Kant vs Nietzsche

[Prismatic567]

Jabs at Kant
Whilst I think Kant has great [rated greatest imo] holistic philosophical ideas, he also has his warts on the side. However I am of the opinion that these negatives [I am not bringing them up for discussion here] are due to he being conditioned in his specific time/era, social, cultural, religious, political factors, personal issues, etc. For example, if Einstein is a pedophile, wife-beater, or any other evils, these has no impact on his E=MC2.

Nonetheless I do not agree whatever negatives that Kant expressed has any effect on his main philosophical ideas that are independent and based on reason, rationality and objectivity.
This is one point why Kant's ideas is kept pristine because he deliberately did not want to engage in promoting various actual practices and exercises [Kant termed such the 'anthropological' -the actual actions] which are changing and relative to time, history, future and other conditions.

One point I do not agree with Kant is his use of the term 'God' which he regarded as illusory but used regulatively in his Morality and Ethics. I can easily use the non-religious loaded term ens realissimum instead.

[James S Saint]

It seems odd that you could hate reasoning as well as religion and yet support Kant, a strong proponent of reasoning.


I guess some people are never satisfied.

[Fixed Cross]

I don't get into the moral aspects of it. I like the systemization parts.

I actually prefer his 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 Kants rather naive assumptions.

But sure, Kant was a powerful thinker. No one here seems to be that interested in him though, no quoting of his writings or references to his concepts. That's of course how one can continue to claim that Kant represents reason and Nietzsche less so.... by ignoring what these guys wrote themselves and reading opinions about them.

Id be surprised if anyone could come up with a correct representation of N's critique of K.

[Mr Reasonable]

Fixed, I know this is one of your favorite things to talk about. And I'm sorry that I can't go all back and fourth with ya. But hey, generally speaking, N was trying to tell people how to live, and K was talking about how the world is. Both of em are gonna have a few hokey bits here and there that don't quite jive with everything we think about how to act and how the world is, but I think the major divide between the two was just that.

[Diekon]

It depends on if you think philosophy ought to be about understanding the world as best it can be or if you think philosophy ought be more about understanding your place in the world as best can be. Kant is like a scientists. Nietzsche is like an emo band.

I kinda agree with this. Except maybe you could replace the last part with 'Nietzsche is more like a philosopher.'... if the goal is not to troll Nietzschians anyway.

Seem to me that originally philosophy was about living well, that was what Socrates was all about. Science grew out of that, but it's not exactly philosophy if you merely want to understand the world for it's own sake.

[Mr Reasonable]

Still, it's better to decide your actions after coming to a robust understanding of the world than to do so beforehand.

[Erik_]

I don't get into the moral aspects of it. I like the systemization parts.

I actually prefer his 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 Kants rather naive assumptions.

But sure, Kant was a powerful thinker. No one here seems to be that interested in him though, no quoting of his writings or references to his concepts. That's of course how one can continue to claim that Kant represents reason and Nietzsche less so.... by ignoring what these guys wrote themselves and reading opinions about them.

Id be surprised if anyone could come up with a correct representation of N's critique of K.

I know you prefer Nietzsche over Kant, personally; but who do you think should be considered the ' better ' philosopher?

[Prismatic567]

I don't get into the moral aspects of it. I like the systemization parts.

I actually prefer his 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 Kants rather naive assumptions.

But sure, Kant was a powerful thinker. No one here seems to be that interested in him though, no quoting of his writings or references to his concepts. That's of course how one can continue to claim that Kant represents reason and Nietzsche less so.... by ignoring what these guys wrote themselves and reading opinions about them.

Id be surprised if anyone could come up with a correct representation of N's critique of K.

I have read Nietzsche extensively but not as deeply and intensely as I have read Kant. I have also covered quite a number of articles on Nietzsche's critique of Kant and find most to be based on Nietzsche's incomplete understanding of Kant's work and philosophical ideas.

Why do you claim Kant as incoherent, or simply wrong?
Most often those who critique Kant negatively usually do have grasped and understood Kant's Critically Philosophy fully and taking into the fine nuances therein.

As far as systemization of conceptions of knowledge and reason are concerned, I find Kant had delivered what he had offered, i.e.

In this enquiry I have made Completeness my chief aim, and I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied. Preface A Axiii.

The above is leverage on Kant's following framework;

As Systematic Unity is what first raises ordinary Knowledge to the rank of Science, that is, makes a System out of a mere aggregate of Knowledge, architectonic is the Doctrine of the scientific in our Knowledge, and therefore Necessarily Forms part of the Doctrine of Method.

In accordance with Reason's legislative prescriptions, our diverse Modes of Knowledge must not be permitted to be a mere rhapsody, but must Form a System. Only so can they further the essential ends of Reason.

By a System I understand the Unity of the Manifold Modes of Knowledge under one Idea.

This Idea is the Concept provided by Reason -- of the Form of a Whole -- in so far as the Concept determines a priori not only the scope of its Manifold content, but also the positions which the parts occupy relatively to one another.
The scientific Concept of Reason contains, therefore, the end and the Form of that Whole which is congruent with this requirement.
The Unity of the end to which all the parts relate and in the Idea of which they all stand in Relation to one another, makes it possible for us to determine from our Knowledge of the other parts whether
• any part be missing, and
• to prevent any arbitrary addition, or
• in respect of its Completeness any indeterminateness that does not conform to the Limits which are thus determined a priori.
A833 B861
The whole is thus an organised Unity (articulatio), and not an aggregate (coacervatio).
It may grow from within (per intussusceptionem), but not by External addition (per appositionem).

I noted Nietzsche's critique of Kant is like most, based on the incomplete comprehension of Kant's work. There is no obvious evidence [some claimed he read the 3rd CJ?] that Nietzsche even read Kant's main books seriously and thoroughly. Most of Neitzsche's understanding of Kant's ideas came through his reading of Schopenhauer's books and ideas. Schopenhauer like most also misunderstood the central core principles of Kant's philosophy, i.e. the Thing-in-itself, and the idea of Will, Freedom therefrom.

Kant anticipated many would fall victim to an illusion and lose grip on the central core ideal of his philosophy;

They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

Schopenhauer, Fitche, Hegel and others were seduced by this transcendental illusion that Kant warned above.

When Nietzsche rejected Schopenhauer concept of Will, he in fact came within Kant's framework and scheme. However, Nietzsche claimed the Thing-in-itself is self-contradictory is due to a misconception.
Here is one view reconciling Nietzsche Will-to-Power with the Thing-in-itself;
Abstract:

This paper investigates the argument that substantiates Nietzsche’s refusal of the Kantian concept of thing in itself. As Maudemarie Clark points out, Nietzsche dismisses this notion because he views it as self-contradictory. The main concern of the paper will be to account for this position. In particular, the two main theses defended here are (a) that the argument underlying Nietzsche’s claim is that the concept of thing in itself amounts to the inconsistent idea of a propertyless thing and (b) that this argument is a sound one. Finally, I will show that the reading proposed allows a deflationary response to the objection that Nietzsche’s will to power is simply a new version of the post-Kantian thing in itself.
https://www.academia.edu/721862/Nietzsc ... _in_Itself

Kant's ideas of the Noumenon or Thing-in-itself, Absolute Freedom, Will, God [postulated and assumed] are at first glance like 'sitting ducks' for many but they are very sound ideas when one clear the cobwebs to understand them with their nuances.

[Diekon]

Still, it's better to decide your actions after coming to a robust understanding of the world than to do so beforehand.

Sure, but Kant apparently didn't use his understanding of the world to better decide his actions... he ended up with the categorical imperative.

I mean, if that is the actual goal of philosophy, it seems that he failed as a philosopher.

[Mr Reasonable]

Yeah but what we know about the categorical imperative is that right and wrong can't always be a matter of one maxim or another. Shits more complicated than a list of rules or virtues. So again, he requires us to reason a bit more than say...some guy who just wants us to all exercise the will to power.

[Orbie]

When it comes down to it really, there's not a lot of inventing in metaphysics so much as there is discovering. The shit gets restated every couple generations but yeah, it's always pretty much been the same.

So, if Kant simply recycled Indian metaphysics (
altered them a tad, but not too much ), why should
we regard him as the greatest philosopher ever? I mean, it was his meta-physics that gained him his reputation as one of the giants of philosophy,
the giant of philosophy, to be precise.

If anyone can be accused of being an Indian metaphysician, it is Schopenhauer. Ergo Nietzsche.
One for N.

[Orbie]

Or, Kant, whichever way you look at it.

[Fixed Cross]

Mr R, its acually the other way around. N was acsceptic, had no illusions that there are any given oughts, he only describes what is. He makes mention of his own preferences but does not demand that his readers come to share his values as they grasp his logic.

For Kant, there is a Real Truth and that truth has moral consequences. He gives to my knowledge no conception of what the world is made of at all. If Im wrong please quote his ideas on that. He proposes only the nature of Reason as if it were self evident that Reason corresponds to or can find correspondence with the entire scope of existence. He can be forgiven for that as he lived in an age of still simple science. Nietzsche, as I hope is obvious , already gave us a rudimentary logic of Relativity, which can pretty much be derived from the WtP logic, but I respect that that bores the shit out of you.

Erik- you seem lost. How could I think Nietzsche is superior and at the same time think Kant is better? Superior and better are the same thing.

Prismatic - Ns refutal of Kant pertains to Kants belief in the given integrity of the relation of reason to the world, an integrity which Kant set out to disclose, and which led, consistently with the desire implicit in such an assumption, to a hermetic moral view of being. Kant represents pure idealism. He is akin to the American founding fathers and has inspiring but unverifiable ideas about "the good". To N, good more or less equals health, which is a measurable condition and not a construct dependent on the assumption that reason is of positive moral quality. The opposite seems rather the case; Pure reason, as in reason referring to itself without the acknowledgement of the all too human valuing at its roots is indifferent to man and its consequences are infinitely cruel.

I prefer the American founding fathers who simply held the sort of Truth Kant was after as self evident and did not bother construing a whole system to convince themselves of actually having proven it. The boldness of that claim is what existence is really made of, if you catch my reference to N's phenomenology of self-assertion.

Reason can not assert itself. It is property of man and subservient to man, in all the conditions in which this creature exists. "Pure reason" as an analytical principle is thus nonsensical.
Reason is synthetic. Hence N's phenomenalist treatment of it and his consistency avant la lettre with the scientific geniuses that followed him some decades later.

By all means please challenge my views with more quotations and references, I like that someone stepped up.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic - Ns refutal of Kant pertains to Kants belief in the given integrity of the relation of reason to the world, an integrity which Kant set out to disclose, and which led, consistently with the desire implicit in such an assumption, to a hermetic moral view of being.

Because Kant is so difficult to grasp and understand [not necessary agree with] most [90%] of the views of Kant I have came across are misinterpretations, misunderstandings and ending up as straw-man(s).

It is no doubt Kant regarded reason [ranging from rational to pure] with integrity but at the same time Kant understand reason at its purest can lead to illusions. That is why he came up with a Critique of Pure Reason.
In a way, Kant had used reason for relevant good rational uses, to limit [where applicable] and kill itself [where necessary].

Nevertheless there is a very fine line between 'sanity' and 'madness' for anyone to venture to tap the positive potential from Pure Reason. It is very natural and quite unadvoidable for most to gravitate towards the illusions of pure reason leading to be delusional on its resultants. Here is how Kant portrayed the delicate balance of pure reason.

Thus Pure Reason, which at first seemed to promise nothing less than the Extension of Knowledge beyond all Limits of Experience, contains, if properly understood, nothing but Regulative Principles, which, while indeed prescribing Greater Unity than the Empirical employment of Understanding can achieve, yet still, by the very fact that they place the goal of its endeavours at so great a distance, carry its agreement with itself, by means of Systematic Unity, to the Highest Possible Degree.
A702 B730
But if, on the other hand, they be misunderstood, and be treated as Constitutive Principles of Transcendent Knowledge, they give rise, by a Dazzling And Deceptive Illusion, to persuasion and a merely fictitious Knowledge, and therewith to contradictions and eternal disputes.

Kant is very aware of the above when he formulated his system of hermetical system of pure Moral principles [OUGHT] with a corresponding principles in the varied and conditional applied ethics [IS]. Kant relied on an analogon to reconcile his Moral [the pure aspects] and his Ethics [the applied].
N do not have a system and merely toyed with the conditional applied aspects of Ethics which involved chasing moving goal posts.
K moral system establish a fixed goal [not absolute and can be shifted with an earthquake] post, thus establishing a kind of auto-servo, thermostatic' homeostatic, and self-regulating Moral/Ethical system to enable humanity to progress towards perpetual peace in the future via progressive iterations, control loops and continuous improvements.

The so-called 'Categorical Imperative' is not suppose to be imperative nor enforceable in the real world, it is merely a guide like a lighthouse to ensure the individual(s) and humanity do not end up in the rocks.

Kant represents pure idealism. He is akin to the American founding fathers and has inspiring but unverifiable ideas about "the good". To N, good more or less equals health, which is a measurable condition and not a construct dependent on the assumption that reason is of positive moral quality. The opposite seems rather the case; Pure reason, as in reason referring to itself without the acknowledgement of the all too human valuing at its roots is indifferent to man and its consequences are infinitely cruel.

Kant's is not pure idealism. Kant's is Transcendental Idealism which is also Empirical Realism. If you think you are a realist, you may be a Transcendental Realist and at the same time an Empirical Idealist.

Are you familiar with the 'Zero Defect' trend in production quality management? Do you think this people who have set a vision for Zero Defect think they can achieve perfect 'zero defect' all the time?
No.. this 'Zero Defect' as a perfect ideal is merely a guide to ensure they strive to meet the optimal results in relation to the actual conditions they are in. Such a concept enable one to strive to expose all the kinks and weakness in a system and maintain it within optimal pristine conditions.
This is the same with Kant's Summum Bonum, the Highest Good.

Kant deliberately focus on theoretical principles and deliberately avoid the empirical and applied practices due to time constraints. In addition the empirical and applied are too diversified for one person to deal with. This is why the neo-Kantians and others came after to fill the theoretical-empirical gap. Unfortunately some got trapped in the transcendental illusions that Kant warned about.

I prefer the American founding fathers who simply held the sort of Truth Kant was after as self evident and did not bother construing a whole system to convince themselves of actually having proven it. The boldness of that claim is what existence is really made of, if you catch my reference to N's phenomenology of self-assertion.

IMO, the America founding fathers appear to be simply sprinkling some truths and principles intuitively but they are not reasonably grounded within systematic principles.

Reason can not assert itself. It is property of man and subservient to man, in all the conditions in which this creature exists. "Pure reason" as an analytical principle is thus nonsensical.
Reason is synthetic. Hence N's phenomenalist treatment of it and his consistency avant la lettre with the scientific geniuses that followed him some decades later.

Kant never claimed "Pure Reason" to be an absolute but defined it within his terms and conditions. If you understand what Kant meant by 'Pure Reason' I think you will agree with him subject to that specific qualification.
If I propose distilled water as 'pure water' I am sure you can agree with me and we can use such a term for various acceptable purpose conditioned upon its qualifications.
However, in reality 'distilled water' cannot be absolutely pure due to the possibility of some other finer contaminants.

Personally I find N views are in alignment with Kant's overall systematic framework.

Analogy: Kant's philosophical approach to reality is like the construction of a overall framework of the airplane in an air crash investigation [note pic below]. Kant's main interest is in building the accurate framework and very less in searching for the pieces.
When the pieces of the plane are found, they are then attached to the framework like a 3D jigsaw puzzle.
N is like one of the searchers for the bits and pieces of the place and if we are fully aware of the whole framework we will be able to place his 'pieces' of philosophical views where they belong within the specific locations of the framework of the whole.



Because N's approach lack the systematic approach, there is no progressive iterations, feedback control loops and continuous improvements to expedite the process of progress of humanity.

Note example of a system with feedback control loops.

Kant System of Moral [Pure] and Ethic [Applied] incorporate the above principles. The Categorical Imperative acts as a Controller. The applied ethics is the Process, output and feedback control.
N's approach focus on the Processes [human tragedies] and lacks a sophisticated effective fool proof controller and the feedback loop.

Kant presented the above systematic framework within his Critical Philosophy but so far I noted no one has viewed it in this manner.

[Diekon]

The problem with Kant's approach as a system builder, where everything is tied together, is that if one of the pieces fails, the whole system fails. His views on morality are tied to his metaphysics. If you don't agree with his metaphysics, his views on morals aren't going to be of much use to you.

Nietzsche throughout doesn't stray to far from the surface, he's much more modest (Nietzsche modest!) in what he tries to do. He sees morality still pretty much as an open ended question. He looks at and evaluates certain things he sees from different angles and according to different standards. Even if you don't agree with some of his analysis, other evaluations or the method he uses, can still be of use.

[Erik_]

Erik- you seem lost. How could I think Nietzsche is superior and at the same time think Kant is better? Superior and better are the same thing.

No, not lost.

Example: I prefer N. over Kant, i.e., I like reading/learning about him more ( more interesting, imo ); but I can acknowledge that Kant is more significant and influential, i.e., ' better ' than Nietzsche.

Make sense? Try, try again.

Btw., I stated that you " prefer N ", not that you " think he is superior ".

Erik wrote:

I know you prefer Nietzsche over Kant, personally; but who do you think should be considered the ' better ' philosopher?

Read it slower this time, so you don't get lost.

[Orbie]

I think the confusion arises out of the ambiguity between the statement: 'I prefer Neitzche' , which is perfectly credible, with : "Kant is the better philosopher'. In the latter, the proposition of who is a better philosopher is again an appeal to a personal preferene, since there are no objective criteria, on basis of a legitimate census or study by which it can be ascetined. If there were, then the two propositions would be different, based on preference, but, as it stands, minus such objectivity, both refer to similar conceptual frameworks Eric.

[Fixed Cross]

I don't get into the moral aspects of it. I like the systemization parts.

I actually prefer his 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 Kants rather naive assumptions.

But sure, Kant was a powerful thinker. No one here seems to be that interested in him though, no quoting of his writings or references to his concepts. That's of course how one can continue to claim that Kant represents reason and Nietzsche less so.... by ignoring what these guys wrote themselves and reading opinions about them.

Id be surprised if anyone could come up with a correct representation of N's critique of K.

I know you prefer Nietzsche over Kant, personally; but who do you think should be considered the ' better ' philosopher?

Erik, as I have made abundantly clear in my posts here, I find Nietzsche superior. Still you manage to ask, and I loosely paraphrase your question: "I know you prefer Nietzsche, but do you perhaps think Kant is superior?"

I did not say I prefer Nietzsche. You said that. What I said did not register with you. I stepped over that mistake of yours and referred back to my own actual statement. Then you say this:

"Btw., I stated that you " prefer N ", not that you " think he is superior "

And you pride yourself on this?

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.

Do I make myself clear, Erik?

A) I spit on anyone who misrepresents me to my face.

B) I do not "prefer" a philosopher on any other ground than his significance and quality. I am baffled by your statement that you do. How is that even possible? Do you take philosophy for some kind of fashion statement?

[Erik_]

^^^ Lolz

Erik, as I have made abundantly clear in my posts here, I find Nietzsche superior. Still you manage to ask, and I loosely paraphrase your question: "I know you prefer Nietzsche, but do you perhaps think Kant is superior?"

You haven't made that abundantly clear, actually...It's clear that you like N. more, but like I insinuated, predilection doesn't entail conviction of superiority per se.

I did not say I prefer Nietzsche. You said that. What I said did not register with you. I stepped over that mistake of yours and referred back to my own actual statement. Then you say this:

No one ever stated that you stated that you prefer N., but rather it was implied that given what I know of you already, you prefer N. Get your facts straight, Fix.

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.

Do I make myself clear, Erik?

Oh dear, oh my...

A) I spit on anyone who misrepresents me to my face.

B) I do not "prefer" a philosopher on any other ground than his significance and quality. I am baffled by your statement that you do. How is that even possible? Do you take philosophy for some kind of fashion statement?

A) You are a sensitive little bitch.

B) You are dyslexic.

[Mr Reasonable]

What's dyslexic about that post?

[James S Saint]

Which is the better fruit, apple or orange?


.. might sort of depend upon what you're in need of at the time.

[Prismatic567]

I think the confusion arises out of the ambiguity between the statement: 'I prefer Neitzche' , which is perfectly credible, with : "Kant is the better philosopher'. In the latter, the proposition of who is a better philosopher is again an appeal to a personal preferene, since there are no objective criteria, on basis of a legitimate census or study by which it can be ascetined. If there were, then the two propositions would be different, based on preference, but, as it stands, minus such objectivity, both refer to similar conceptual frameworks Eric.

Btw, I did propose a methodology with a sample of criteria to assess superiority in an objective manner in this post;
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2529002#p2529002

When we can agree on a set of criteria to be used, then we can determine to some degree who [K or N] is more superior based on the number and quality of people participating.
In any case the final result is conditioned and qualified to the agreed criteria and those who participate.

[Prismatic567]

The problem with Kant's approach as a system builder, where everything is tied together, is that if one of the pieces fails, the whole system fails. His views on morality are tied to his metaphysics. If you don't agree with his metaphysics, his views on morals aren't going to be of much use to you.

Nietzsche throughout doesn't stray to far from the surface, he's much more modest (Nietzsche modest!) in what he tries to do. He sees morality still pretty much as an open ended question. He looks at and evaluates certain things he sees from different angles and according to different standards. Even if you don't agree with some of his analysis, other evaluations or the method he uses, can still be of use.

Kant's general approach is systematic. However Kant admit he is not building any new moral system, rather he is uncovering the inherent system of morality and ethics that is ongoing within humanity and reality and presenting it in systematic manner.

Kant dealt with metaphysics but he did not cling onto to any metaphysical ideas.
To Kant, metaphysics is a natural impulse but its intended purpose are an impossibility in reality in the sense there is no independent ontological essence.

[Mr Reasonable]

Which is the better fruit, apple or orange?


.. might sort of depend upon what you're in need of at the time.

If you think it's apples then you're retarded. Scientifically speaking, it's clearly the orange, and anyone with any kind of sense would know that.

[Sauwelios]

The problem with Kant's approach as a system builder, where everything is tied together, is that if one of the pieces fails, the whole system fails. His views on morality are tied to his metaphysics. If you don't agree with his metaphysics, his views on morals aren't going to be of much use to you.

Nietzsche throughout doesn't stray to far from the surface, he's much more modest (Nietzsche modest!) in what he tries to do. He sees morality still pretty much as an open ended question. He looks at and evaluates certain things he sees from different angles and according to different standards. Even if you don't agree with some of his analysis, other evaluations or the method he uses, can still be of use.

Kant's general approach is systematic. However Kant admit he is not building any new moral system, rather he is uncovering the inherent system of morality and ethics that is ongoing within humanity and reality and presenting it in systematic manner.

This is precisely what Nietzsche says about Kant:

"I insist that one should finally stop confusing the philosophical workers, and scientific men in general, with the philosopher [...]. Those philosophical workers after the noble model of Kant and Hegel need to establish some great body or other of existing value-estimations--that is to say erstwhile value-positings, value-creations, which have come to rule and are called 'truths' for some time--and force it into formulas, be it in the realm of logic or of politics (morals) or of art. [...] The philosophers proper however are commanders and lawgivers: they say 'thus it shall be!', they first determine the Whereto? and For what? of man and avail themselves therein of the preliminary work of all the philosophical workers, all the overpowerers of the past,--they reach for the future with creative hands, and all that was and is becomes for them a means, a tool, a hammer therein." (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 211, my translation.)

Kant was basically "just" an establisher and formulator of the value-positings of Plato. But yes, they are inherent--inherent in the herd type, or the slave type... Plato legislated those values--exoterically--for the whole of humanity.

"'The large majority of men,' the human herd in Nietzsche's impolite words, constitute one type, and the morality that fits them tends toward the universal because the large majority stands in fear of the exception or the exceptional. The large majority, needing the comfort of the universal, utilizes the power of the universal to rule over and eventually rule out the threatening exception. Moreover--and this will be a major point--Platonism served the morality of the large majority. Universally valid moral rules, valid for all people at all times, can support themselves on the Platonic rational principle founded on the Good, on God--on some cosmic spider in Nietzsche's language. The contest between Plato and Nietzsche regarding morality takes on a historic dimension: Plato's strength and power supported a moral teaching that sided with the large majority and set all subsequent philosophers and theologians on the same track. But now the sway of that teaching elicits a philosophic protest that advocates a new moral teaching, one that sides with the other moral type, the only other type, the exceptions." (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 71-72.)

The system of morality and ethics that Kant uncovered and presented in a systematic manner is not inherent in all of humanity, let alone in reality. Human reason is a product of (pre)history, after all...