what are their most profound and basic differences?
in ontology, epistemology and metaphysics?.
HmmmâŠ
I have an analogy.
Kant is like an aircraft carrier and Nietzsche is like a pontoon boat.
hahaha! âŠ
huh?
whatâs a pontoon boat?
Nietzsche really didnât seem to like Kant. Thatâs debatable.
He once called him the âChinaman of Konigsbergâ.
As for comparing them - itâs basically pointless. Kant was explicit about his worldview and N was implicit about his. They had different over-goals, by which I mean N and K didnât search for the same things. Like scientists, one was a chemist and one was a physicist⊠or something. Maybe that doesnât make much sense. Iâve never even thought about comparing them. What made you ask?
Iâd say Kant was like the U.S.S Arizona whilst Nietzsche was like a Japanese torpedo.
Tough shit. Nietzsche uses Kantâs system, as it was passed down to Schopenhauer later to influence Nietzsche, and is the foundation for metaphysics since Descartes, yet Nietzsche didnât seem to acknowledge that. Seventy-five percent of philosophers since Kant are using Kantian methods for philosophy.
Nietzsche was hung up on Kantâs moral philosophy and didnât notice the full magnitude of the critique of pure reasonâŠperhaps the most important metaphysics book to ever be written. Kant was a philosopherâs philosopher who literally designed the metaphysical systems that Schopenhauer and Nietzsche use, whether Nietzsche knows it or not.
In addition, their styles of writing couldnât be any more different. What metaphysics you do find in Nietzsche is in his aphorismsâŠand they are propositionally similiar to idealistâs agendas; he wishes to argue away the objectivity of real existence and suggest that it is only perspective, but that this perspective, this Will, is the noumenal a priori reason for existence.
A significant difference between the two is that Nietzsche employs these metaphors to explain existenceâŠKant does not permit them on the grounds that they are not âsufficientâ for reaching analytical truth, and concludes that the reason and purpose for existence cannot be known, but is indeed possible.
Nietzsche ignores this and pretends that he is Caesar instead.
But really though, its not fair to compare them.
âŠand I like Fritz far more than Manny.
I think youâre selling Nietzsche a little short if youâd suggest he âdidnât noticeâ the significance of the Pure Reason critique. His objections are not with that critique at all, but with the Practial Reason and Judgment critiques. While youâre correct in that he and Kant diverge on the issue of morality, thatâs precisely Nietzscheâs point of emphasis: Kantâs the bomb until he gets to morality.
I donât have to tell you Nietzsche was acutely aware of his place in German philosophy, namely an extention of what had come before. That he âackowledgesâ Kantâs greatness, methodologically or otherwise, should go without saying: he envisoned himself part of a sequential line that included Kant, to be sure.
Do you two confuse ethics for ontology, or do you have something to teach me?
Perhaps what is meant is that subjects/substances ect., are bogus, and âtrue realityâ(to use a hostile term) lies the struggle for power and the vieing forces. There is something off about this though, Iâll have to do some referencing/studying - it doesnât seem quite right.
Many thinkers who came after Kant took up the Kantian critique and refigured it, but this does mean that the end result in each case was âKantianismâ. Consider the differences between Hegel, Nietzsche, Bergson, and Deleuze - each conversant with Kant in their own, relatively unique way.
It may also be a little hasty to say that Nietzsche took up the âidealist agendaâ. Which idealist agenda might this be? (Kantâs idealist agenda? Berkeleyâs idealist agenda? Hegelâs? Heideggerâs?) Further elaboration would be appreciated.
James
becuse I got the idea from other thread that they where opposites somehowâŠ
see? I noticed that tooâŠkind ofâŠ
what did N use form K,his âskepticâ system?. or what?.
I think the same of KantâŠ
hey DetropâŠ
what do you think made N and K arrive to opposite conclusions from the same foundation?
(one says the perspective is all and the other says there IS a foundation but cannot be known).
Iâm not entirely certain that the âWill to Powerâ is NOT meant as one giant thought experiment, which Nietzsche advocated as a psychology rather than an ontology. It is adopted because itâs adoption affirms and serves life better than anything else Nietzsche could come up with, not because Nietzsche concretely believes that it is the end all be all of existence.
Nearly all philosophy since Kant has amounted to refutation or agreement with his ideas. This does not make Kant king of the hill. It makes him able to touch nerves, epecially Nietzscheâs. Kantâs ideas are static, Nietzscheâs are mobile. Kant attempted to defend metaphysics by wedding religion and science. Nietzsche questions whether or not metaphysics is possible at all without being supported by religion, which is too relative to support anything. For N., K. was an anal-retentive espouser of non-existing, Platonic absolutist ideas, the basic ingredients of the supernatural or otherworldy claims on what goes on in this world.
Kant, like Plato, assumed a world beyond our perception and designated that world as the true world as opposed to the percieved world that was designated as the false world. Kant, unlike Plato, regarded the true world as unknowable.
Kant pertained to the Greco dualism. Nietzsche analysed Kant in the parallel way that Spinoza analysed Christ. This was why Nietzsche regarded Spinoza as his precussor, since Spinoza monified the dualism of God and Nature. However, the Jeudo dualism has been altogether different from the Greco dualism. Nietzsche prefered the earlier over the latter, because the earlier was more humanistically-oriented, by introducing that particular orientation into the more naturally-oriented Greek philosophy, Nietzsche achieved the monification of its dualism.
Nietzsche regarded the percieved world as the only world. There is only one world and the continuity of this world exists for its relativity to be possible. Hence he said that truth is error.
With Nietzschean existentialism, western ontology started on a new chapter. As for Jewish philosophy, the implication is that God as the creator is but human perspectival. God was dead because men like Kant achieved creativity that was powerful enough to enhance man as creator, to such an extent that man was turned into God. Jewish philosophy was taken over by western philosophy there, in the sense that Kant took over Jehowal. But Nietzsche rather united the two philosophies, in the sense that he encompassed Kant by acknowledging Spinoza.
trueâŠI agreeâŠ
but what IS nietzsches âend all b allâ⊠if any, because my perception is that he denied the posibility of such a thing.
this sounds like something I would agree withâŠbut I donât understand it completelyâŠ
Personally I think it is nonsense to say Nietzsche had a metaphysic or ontology - he had concepts that went throughout his philosophy, but the methodology he used does not lend itself to developing a metaphysic. It is ,however, easy to fall into error and pin down his âwill to powerâ as something other than a thought experiment.
The âwille zur machtâ has the makings of a metaphysic, but it is not Nietzscheâs peragative to necessarily describe existnence, but to describe the most life affirming description of existence.
I know Iâm repeating myself, but my argument pretty much begins and ends with âitâs a thought experiment, not an attempt at ontologyâ.
If I say something to the effect of âIt would be beneficial to think of life as nothing more than a collection of strugglesâ - then I go on and describe exactly what I mean by âcollection of strugglesâ over the course of my life - and if people forget my originl motivation for describing this âcollection of strugglesâ they will have a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument, calling in a metaphysic - but in all reality I have not espoused an ontology, I have espoused a pathos and psychology.
However, if you do understand it completely, then it takes you out of the loop in which you cannot be sure just who enveloped who. I mean, while you are still inside the loop, you are having a hard time deciding if Kant encompassed Nietzsche afterall. The loop disables you to detect the subtle yet significant difference between these philosophies.
The percieved world is the only world. This suggests that the world as you know it is created by you. The world as the cat knows it is created by the cat. The world as the flower knows it is created by the flower. You create what you see. This sounds like magical realism, I know.
You see an apple and think of nothing else.
Plato sees an apple and sees the form of apples.
Kant sees an apple and thinks about the form of apples but cannot see it.
Nietzsche sees an apple and thinks about how crazed Plato was and how reactive to him Kant was.
And Nietzsche thinks that the existence of the apple is grounded and justified in your seeing alone. The apple IS something in your eyes. The apple IS something DIFFERENT in anotherâ eyes. The apple IS nothing in your thinking, whether as form or as idea, as the truth or as error, it is just nothing relative to its sole existence in your seeing. Your world is what you see. Your world is different from mine.
You are what you willed and what you are willing to be. You created and you are creating yourself. Your existence is completely affirmed this way. This is the very base ground of existentialism, upon which whatever you see, including yourself, stand.
Thereupon I propose to amend the sinograph for âBeâ. Instead of it being âstanding under sunâ, why not make it to be 'standing in eye", or in a reconciliatory manner with my ancestors - why not make it to be âstanding in SUNSHINEâ.
Ray, radiance; light, lighting; perspectival, psyciological perspectivals. These are the creative powers of the will. In the first place, in their first strife for power, they do it by enabling your existence by makeing you aware of prepheral existences. To will is to be. Being is willing. You and eveything are a manifestation of the will to power.
There is only one world, that world sprung out of the will.