Kant vs Nietzsche

If we read Erik’s OP with ‘Principle of Charity’ I would interpret he meant ‘greatest’ as the main predicate for the OP re Kant versus Nietzche.
In the OP, ‘better’ is the subset with the set ‘greatest.’ If any one believe Nietzsche is better than Kant who many consider to be the greatest philosopher ever, then Nietzsche will take over Kant’s mantle as the greatest philosopher ever.

From what I have read so far, I have not come across any Western philosopher who is greater than Kant.

In any case, who ever is rated ‘greatest’ has to be conditioned upon a set of criteria with various weightages given to each criteria (I gave a sample in the other thread) that is to be agreed upon those accept the result.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187452

Based on certain specific criteria [e.g. systemicity, revolutionary, ] Kant may be better than Nietzsche while it will be the other way round for other criteria [readability, inspirational, emotional, motivating ideas?]. Note better in one sense may not carry much weight in the overall sense.
However to be considered the ‘greatest,’ the result is based on the weighted total.

The initial result will be based on the individual’s rating on the same set of criteria.
To get greater objectivity, the results will need to be averaged out from a larger representative sample.

At this point, based on my own set of criteria, e.g. in
viewtopic.php?p=2528430#p2528430
I rate Nietzsche as very great but not greater than Kant.

Sauwelios,
Here is an additional point to my above reply.
Re Why genocide is not permissible as it is not in alignment with the Categorical Imperative [CI].

As I had mentioned, the CI has 5 formulae [3 main and two subs].
The third formula of the CI is as follows;
“So act that you use Humanity, as much in your own Person as in the Person of every other, always at the same time as an End and never merely as a Means”

Accordingly, genocide entails the using of the humanity-in-other as a means to one’s conditional end, i.e. pleasure, ensure security, psychological impulses and other personal sentiments.

The justification of this formulation is another complex process and I will not go into the details unless you understand [not necessary agree with it] what it is about in full.

I don’t think Erik intended any distinction between “good” and “great” in his OP. My point was that he said “in your opinion” and “what do you think”.

Kant does not have the mantle of the greatest philosopher ever, and even if he had, Nietzsche would not take it over from him just because someone believed he was better than Kant.

In your opinion, sure.

What people will be allowed to vote? And what will the respective weight of their votes be? For example, all people, and equal weight? Why?

Yes, that is my belief based on my own objective assessment and the set of criteria I chose. So far that is the best I can do.
As I mentioned, whatever the results, it is always conditioned to a set of criteria and the people [individual or group] participating in the rating.

Any one can participate, the more the better.
They must submit their rating of the accepted set of criteria and provide justifications where necessary.

The weightages are not given to the participants.
I meant the weightages are given to the individual criteria.
For example, imo, “paradigm shifting revolutionary ideas” would carry a weightage of say 50% rather than being ‘popular’ which may be given a weightage of 10%.

Here is an example of how it will work,

Philosopher A
Criteria…Points Score…Weightage…Weighted Points

  1. …7…60%…4.2
  2. …9…20%…1.8
    3…8…10%…0.8
    4…6…10%…0.6
    Total…100%…7.4

7.4 would be the final point for Philosopher A for comparison with others based on the same set of agreed criteria with their respective weightages.

double posting

So you are denying historical facts. :laughing:

Like I said: You are not able to accept historical facts. Is it because the Dutch football team can never win the world championship? :laughing:

According to your stupid statements the Roman Empire is no historical fact, the discovery of America is no historical fact, the colonialism is no historical fact, Kant’s writing is no historical fact, the so-called “French revolution” is no historical fact, Nietzsche’s writing is no historical fact, the World Wars are no hsitorical facts, the Vietnam War is no historical fact, the fall of the Berlin Wall is no historical fact, ILP is no historical fact, the so-called “9/11” is no historical fact, the Euro is no historical fact … Such a stupidness is more than ridiculous.

Like I said: You have an excuse for everything. There are history facts, regardless whether you agree or disagree.

Again: According to your stupid statements the Roman Empire is no historical fact, the discovery of America is no historical fact, the colonialism is no historical fact, Kant’s writing is no historical fact, the so-called “French revolution” is no historical fact, Nietzsche’s writing is no historical fact, the World Wars are no hsitorical facts, the Vietnam War is no historical fact, the fall of the Berlin Wall is no historical fact, ILP is no historical fact, the so-called “9/11” is no historical fact, the Euro is no historical fact … Such a stupidness is more than ridiculous.tupid statements the Roman Empire is no historical fact, the discovery of America is no historical fact, the colonialism is no historical fact, Kant’s writing is no historical fact, the so-called “French revolution” is no historical fact, Nietzsche’s writing is no historical fact, the World Wars are no hsitorical facts, the Vietnam War is no historical fact, the fall of the Berlin Wall is no historical fact, ILP is no historical fact, the so-called “9/11” is no historical fact, the Euro is no historical fact … Such a stupidness is more than ridiculous.

We know what you meant. But you don’t know what will happen in the “future history”, child. Probably Kant will even be greater than ever before.

You are not able to accept the historical facts. That’s all. You are prseuming and speculating and predicting the resurgence of your false god. that has nothing to do with this thread. You are derailing this thread.

:laughing:
And the Earth may have changed its position with the position of its moon.

Nobody said that the quotations matter much. I said that history matters, the historical facts matter. But you are not able to accept history and its facts.

No. Again: You are prseuming and speculating and predictively threateningly the resurgence of your false god. And that has nothing to do with this thread. Stop derailing!


Where is the philosophy webforum?

Nietzschean(Ist)s post always on ILN 1 (=> 4).

Geez… you guys are still trying to compare the apple to the banana?

Kant vs Nietzsche is like Logic vs Emotion, Order vs Chaos, or Construction vs Destruction. Each belongs in its own era. But the constructive thinker will think more deeply and analytically (the male) vs the destruction thinker reacting to immediate pressures (the female). The influence that each has is a different kind that belongs in a different era. You can’t really compare them any more than you can claim that men or women are superior - “superior at what, at which??

You might as well ask which has had more influence over humanity, males or females?
… it’s a naive, very feminine question.

Yes, or like non-nihilistic or pre-nihilistic philosophy verus nihilistic philosophy - as I said before.

Leibniz’ philosophy contains all things philosophy needs, thus also mathematics. After Leibniz mathematics vanished from philosophy. Kant’s philosophy contains all things philosophy needs except mathematics, thus Kant’s philosophy contains also physics / cosmology / astronomy. After the middle (not the late) Kant physics / cosmology / astronomy vanished from philosophy. So the base of metaphysics vanished - which necessarily means: nihilism. A philosophy without any metaphysics is not a complete philosophy anymore. Since then the nihilistic philosophy has been triumphing over the non-nihilistic philosophy as the very much more real philosophy, the destruction has been triumphing over the construction, the chaos has been triumphing over the order, the emotion has been triumphing over the logic, …, and so on.

Nihilistic philosophy has merely a litte bit to do with philosophy. The greater or better philosopher can never be a nihilistic philosopher. A partly destroyed house can never be the greater or better house.

That’s again a bad excuse.

True.

But both Kant and Leibniz left out one very important philosophical issue (Nietzsche never even approached it). And due to that oversight, very many bad things have taken place unnecessarily. They left out the issue of ontological construction (the very make of Truth itself).

The not only left it out, they were de-constructionists.
It was not them who took on themselves to do that, they were privy to the socio politico processes of the time, the question is, who was more in touch with what was going on Kant tried to remedy the conflict, Nitzche totally negated it. Therefore Nietzche is far better.

But not the better philosopher! He was the better negator, the better nihilist … (see above).

It is not certain that there is an absolute exclusivity between a negator and a philosopher, although there may be situations of proximal perception, there of.

He even negates the negation by his affirmation, or, a re-affirmation.

As I said before: A nihilistic philosophy has not nothing, but merely a little bit to do with philosophy.

Long before Nietzsche, Hegel did it in a better way. So Nietzsche was not the only, not the best, and even not the frist one who did that.

The question was, who was the better philosopher Nietzche or Kant. Hegel was not considered, in exclusive terms. That he was an influence, is of no doubt, however, that would be a different topic, and Hegel may very well be better than Kant, or even
Leibnitz

I mentioned Hegel merely because of the fact that Nietzsche was not the only, not the best, and even not the frist one who negated the negation by affirmation. If i had not mentioned Hegel, you would probably have asked: “Who was it before Nietzsche?”.

I did not want to weigh in on that, the issue here is context. the fact is, that exclusivity and inclusivity of thought is entailed by basic focus. the focus being on who was the best is mistaken. The was Neitzche exclusively working within a context of pure intuition,
of course not. Is Kant?, neither. Intuitionism is nothing new, I could likewise roll off names, Bergson comes to. Ink first and foremost, but others too,
Santayana, a source of inspiration for William James.
The latter, was mostly known for being a psychologist, but with a very strong philosophical basis. Included just as well declare, that Picasso’s
supporter Gertrude Stein was a very credible
philosopher, having studied undernWilliam James.

But returning to the topic, yes, Hegel did that, but,
he did not nihilize, he did the opposite, he
constructed an absolute. Kant did not have what it takes except perhaps intuit the coming succession of Hegel’ search for the absolute.
A pure transcendental reason with which to try to

. Nietzche saw through this, not because he was able to think through this colossus of edified construction,
but, because he intuited from other sources, some
knowingly, and some probably, and most likely subliminally, that this structure has to be brought down. Because if it isn’t the results would be an
absolute model, that should be strung in to reason,
by virtue of it’s ‘goodness’. But, what the good and bad is, has nothing to do with arriving at it with formulae, but it is an act consisting of ad hoc
decisions. The point here, is to point out a cognitive
shift away from reason towards action as a modicum of analysis, because , reason, and analysis in reliance upon reason has been offset. Philosophy, ever since then, has become the product of tools of newly formed thought, admittedly, and undeniably. denial meaning the same thing as A nihilistic attempt to invent a new form of denial.

The philosopher has become a tool, and this became Nietzche’s misfortune, to be so mis interpreted,by people who still thought of the philosopher as the primal movernofmthought. the ontology has ceased to be but a sign , the signature of which was written
At a time where people still had to be convinced that the earth was not flat .

The question was, who was the better philosopher Kant or Nietzsche. The others that you are mentioning here were not considered … :wink:

Yes: it is idiotic:

[size=95]“In a passage suppressed by his sister, Nietzsche describes Jesus as an idiot using the word in its ancient meaning according to which an idiot (idiotes) is a private person, a man with no tribal or civic gods–and therefore no politics–of his own. Such people–mere human beings or persons–seemed slavish or infantile on the ancient polytheism’s radically political horizon. To escape this idiotic fate, the Jews interpreted it as a temporary divine punishment which would be terminated when their messiah restored their political integrity by rebuilding their ancestral temple on its ancestral site in Jerusalem.” (Harry Neumann, “The Case Against Liberalism”.)

“The death of god means the destruction of mankind, of any community, whether within one’s own self or country or mankind or the universe. It isolates the nihilist in the nothingness revealed by radical atheism. Horror of this isolation usually prevents more than half-hearted atheism, driving men to revere mere jackasses, shadows of the now dead god.” (Neumann, “Nietzsche”.)

“Science emerges when anyone, from cavemen to contemporaries, declares his independence from philosophy. Prior to this declaration of independence, there is no science as such. Instead there is Aristotelian or epicurean or thomist or Newtonian or Einsteinian or Christian Science, etc. Each of these pseudo-sciences is subordinated to some more or less clearly articulated philosophic (or theological) theory about the universe. Each subordinates science’s radically personal, incommunicable core to a hypothesis or theory, a philosophic effort to communicate something common to the whole universe. […]
Science itself is the simple realization that whatever is experienced–a self, a world, the law of contradiction, a god or anything else–is nothing apart from its being experienced. Science’s reality is nothing but empty experiences, impressions as Hume called them. From a scientific point of view everything high and low, including the distinction between high and low, becomes a way of experiencing, a point of view, an interpretation, a method, a discipline of thinking or perceiving. Heidegger’s ‘Age of the World-View’ rightly notes that ‘world view’ understood scientifically ‘does not mean a view of the world, but the world understood as a view (or picture). Existence as a whole is now understood in such a way that it only exists in the first place insofar as it is produced by man who perceives or produces it (durch den vorstellend-herstellenden Menschen) … Wherever existence is not interpreted in this way, the world cannot become a view or picture; there cannot be a world view.’ Heidegger rightly insists that a previously unscientific world-view does not change into a scientific one, but this very thing, ‘that the world itself becomes a view’ is the essence of science. In this regard, Nietzsche claims that, for science there are no facts, only interpretations or methods–methods of experience, points of view. There is nothing inherently rigorous or mathematical in scientific method which, rightly understood as it rarely is, means nothing more than nihilist experience, any way (or method) of experiencing–whether it be that of a tiger, an infant or an Einstein. Science is the realization that reality is nothing but mere experience, methods of perceiving or thinking. This ‘definition’ of science, like all theories or thoughts, is no more than another empty experience or method.” (Neumann, “Political Philosophy or Nihilist Science?”)
[/size]

For the sake of argument, though, I’m willing to grant that there are historical facts.

You mean his influence will probably be even greater. Well, considering how badly the likes of you want to believe in their own phantasmagoria, and how the world teems with them, I suppose you’re right.

Indeed. Kant never really refuted Hume.

Then I suggest a ninth subforum for you to post on: ILP 2 (“I love Phantasmagoria”). Seriously though, you still be-lieve in what Picht, following Pascal, calls the God of the philosophers. It is suspect, then, that Kant’s popularity has always greatly depended on his stealing back the room for this belief, which Hume had taken away. And the structure of our cognitive apparatus is just another impression: it may be different tomorrow. You want Kant to be the greatest philosopher because you want to believe in “facts”.

Prismatic, I was not talking about what you call the “weightances”. Let me put it this way: Will every participant have one (1) vote, and will all votes count equally? If so, why?

[size=114]No. You want Nietzsche to be your greatest false god, because you are not able to accept facts.[/size]

[size=120]

[/size]