Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

Programmed drones know nothing of purpose.

Actually, philosophers should not be compared unless they deal strictly with the same issue, which does not happen generally. Philosophy is very broad and loose term, just like science. One cannot compare a physicist with a biologist.

Having said that, the main objective of the philosophy is put a complete ontology of the existence forth, in as far as deductive detail as possible, and Kant tried that. Hume also did that.

In my opinion, which is certainly just the opposite of the general perception, Kant would certainly be the greatest philosophers of all times if he would have not written anything after his self imposed exile. His first half is truly innovative and in the right direction. But, not being able to complete the ontology for the various reasons, he also compromised later.

To me, Kant is the height of both of intellectuality and effort. Not many western philosophers made efforts which can match Kant. I would have certainly rated him the greatest of all times, had he left the ontology incomplete.

I rate Socrates as all time great of western philosophy. Kant and Aristotle are 2nd and 3rd place. I am not sure who was better. Kant made more inroads but Aristotle was certainly the wiser and more knowledgeable between the two.

But, I would rate Hume very below. There are many other who deserve the place before him. Skepticism is not a bad thing but he put everything in the doubt, which does not serve any purpose either.

Given my knowledge of the western philosophy, I am not competent enough to make claims about it, but it seems to me that Hume is one of the main culprits of the mitigation of the philosophy and science superseding it. Intellectual populace, who considered Hume as an authority on philosophy at the time, taking clue from him, put all the philosophy in the doubt and started looking at science for more concrete and demonstrable answers and ontologies.

Philosophy was never the same for the people. Fertile minds started migrating from the philosophy to the science. That is why we were not able to produce any such philosopher since Kant, which would be remembered after 2-3 centuries, in the same way we today remember Kant, Descartes, Socrates, Aristotle etc. Kant was the last in that league. Perhaps, Wittgenstein is the only exception.

It is not the case that there was a scarcity of the intelligence. There were people like Newton and Einstein, which were not less capable than any past philosopher, but philosophy lost the capacity to attract the best, which was the default phenomenon before Kant.

To summarize the issue, Kant was perhaps the best only in the terms of efforts, not the findings.

with love,

You only gave me his theories and did not really go into explanation for how it’s so.

You go from saying that they don’t talk about the Absolute to contradicting yourself, as seen by talking about the Vedantist and Buddhist conception of self and higher consciousness (which was actually what people like Hegel were also proposing). Next, you then start back-tracking that they don’t talk about the Absolute absolutely, and that they infer it - which is actually another lie; as a I recall, they are affirmed in talking about the Absolute (again, look at Advaita Vedanta, for example).

Philosophy in general is a very loose term. It is said that there are as many definitions as the number of people who attempt to define it. However, I noted there is a core and essence [substance] of ‘what is philosophy’ within the varied form of its definitions.

The essence of philosophy permeates every knowledge.
Science at one time was a form and a subject of philosophy but separated once it specialized as an independent body of knowledge, but the essence of philosophy still remains within it. It is possible logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics could go their own separate independent ways in the future and what is left is philosophy-proper, i.e. its essence.

Whilst philosophy-proper and its current form is difficult to nail down, there is always a way to compare philosophers based on an agreed set of criteria. Note how ratings are done in sports that are very subjective, e.g. gymnastics, diving, ice skating, in beauty contests and other contests that has subjective variables.
Perhaps you missed this post re why the need for a set of TO BE AGREED criteria viewtopic.php?p=2517890#p2517890
Therefore we can compare philosophers.

You seem to be trying to hold back the drive of progress within humanity with the wish that Kant should not have awoken from his DOGMATIC state and dreams.

Within the spirit and essence of philosophy, the ongoing drive is to exhaust all claims of ‘knowledge’ to its roots.
Kant did that and found ontology to be groundless, i.e. ontology is floating on an illusion. Btw, Kant did not propose the elimination of ontology/metaphysics which he stated is as necessary as breathing. However, one must be aware of its limitations of illusoriness and use it within its limits if need to.

Btw, attributing the ‘greatest’ or the top 10 is not an ego trip. Rather for philosophical sake, it direct one to prioritize one’s allocation of limited time and mental resources to areas that are critical for humanity.

At certain phase of philosophical discussions, the optimal is to discuss tips of iceberg rather than diving deep into the other 9/10th. To go deeper will require a lot of time and tedious volleys of postings. We will try our best to go deeper but why should it be obligatory in a forum like this?

You seemed to have missed the point quite completely. It is a serious issue to jump in to accuse another of lying if you do not have the fact or misunderstood the fact.

I’ll present it in another way.
There are multiple perspectives to the term ‘absolute’ which could be

  1. in conventional usage like absolute temperature, monarchy, and the likes
  2. in term of GOD, the ABSOLUTE, the Ultimate that is without any conditions.

Advaita Vedanta, Hegel, and other theists and pantheists refer to the Absolute as in 2.
I had stated their claim to knowledge of such an Absolute is based on transcendental logical inference. How else, by empirical observations?
In addition to inference, they would claim they have personal experience of it, but I have discussed such experiences are dubious and are based on an illusion.

As for Buddhism and Buddhists, there is no recognition of the Absolute as in 2 above.
Note what I said is, the Buddhists do consider higher states of consciousness and higher self but they DO NOT accept the ABSOLUTE. That is because they understand the idea of the reality of the Absolute or God as claimed by Advaita Vedanta [Brahman], Hegel or theists is an illusion.

Hope you get the point.

I have the answers but I don’t have the appetite to discuss it with you especially when you are full of vomits all over yourself.

In short, like the other subjects that you discuss (logic and religion), you don’t actually know anything about it. You are merely preaching what you want people to believe - proselytizing. In this case, I suspect your support for Kant stems merely from your hatred for Hume’s religious stance.

May be. But, in that case, who will decide what that criteria should be?

I am not holding back anything. Making compromise and putting anything incomplete or wrong and saying or assuming that it is done, is not the progress by any mean.

Kant certainly realized that there is something beyond the physical limit but he was unable to reach the experiencing stage.
He tried honestly but could not able to cross that threshold which is required for the actual answers. That is fine. I am okay with that. But, in that case, he should not come up saying that there are no answers whatsoever. He was guilty of that.

I am not sure in which context you said this.

Philosophy, in its strict sense, has nothing to do with humanity or mankind. Yes, its findings can be used to help mankind but both are not the same things. It is a tool which can used for any purpose.

with love,


I think that you are missing something here.

There is general misperception among the western intellectualls that Buddhism does not propose an absolute. Or perhaps, they like to interpret it that way in order to suit their atheistic mindset.

Buddhism and Jainism are Process ontologies while Vedanta and Abrahamic religions are Destination ontologies. But, that does not mean that Buddhism does not believe in the absolute state. The only difference is that it says that being there or here does not make any difference if one has attained Bodhisattva. On the other hand, in destination ontologies like Vedanta, it is necessary to be there at the highest point to be librated completely.

with love,

It is on a negotiated basis between two person, a small group, large community or the majority.

What is done is,

  1. Both of us present our set of criteria and seek agreement on criteria that are acceptable to both.
  2. Assume we accept 20 criteria and the respective weightings.
  3. Then each will do the ratings based on the accepted criteria.
  4. The rating is given to 10, 20, 100, 500 or more philosophers, those interested in philosophy, general public or any groups.
  5. The results are averaged out.
  6. From the above we will arrive at an ‘objective’ result.

The results will be qualified to the above and cannot be absolute. However, the objectivity is greater if we rely on the ratings of philosophers than if were from the general public.

You can also establish your own unilateral preferred set of criteria and do your rating by yourself or from your own selected samplings.

From the above exercises, the critical point is to understand the objectivity obtained must be qualified to the criteria set.
The results are not absolute but they are definitely more rational than unmoderated subjective opinions that are off the cuffs.

Philosophy is a very loose term.
To make sense, as with the objectivity exercise above, we need to set out our criteria and definitions for consensus before we discuss.
Otherwise one it talking apples while the other oranges.

At present, it is a matter of individual’s opinion on ‘what is philosophy’.
However, personally and for my own credible sake, since I am interested in philosophy and delve into it, I have done very extensive research on ‘what is philosophy.’
I have reviewed between 300-500 definitions of ‘what is philosophy’ from all over the world and extract an essence out of them.
What have you done to reinforce your own credibility on what you think is ‘philosophy’?

I have spent MANY years hanging on to the idea of the ABSOLUTE [never God though].
My transition to the letting go of the ‘Absolute’ is nothing personal [emotional, biasness and the likes] but only after long reflection, understanding and experience [just experience, not experiencing something].

There are Buddhists who delve into the idea of the ‘absolute’ or in very rare cases, they term it ‘God’, ( in fact it is higher states of consciousness or self), but they will and can never equate that to the theistic Absolute of the Abrahamic religions, the pantheists or deists.
This is because the core principles of Buddhism do not entertain the absolutely absolute.
The vedantist path is the Atman, therefore → Brahman.

When the core principles of Buddhism do not accept ‘atman’ per se in the first place, how can it cannot follow to Brahman [Absolute].

There are sects in Buddhism, e.g. Pure Land, who adopt the approach where believers merely ‘believe’ in Buddha and they will go to ‘heaven’.
There are talks of rebirth in various forms and for some there is literal rebirth.
These are to attract and cater-to the very laypeople but they can be explained. On a deeper analysis with the core principles of Buddhism proper, the principles are not in the theistic sense of the Abrahamic religion, the Absolute [with capital ‘A’] or God per se.

I dare say [that’s imo] you have only dive into the 8/10th of the iceberg of spirituality. You need to dive into the 9/10th toward the 9.99/10th of the iceberg.

That may be true. I can believe you.

Conventionally not much but actually a lot.

I am involved in this since more than last twenty years without realizing what i was doing is actually a philosophical investigation. That realization came only when i came to philosophy boards and started understanding philosophy.

The one and only purpose of the philosophy is put the ontology of the existence forth. And, for that, one must know the tool of knowing. That is why Greeks rightly defined philosophy as Know thyself.

That definition is sufficient enough. If one can know thyself completely, the whole of philosophy would be over. Nothing would be left behind. All Eastern philosophies also say the same.

with love,

quantum warned for his post.

Board warning issued
Sent: Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:29 am
From: Only_Humean
To: quantum

The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site.
This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=1&p=2518639#p2518639 . Not acceptable for the Philosophy board.

Re: Board warning issued
Sent: Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:32 am
From: quantum
To: Only_Humean

your warning my ass.
I know there exist no members.
you guys really need looses users
no matter what I do you never reject me
i write what ever i want


Another warning issued to quantum, post against Philosophy forum rules. Second warning, one-day ban.

Additionally, his thesis seems to be flawed.

My dick to the ass of the admin of this site
no matter what I do you will never ban me.
I truly know how many users exist on this site.
fake usernames.
pay me daily 20 dollars.
I’m ready to create enough users and topic mails and can keep this site look busy.
from reality of ethics and morality of being concept to ethics and morality of kant.

Third warning, four-day ban. The next warning will be a permanent ban.

pay me daily 20 dollars.
I’m ready to create enough users and topic mails and can keep this site look busy.
from reality of ethics and morality of being concept to ethics and morality of kant.

No. Kant referred to both indeterminism and determinism, because he taught (1) an empirical (thus: close to nature) person and (2) an ethical (thus: close to culture) person. So according to Kant humans are citizens of two “worlds”: (1) a “visible world” and (2) an “intelligible world”. The humans as (1) empirical (natural) persons or citizens of the “visible world” do not have an “absolute free will” becaue they are subordinated by nature and its “law” of causality; but the humans as (2) ethical (cultural) persons or as citizens of the “intelligible world” have an “absolute free will”. The “moral law” is based only on the existence of the “intelligible freedom” (=> 2).

Who ist Ted Honderich?

Excerpt from The Critique of Pure Reason:

Excerpt from The Critique of Practical Reason: