post. When you then came out and suggested that Nietzsche was, to use your metaphor, the exiting and in your face Scarface, and Kant the rather tedious but deeper Godfather, and implied that I work with this sort of distinction, I figured that you do not consider philosophy to be a singular endeavor, which would mean that you do not take philosophy as seriously as I do, and I hated that you suggested that I join you in judging the thinkers by that much lower standard.

I accept that you can not understand why this matters so much to me, but you will have to live with the fact that it does.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light forum - Rehab - The Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10780
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Erik_ » Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:15 am

I acknowledge that my question was puzzling. Like I said, I could have re-worded it. My apologies, if I offended you in the process; but it wasn't intended.

I take philosophy seriously, very seriously, actually; my life is centered around it, nay, it IS my life. I see now that you take it very seriously too, and that's excellent!

We both overreacted --- I could have rephrased my question; you could have not been snarky --- let's allow sleeping dogs to lay; I'm not interested in squabbling.
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:27 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Let me take another approach and straight-out say that philosophy is and always has been a singular endeavor. It all strives for one and the same thing: the truth about man. Kant made an attempt, Nietzsche made an attempt. Kant failed, his work is all but irrelevant now. Nietzsche succeeded, his work is deeply relevant and as with all the greatest human work (i.e. the wheel, metallurgy, geometry, etc) grows in relevance as time passes. No one will remember Kant's ideas in the future. This is why I do not prefer him. He is meaningless now. He did not accomplish the task that he took on.
I disagree with your views on Kant and I think that is because you have not grasped and understood [not necessary agree with] Kant's philosophy fully.
I had read Schopenhauer's work seriously and deeply [not difficult to understand as he wrote fluently] and Nietzsche extensively but not deeply. Based on what I have read of Kant [still incomplete] I find Kant a notch 'greater' [based on my own set of criteria] than both S and N. I have great admiration for Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, thus I extract the best out of both of them and also from Kant. Btw I don't idolize Kant and I don't agree with his use of the term 'god' in some aspects.

Personally I don't think there is a need for the below;
"I state that you prefer to get fucked in your mouth by rabid pitbulls over eating a good meal. Now read that very slowly and answer me this. Why do you prefer getting skullfucked by rabid pitbulls? Account for yourself, bitch."

If Buddhism and its practice work in you, your mind would have triggered a pause, practice Principle of Charity, step into the shoe of the other and evoke some sense of understanding the other before you write the above.

I strongly disagree with your views on Kant but with your tendency to the above heavy extremes and emotional attachments to Nietzsche, I would not want to engage on a discussion to express my counter views.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Ishmael » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:31 pm

Hi,

I'm new here and am wondering if somebody could point me in the right direction to find transcripts of any Harry Neumann classes. In another thread from a while ago I saw an extract of one. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.
Ishmael
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:22 pm

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Ishmael » Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:10 pm

Hi Sauwelios,

Apparently I'm able to receive but not send PMs. What you wrote sounds excellent! You can send it to [email protected]. And if you can get me in touch with the person you mentioned, that would be great.

Thank you so much, I really appreciate it!
Ishmael
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:22 pm

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Erik_ » Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:46 pm

Evidently, some hooligans broke into Kant's former home and made some anti-Kantian graffiti...

Google it and articles should appear.
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Ishmael » Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:13 pm

Erik_ wrote:Evidently, some hooligans broke into Kant's former home and made some anti-Kantian graffiti...

Google it and articles should appear.


I'm looking for more obscure material than the published articles (e.g., class transcripts). Sorry to desecrate this thread and intrude a different category into this discussion's imperative. I meant no disrespect to Kant or Nietzsche or you or anybody else. Since Neumann was quoted I thought it would be okay to inquire here. But que sais-je? After reading many of Sauwelios's posts I joined this site to try to contact him about Neumann, but as a new user who is only able to receive, not send, PMs, my original intent was thwarted. I tried starting a thread on Neumann but that doesn't seem to have gone through.

Sauwelios, if you're reading this: what you wrote in the PM sounds excellent! I would greatly appreciate it if you'd send what you mentioned, and perhaps some info regarding the person you got it from, to [email protected]

Thank you very much.
Ishmael
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:22 pm

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:50 am

Anja Steinbauer wrote:Kant posits the human being as caught up in an insoluble tension: Wanting to know and yet by our very nature being unable to know. This is the dilemma which we see portrayed in Goethe’s Faust. Faust seeks knowledge with such passion that his insight that true human knowledge is impossible distresses him to the degree of contemplating suicide (and ultimately entering into a contract with the devil). It was a tension that the Idealist philosophers of the 19th century could not bear, hence for instance Hegel’s hope of overcoming in history by means of the dialectic. Kant, however, tells us that we have to live with this conflict, it is the human condition.

Source: https://philosophynow.org/issues/49/Sapere_Aude

If the greatest philosopher is the first one who has demonstrated that there are definite limits to what philosophy can do, then Kant is the greatest philosopher of all times. And even Schopenhauer - not usually known as a thinker full of happy praise for anyone or anything - held Kant’s book "Kritik der reinen Vernunft" ("Critique of Pure Reason") to be „the most important book ever written in Europe“.

Humans are not capable of knowing everything and anything - regardless whether there is philosophy or science, whether there is enlightenment or counter-enlightenment, whether there is idealism or realism, whether there is kynism or cynism -, the deep sense of knowledge is a great cyclical game of life. Kowledge (or intelligence) is a highly efficient weapon, yes, but it is not the only highly efficient weapon.

On the one hand the sentence "knowledge is power" is right, but on the other hand the speaker of this sentence speaks this sentence in order to get power. So the sentence is both philosophical and political, but the political side has becoming stronger and stronger since the will to knowledge was overtaken (passed) by the will to power, and that also means: philosophy has been going down since it was overtaken by politics.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:50 pm

Naturally brains are made for survival, and culture is embedded in nature. So first of all there is a natural reason why a brain exists. The cultural reason merely follows. It is a followup reason, thus not the natural reaosn as the original reason. So cultural phenomenons like philosophy and scince are not the primary reason why a brain exists. In other words: Our brains were not primarily but merely secondarily made for philosophy or science or other cultural phenomenons, and philosophy or science or other cultural phenomenons are no organs of our body but merely cultural phenomenons.

Kant was right in almost all aspects (except some ethical aspects): his cosmological hypotheis, his theory about the emergence of the solar system, his theory about life, his theory about human beings, his anthropology and other philosophical or scientifical theories are true.

For example: In order to know what is behind or beyond nature we need philosophy, especially metaphysics, but philosophy and its metaphysics are embedded in human culture which is embedded in nature. So this is a dilemma of human knowledge (cognition and so on) and simultaneously the reason why humans are not capable of knowing everything.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby surreptitious57 » Sat Mar 26, 2016 9:55 am

Arminius wrote:
Humans are not capable of knowing everything and anything - regardless whether there is philosophy or science whether
there is enlightenment or counter enlightenment whether there is idealism or realism whether there is kynism or cynism

This is one of the two greatest truths of all time [ the other one is that there is no objective meaning or purpose to life ]
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users