Kant vs Nietzsche

I must disagree with Kant here. I think a philosiphical work can and should account for everything that it claims. That in fact philosophy can and therefore ultimately must be more exact than mathematics. This is because mathematics postulates the integer, whereas philosophy must derive it, arrive at it. That’s at least what my work has been about.

Ultimately the integer is given, and it is therefore not dangerous or dishonest to postulate it, but to speak of it one must arrive at it from within itself, one must uncover what makes it an integer, even though it is irreducible.

That is the ground of an understanding of how integers can come to interact without damaging each others integrity.

I too have been trained rigorously in Buddhism as well as in Yogic and Vedic philosophies, which indeed include or even start with physical practices. Yes, the brain does need to be rewired (though some form of meditational disclipline, not necessarily eastern) for it to grasp the inner workings of being.


Btw, what Kant meant in the above quote was the substance, i.e. principles, system and framework, is more important than the forms. Thus it is critical to keep the framework intact while one can experiments with the forms.

In his works, Kant did discuss and differentiate between Mathematics and philosophy [especially metaphysics] to establish ‘How Pure Mathematics is Possible?’ while metaphysics [once touted as the queen of the sciences] cannot be possible. This would be a long story thus off topic.

As for exactness or definite answers, I am with Russell’s

Sauwelios - Realize that I have been fishing for four years now. The catch has been quite alright, especially with you now on board, but the efforts it took me have been very great. Also note that my acute and exact understanding of being came to be precisely as a remedy against an impending non-being - against valuing other beings and their perspectives too much, being too courteous and considerate, something that actually brought me on the brink of death, as can be understood at the hand of that principle. Its emerging in my mind was due to a necessity on the level of life and death. You must see my aggression as a medicine against unwarranted sympathies and good will. Erik, for example, had received much good will from me, long before I made that one unfortunate expression. My investments in him turned out to have been futile, he had understood (perhaps taken setiously) absolutely nothing, and this was so disappointing as to cause nausea. Lyssa on the other hand, to give an example, has been a rewarding object of investment, despite her and my violent and scornful clashing. Perhaps actually because rather than despite that she is able to muster such brute intellectual force. I still see philosophy as a glorious battle, and diplomacy is warranted only when the stakes are sufficiently high, when much has already been gained.

Yeah, you really spazzed out on me, buddy. What was that all about? Just having a bad day? I was genuinely interested in your thoughts on the subject, but you decided to get snide and nasty…

Was it because I casted aspersions on Nietzsche?

An issue of separating philosophical power from philosophical value, assuming you can do that, and suggesting that I would do that.

Fixed Cross,

What are your thoughts on the following quote:

You are quite creative, I gotta hand it to ya.

That was my version of expressing myself to you in exaggerated caricature of the way you expressed yourself to me.

You said to me: “I stated that you prefer Nietzsche” and went on to say that this did not mean that I thought Nietzsche is the better, stronger, greater, more influential, more relevant philosopher. As strange as this may have been to you, this was a very grave insult to me. You implicitly said that I stated a preference or a philosopher without having philosophical ground for that preference. Hence, I wanted to show you how that comes across to me, and I used a creative way of expressing that (stating something about a preference of yours that was not something you stated at all).

The point was that I prefer Nietzsche only and alone because is greater, more significant, deeper, more powerful, more relevant, more important, has more impact, is more honest, more intelligent, etc etc etc etc - and that I felt and feel that I had made this very clear, throughout all my posts about Nietzsche.

I admire Nietzsche as a master-logician. I look down on Kant whom I consider to be a failed wannabe logician.

In my view Fixed Cross’s analogy is sound: you did say the same thing to him first, Erik–in form, that is, not in content. And in fact, it’s quite evident that, for him, the content was on the same par.

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, 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:

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.

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.

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;

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’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.


Hi Sauwelios,

Apparently I’m able to receive but not send PMs. What you wrote sounds excellent! You can send it to loomings16@gmail.com. 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!

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 loomings16@gmail.com

Thank you very much.

Source: 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.

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.

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 ]