mr reasonable wrote:I don't get into the moral aspects of it. I like the systemization parts.
mr reasonable wrote: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.
Fixed Cross wrote:mr reasonable wrote: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.Fixed Cross wrote:mr reasonable wrote: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.
Kant wrote: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.
Kant wrote: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).
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
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
mr reasonable wrote:Still, it's better to decide your actions after coming to a robust understanding of the world than to do so beforehand.
Erik_ wrote:mr reasonable wrote: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.
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).Fixed Cross wrote: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 wrote: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'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.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.
IMO, the America founding fathers appear to be simply sprinkling some truths and principles intuitively but they are not reasonably grounded within systematic principles.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.
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.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.
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.
I know you prefer Nietzsche over Kant, personally; but who do you think should be considered the ' better ' philosopher?
Erik_ wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:mr reasonable wrote: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:
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?
Orb wrote: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.
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.Diekon wrote: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.
James S Saint wrote:Which is the better fruit, apple or orange?
.. might sort of depend upon what you're in need of at the time.
Prismatic567 wrote: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.Diekon wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users