Kant vs Nietzsche

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Orbie » Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:19 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
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.



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.

Interesting. However consensual criteria suffers from lack generated by degrees of opinion. An all inclusice set of everyone, re. the criteria You havw set up , including professional philosophers and the general public at large would be an exhaustiove and completely sufficient evaluation. However, even within the philosophical commiunity, there has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever been a study like that concluded. Therefore Your criteria is only a workable framework within which a possible study could be consteucted. That it has not, degeades the opinion that Kant Is the greatest philosopher. It is only a hypothetical based on preference. That charge may be softened by Your refutation, that it meets the above listed references' criteria. But, those, even if meeting the challenge of ascertaining objectivity, can and would be countered by non-Kantians, whose application to criteria would differ. I see no wauy to get ot of this loop, and although Your observation that Kant's approach to metaphysical truth is intuitive, they may say that Your seconding that motion intuitively. Kant actually sewed up metaphysics, and thempivotal questionnism theobjetive versus the objectivity in a synthetic a priori proposition. That Kantians defend it, is no surprise, but again it is by begging the question of ontological certainty. That Nietzche rebelled agsinst ultra rationalism of Hegel, who inherited the attempt by Kant, to rescue the rational defense of Geman idealism. Nietzche saw through this, and rebelled against it. Nietzche did not follow prescedence, butm broke away from it. Some wish He had not done so, and saw no reason to categoriclly defend the this process of ressoning. With Nietzche, there came an end to an era, sadly, and some blame him for this, not realizig that it is the era which called upon an equally intuitive thinker, to show the cracks in status quo. So, objectivity build on a consensus of an structural edifice, may or may not stand the test of time. That he did not, is without question, this is where we are in the future post modern world, the tide couldnnot be stopped.

But before You may think I am jumping the gun, i have to conceede, that Kant was a more exact thinker, not as much prone to aphorisms, however, modernity has demolished his ideas, as do sand castles in the coming tide. It is what it is, generations of existenz philosophy idemnify this fact.

That other minds, such as Marx, tried to re-apply synthesis in a different garb, shows how very serious but flawed minds can cause the social catastrophes inherent in non workable arguments. In cases like that, it is not the ideas, but the efficacy of the rhetoric which wins the hears and minds of men.
The ligteral visage of dialectical materialism born out of the hear of fascist darkness, sandwitched between the work kultur ethic of the Western powers, and the forces of a seeming humanistic-socialistic paradigmn,
examplifies in polarity between these three systems, not a synthetis of them. Tjere is no synthesis in the western world, only incorporation of all opposing ideas, thereby overpowering them by the use of utlitarian principles, which have won out. Historical facts, rather then ideas, have come to rule. Nietzchean Nihilism is the only workable tableau for disenchanted utalitarians. There is no exit, only intepretation of signs and signals, a guessing game, where even the individual signals may in them self be open to interpretation by the very ones sending outthe signals. The result is beyond meaning, into the realm of total effect/affect, and the most convincing wins the day hands down. The medium is the message.

Here, Scopehauerian pessimism is echoed, and a recycling of this type of mind set, into the vogue
and surprising twists and turns of the only saving grace, the genius of invention and remodeling the human psyche. Sorry to those whom i may have offended, especially those to whom Ayn Rand has no appeal whatsoever, but, existenz is primary as a way of being in the world, and it was Kant, after all, who finally sewed up metaphysics. He has to be commended monumentally for his great effort, which semd as if it had stood on three legs for a while, but what happened in reality, was not an objective consensus of his ideas' stability of a lasting perscriptio fo the world.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:28 am

Orb wrote:Interesting. However consensual criteria suffers from lack generated by degrees of opinion. An all inclusice set of everyone, re. the criteria You have set up , including professional philosophers and the general public at large would be an exhaustiove and completely sufficient evaluation. However, even within the philosophical community, there has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever been a study like that concluded. Therefore Your criteria is only a workable framework within which a possible study could be constructed.
As Nietzsche stated, 'there is no absolute truth, there are only perspectives'. Thus there cannot be an absolute result on whichever philosopher is the greatest.
Whoever is 'greatest' must be qualified to the set of criteria one used or agreed upon with others.

Even there is no actual study done on the methods I proposed I make it a point to apply the process mentally using various criteria to compare Kant against all the philosophers I have covered.
Thus at least I have made it a point to ensure my personal conclusion is objective to a degree.

Btw, I wonder how credible are your views on Kant's philosophy. Do you think you have understood >80% of Kant's philosophy. What and how much have you done to justify your credibility?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:51 am

Sauwelios wrote: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...
Why and how can you justify your above assertion?

A human being is a organism of systems within systems.
To facilitate its survival, the human organism as system has a servomechanism, .e.g. homeostasis and other control feedback loops to promote continual improvements in every aspects of life.
The impulse to Morality, like other advance functions are inherent within humans and even in primates.

Note this thread I have raised Humans are Born with a Sense of Morality?
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187604

Note the natural inherent moral impulse within humanity has improved the morality quotient in the following over the last 100 years and it is continuing to improve towards the future,
1. Significant reduction in slavery [condoned by some religions]
2. Reduction in capital punishments
3. Reduction in Racism
4. Reduction in cannibalism
5. Reduction in punishments that involve tortures
6. Reduction in misogyny
7. Increase in global awareness on various matters
8. Many others..

One can easily align Kant's System of Moral and Ethics with the above trend of global improvement.
If more people understand how Kant's System of Moral and Ethics sufficiently, humanity would be able to expedite the increase of the average moral quotient of humanity along with advancing knowledge and technology.

The approach of Kant's System of Moral [Pure] and Ethics [Applied] is the same as those of Science and Mathematics, i.e. discovering inherent principles within reality and use them to facilitate the progress of humanity.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:24 am

Prismatic, you're going in circles. I just linked you to the thread in whose OP I linked to my post in your thread to which you've failed to respond, and now you're linking me to that thread again? You say "the natural inherent moral impulse within humanity has improved the morality quotient". What does this mean other than that a natural inherent impulse within humanity to certain ways of thinking, feeling, and acting has driven humanity to think, feel, and act more and more in those ways? Which of course is saying nothing. If, however, you mean that those ways are better, better in what sense? Merely in the sense that they further humanity's survival?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby zinnat » Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:35 am

Erik_ wrote:Who is the better philosopher, in your opinion? I know many consider Kant to be the greatest ever, but what do you think?
Image


There is not even a comparison between the two. N is no match for Kant, neither in knowledge nor in wisdom, though he (Kant) was not perfect either.

Comparing Kant with N is bit like comparing the sun with a halogen bulb. People may like halogen more because it is within their reach and they can understand it by deconstructing it, but the same cannot be done with the sun.

Kant tried to deduct the ontology of the existence but unable to get through till the end. Standing confused there at this very juncture, he again gathered himself, used his wisdom, and offer something imperfect but still useful. He used his knowledge and experience for good purpose. N did not have the patience for all that. He even did not want to try. His intention was to find something what can give him excuse for his mindset.

And, that is not a mistake but no less than a crime in philosophy, at least to me.

There is nothing wrong in having a presumption but one should always remember that it is only his presumption, not the truth, unless he finds something such that is beyond any doubt and support his initial presumption. But, if one finds something against his presumption or initial premises, he must have enough intellectual honesty to accept that and amend his perception accordingly. If anyone is unable to follow that route, he should not engage with philosophy in the first place. If one cannot be honest with himself, he cannot be honest with others too. It is as simple as that.

Kant did that but N neither tried nor even wanted to try. Throughout his life, N did nothing but try to justify what he liked. He was master in using language and used that very skillfully too. People may get attracted to his poetic style of ambiguous writing but that does not serve any purpose whatsoever in philosophy. All that may be an asset in literature but certainly not in philosophy.

Philosopher must be vivid and clear in his narration, as far as possible. The actual purpose of the philosophy is to interpret things, but if an interpretation is such that it also demands further interpretation, its very purpose is cheated. And, that happens with almost every line of N. If his supporters claim that most of the people misread him, no other than but N himself is to be blamed for that.

It is not the case that N was a fool or stupid person. No, not at all. He was very intelligent and understood human psychology better than most of the philosophers. N starts with WTP and it is the cornerstone of his philosophy. There is nothing wrong with WTP. It is useful and plays its part in reality but it has a limit too. There is where N faulted. He kept it pushing, pushing and pushing, and finally stretched it to such limits which are neither useful nor realistic. He was an extremist and like what use to happen in all cases of extremism, his ideology harms more than benefit.


Let me give an example to explain how this premise of WTP influences subtly.
Say there is a smoker. Now, he can explain his habit in two ways.

Firstly, he can say that though he understands that it is a bad thing still he is unable to discard that. That is Kant. But, he can explain it in another way too. In spite of accepting his mistake, he can question the questioner by claiming that he has all the right in world to smoke as he is a mature person and it is his right. That is the manifestation of N's WTP, at least how it looks at face value to a common man.

N breaks every boundary, every limit and everything such that can bridle in any way. He allows subjectivity to its extreme. That is a very dangerous premise to have because it will lead to complete choas by default if not checked. He offers untamed liberty, that is why he so popular with people. People can pass on their burden of guilt to N's philosophy. That gives them an excuse to believe or do what they would otherwise find difficult to justify. N is a role model for such people. Unfortunately, the number of such people is rising by each passing day.

To sum up, i would like to quote OH remarks regarding N, which i think is the best one that i ever saw about N.

Nietzsche's like salt for your philosophy. You need a bit to make it interesting, but too much is poison.- Only_Humean

As far as morality and ethics are concerned, one needs 90% of Kant (limitations) and 10% of N. The limit and usefulness of N ends there.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Only_Humean » Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:46 am

Erik and FC, please keep the discussion within the bounds of civility.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Mar 05, 2015 9:04 am

Sauwelios wrote:Prismatic, you're going in circles. I just linked you to the thread in whose OP I linked to my post in your thread to which you've failed to respond, and now you're linking me to that thread again? You say "the natural inherent moral impulse within humanity has improved the morality quotient". What does this mean other than that a natural inherent impulse within humanity to certain ways of thinking, feeling, and acting has driven humanity to think, feel, and act more and more in those ways? Which of course is saying nothing. If, however, you mean that those ways are better, better in what sense? Merely in the sense that they further humanity's survival?
I implied the following;

1. There is a natural inherent moral impulse within humanity, i.e. the Link;
2. There is a natural inherent control and feedback system within the individual and humanity, and
3. There is a natural inherent continuous improvement module within the individual.

The above 3 elements [& others not listed] combine to drive the morality quotient of the average human being in an increasing trend.

Yes, this trend is pointing towards facilitating the net potential of humanity's survival and progress.
Note the imperative expected improvement in Moral quotient within the present international space station [the Russians, Americans and Muslims cannot afford to fight and quarrel in there] and in future colonization on Mars or other planets.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Diekon » Thu Mar 05, 2015 10:59 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
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.

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.


Yes that is what he claims anyway... he was desperately trying to find a solution for the scepsis about morals that was becoming apparant in his time. He tried, but didn't succeed. The justification for his solution is unsatifactory, and to make things worse, no actual human being thinks in the way suggested by the inherent system he uncovered.

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.


He did cling to his metaphysical ideas, just look at how his categorical imperative works. If something didn't fit in his system, he forced it in the system anyway. He was a rationalist... empirical evidence to the contrary be damned!
Diekon
Thinker
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Orbie » Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:20 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Orb wrote:Interesting. However consensual criteria suffers from lack generated by degrees of opinion. An all inclusice set of everyone, re. the criteria You have set up , including professional philosophers and the general


public at large would be an exhaustiove and
completely sufficient evaluation. However, even
within the philosophical community, there has not, to
the best of my knowledge, ever been a study like
that concluded. Therefore Your criteria is only a
workable framework within which a possible study
could be constructed.
As Nietzsche stated,
'there is no absolute truth, there are only
perspectives'
. Thus there cannot be an absolute
result on whichever philosopher is the greatest.

Whoever is 'greatest' must be qualified to the set of
criteria one used or agreed upon with others.







Even there is no actual study done on the methods I
proposed I make it a point to apply the process
mentally using various criteria to compare Kant against all the philosophers I have covered.
Thus at least I have made it a point to ensure my
personal conclusion is objective to a degree.


Btw, I wonder how credible are your views on Kant's
philosophy. Do you think you have understood >80%
of Kant's philosophy. What and how much have you done to justify your credibility?



Yes it's about crdedibility, one might comment at this juncture that credibility hinges generally on context and perspective, whether it be me , You, Nietzche, Kant or, however. I could put opinion into the mix, and ever since Leibnitz things have changed. There are only shades , degrees of certainty, whether it be 80 % or 50. The numbers don't lie, for sure, but I would give a 1 % certainty it's equal attention, in this age of quanta. The universals have often been trumped by the unusual, the variance in progression.
Objectivity based on criteris is well and good for specific items succeeding toward more and more generality, but to start at the apex and work downwards, I do not think it works that way. it simply cannot be evaluated, as it were going backwards, since for every downward regression there is an incalculable change which needs to be qualified, as it were in a foreward progression. Again I am not an apologist for Your position, i don't have to, because, for the vast majority of arguments Your reasoning is sound.
Last edited by Orbie on Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:10 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Prismatic, you're going in circles. I just linked you to the thread in whose OP I linked to my post in your thread to which you've failed to respond, and now you're linking me to that thread again? You say "the natural inherent moral impulse within humanity has improved the morality quotient". What does this mean other than that a natural inherent impulse within humanity to certain ways of thinking, feeling, and acting has driven humanity to think, feel, and act more and more in those ways? Which of course is saying nothing. If, however, you mean that those ways are better, better in what sense? Merely in the sense that they further humanity's survival?
I implied the following;

1. There is a natural inherent moral impulse within humanity, i.e. the Link;
2. There is a natural inherent control and feedback system within the individual and humanity, and
3. There is a natural inherent continuous improvement module within the individual.

The above 3 elements [& others not listed] combine to drive the morality quotient of the average human being in an increasing trend.

Yes, this trend is pointing towards facilitating the net potential of humanity's survival and progress.


I was actually compiling a long list of problems with its being mere survival, but cut my reply short to ask you if that was all it was. You answer in the affirmative, but add: "and progress". What kind of progress, then? What does "progress" mean here? It cannot be moral progress, of course, as that would make it circular.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Ornello » Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:10 pm

Nietzsche isn't really a philosopher, just a social critic.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:00 am

zinnat13 wrote:Kant tried to deduct the ontology of the existence but unable to get through till the end. Standing confused there at this very juncture, he again gathered himself, used his wisdom, and offer something imperfect but still useful. He used his knowledge and experience for good purpose.
Note in 1763 Kant wrote 'The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God'. In his early years Kant's inclination was towards an ontology of being as real like any theist, deist or pantheist. Kant's early belief of God was something like Newton's with a scientific background.

It was only after 18 years later and wiser when in 1781 that he wrote his Critique of Pure Reason where he presented a section on the impossibility of the proof for the existence of God.

Thus there is no question of Kant 'trying' to get through till the 'end'. He was already into the 'end' when he first started and it was only with wisdom and age that he realized there is no such thing as an 'end' [a real ontological being or God] existing as real.

Kant remained a deist, i.e. belief based on a rational basis of God but he did not believe God exist as real. He knew the latter belief [God is real] is illusory and delusional.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:19 am

Diekon wrote:Yes that is what he claims anyway... he was desperately trying to find a solution for the scepsis about morals that was becoming apparant in his time. He tried, but didn't succeed. The justification for his solution is unsatifactory, and to make things worse, no actual human being thinks in the way suggested by the inherent system he uncovered.
One of the fundamental element that Kant revealed in his system of Moral and Ethics is the following System with Control Feedback.

Image
You insist no actual humans thinks and act this way?
In reality all humans has such a natural system within them and such a control feedback system is intellectualized and applied in every aspect of life mentally and technologically.

Btw most people think Kant Moral System is Deontological, but it is not. In the applied aspect of his system, i.e. Ethics, it can accommodate any existing ethical system, i.e. utilitarianism, consequentialism, etc.

He did cling to his metaphysical ideas, just look at how his categorical imperative works. If something didn't fit in his system, he forced it in the system anyway. He was a rationalist... empirical evidence to the contrary be damned!
It is most likely you are ignorant of what Kant's System of Moral and Ethics is.

Kant's system comprised two aspects, i.e.
1. Moral - the rational based on pure reason.
2. Ethics - the empirical, practice and applied aspects.

Kant deliberately stated his focus was more on the Moral aspects and less on the empirical aspects. He was more interested in the principles [substance] rather than the varied forms of ethics. He understand the need for the empirical aspects and left it to the empirical technicians to deal with it.

Kant's approach is the same as those of theoretical scientists who focused more on theories rather than applied science. Note Newton and Einstein who focused on theories and left it to other scientists and technicians to verify their theories, and technologists to translate the theories into practices for the progress of humanity.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:31 am

Ornello wrote:Nietzsche isn't really a philosopher, just a social critic.

Are you saying that Nietzsche was not even a little bit a philosopher?

Fact is that most ILP members are not interested in philosophy but in social criticism. :wink:

Is that funny? .... No.
is that an accident? .... No.

Nietzsche was a nihilist respectively - because he was at least "a little bit" a philosopher - a nihilstic philosopher.

If Nietzsche had been an ILP member, in which subforum would he have posted the most?

Fact is that Kant had an entire philosophical systsem and that Hegel was the last philosopher who had an entire philosophical system. Since then there has never been a an entiere philosophical system and all entire philosophical systems have been systematically or not systematically been deconstructed or destroyed - by nihilists respectively nihilistic philosophers.

Philosophy was "born" in the Ancient Greece and means "love to wisdom" ("to" - not "of"). So we have to interprete and measure philosophy and philosophers mainly according to the Ancient Greek definition. So Nietzsche's question "Were there already such philosophers?" (in: Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 211, my translation) is more rhetoric than a serious question, because Nietzsche wanted the philosophers to be "commanders and lawgivers" (ibid) and the philosophy to be a "hammer" (ibid.). According to the the Ancient Greek definition of "philosophy" and "philosophers" philosophers are primarily not "commanders and lawgivers"; and when philosophy comes in like a "hammer", then it is not a real philosophy but a nihilistic philosophy .

If Nietzsche is a member of the "third league of philosophy", then Kant is the "champion" of the "first league of philosophy".
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:36 am

Orb wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Btw, I wonder how credible are your views on Kant's
philosophy. Do you think you have understood >80%
of Kant's philosophy. What and how much have you done to justify your credibility?

Yes it's about crdedibility, one might comment at this juncture that credibility hinges generally on context and perspective, whether it be me , You, Nietzche, Kant or, however.
At the fringes it can be perspectival or subjective.

However your credibility on the view of Kant's philosophy can at least be determined on how much time [assuming we are average learners] and effort you have put in to study Kant.

It is said that the average person need 3 years full time or 5 years part-time reading all of Kant's major works plus covering secondary texts, to grasp and have a reasonable understanding of Kant's philosophy.
I have done 75% of the above expectation and still on it towards 100%. Thus I am confident I have a reasonable credibility to express Kant's view.

So you should be able to know your own level of credibility in expressing Kant's philosophy or views, i.e. that will depend on how much effort you have committed with reference to the above.
If you have spent say 3 months full time reading Kant's work, there is no way you can reasonably understand Kant's ideas and you are likely to misinterpret his views and defending straw-man(s).
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:53 am

Sauwelios wrote:I was actually compiling a long list of problems with its being mere survival, but cut my reply short to ask you if that was all it was. You answer in the affirmative, but add: "and progress". What kind of progress, then? What does "progress" mean here? It cannot be moral progress, of course, as that would make it circular.
Since we are on Moral and Ethics, it is about progress of the Moral Quotient [MQ] of the average human.
Note I listed the following to support the increase of the average MQ of humanity.

Note the natural inherent moral impulse within humanity has improved the morality quotient in the following over the last 100 years and it is continuing to improve towards the future,
1. Significant reduction in slavery [condoned by some religions]
2. Reduction in capital punishments
3. Reduction in Racism
4. Reduction in cannibalism
5. Reduction in punishments that involve tortures
6. Reduction in misogyny
7. Increase in global awareness on various matters
8. Many others..


I saw a video where Steven Pinker [tried to find it but lost it] elaborated along the same line as the above.

I believe in the near future, the above can be objectively represented by the degree of neural activities when we get more precise within neuroscience.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:21 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:I was actually compiling a long list of problems with its being mere survival, but cut my reply short to ask you if that was all it was. You answer in the affirmative, but add: "and progress". What kind of progress, then? What does "progress" mean here? It cannot be moral progress, of course, as that would make it circular.
Since we are on Moral and Ethics, it is about progress of the Moral Quotient [MQ] of the average human.
Note I listed the following to support the increase of the average MQ of humanity.

Note the natural inherent moral impulse within humanity has improved the morality quotient in the following over the last 100 years and it is continuing to improve towards the future,
1. Significant reduction in slavery [condoned by some religions]
2. Reduction in capital punishments
3. Reduction in Racism
4. Reduction in cannibalism
5. Reduction in punishments that involve tortures
6. Reduction in misogyny
7. Increase in global awareness on various matters
8. Many others..


I saw a video where Steven Pinker [tried to find it but lost it] elaborated along the same line as the above.

I believe in the near future, the above can be objectively represented by the degree of neural activities when we get more precise within neuroscience.


But supposing you're right about that development, why is it good? I asked you if it was good because it facilitates humanity's survival (which it does according to you), and you answered: Yes, its survival and progress. I then asked you what you meant by "progress", and as I suspected, you meant that very development! To see the circularity thereof even more clearly, forget about survival for a moment. You are then saying that that development is good because it facilitates that same development. This is not an answer; it's like saying slavery is wrong because it is slavery. So I ask again: is the only reason why the development you describe, including the content of your list, is good the fact (I will suppose that it's a fact) that it facilitates humanity's survival?
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:14 am

Sauwelios wrote:But supposing you're right about that development, why is it good? I asked you if it was good because it facilitates humanity's survival (which it does according to you), and you answered: Yes, its survival and progress. I then asked you what you meant by "progress", and as I suspected, you meant that very development! To see the circularity thereof even more clearly, forget about survival for a moment. You are then saying that that development is good because it facilitates that same development. This is not an answer; it's like saying slavery is wrong because it is slavery. So I ask again: is the only reason why the development you describe, including the content of your list, is good the fact (I will suppose that it's a fact) that it facilitates humanity's survival?
There is no circularity in this case. You only saw circularity because of a 2D narrow view. Development-X is good because it facilitates greater development-Y from a spiraling 3D perspective. What you did was you collapsed the spiral into 2D from top view and think you saw a full circle. Your thoughts seem to be stuck in a rut and a repeating loop.

Frankly I am not too sure about your point.
Nevertheless, I say again the progressive trend of development in the related moral and ethics of the average humans facilitate greater efficiency towards humanity's survival within a spiraling perspective.

Long ago, based on an increasing moral and ethical quotient, humans were able to co-operate and empathize to discover and create new medicines that result in the increase of the average life span of the average human. Otherwise a serious virus could possibly make the human specie extinct.

Then there is the nuclear war perspective and the potential possibility of the extinction of the human specie. However it is due to the increase in the average Moral quotient that invoke the awareness of MAD which prevented a greater usage of nuclear weapons.

As the average human progresses humanity is becoming more aware of greater and greater threats [global and galactical] that will threatened the extinction of the human specie and humanity.
There is the possibility of a rogue comet coming Earth's way with the potential to destroy Earth or cause the extinction of all living things and thereby the human specie. Humanity is in fact aware of this at present and doing their best to avoid this possibility.

All the above progress reflect the moral impulse that Kant had uncovered which at present is difficult for the majority to comprehend. If there is a critical mass of humans who understand Kant's system of morals and ethics, humanity will be able to use those principles to expedite progress both in ethics, knowledge and technologies in sustaining the survival [optimal] of the human species.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:59 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:But supposing you're right about that development, why is it good? I asked you if it was good because it facilitates humanity's survival (which it does according to you), and you answered: Yes, its survival and progress. I then asked you what you meant by "progress", and as I suspected, you meant that very development! To see the circularity thereof even more clearly, forget about survival for a moment. You are then saying that that development is good because it facilitates that same development. This is not an answer; it's like saying slavery is wrong because it is slavery. So I ask again: is the only reason why the development you describe, including the content of your list, is good the fact (I will suppose that it's a fact) that it facilitates humanity's survival?
There is no circularity in this case. You only saw circularity because of a 2D narrow view. Development-X is good because it facilitates greater development-Y from a spiraling 3D perspective. What you did was you collapsed the spiral into 2D from top view and think you saw a full circle. Your thoughts seem to be stuck in a rut and a repeating loop.


Funny how you'd say all that and then go on to say exactly what I suggested, though in not so many words.

Here's the first item from the list of problems with the end's being mere survival that I wrote down yesterday:

I wrote:If [the ways of thinking, feeling, and acting to which humanity has a natural inherent impulse are better merely in the sense that they further humanity's survival], then insofar as slavery, capital punishment, racism, cannibalism, punishments that involve tortures, misogyny, lack of global awareness and the like further humanity's survival, for example in an environment where they do, they must be good.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:07 am

Sauwelios wrote:Funny how you'd say all that and then go on to say exactly what I suggested, though in not so many words.

Here's the first item from the list of problems with the end's being mere survival that I wrote down yesterday:

I wrote:If [the ways of thinking, feeling, and acting to which humanity has a natural inherent impulse are better merely in the sense that they further humanity's survival],
then insofar as slavery, capital punishment, racism, cannibalism, punishments that involve tortures, misogyny, lack of global awareness and the like further humanity's survival,
for example in an environment where they do,
they must be good.
Funny?? the fault is from you.
I can't seem to understand your main point, that is why I am throwing points here and there on a 'hit and miss' basis hoping one of them address your point.
Btw, I don't have such a problem with other posters.

In your post above, you have misrepresented my point.
What I had stated was this;
The general reduction in slavery, capital punishment, racism, cannibalism, punishments that involve tortures, misogyny, and the likes, demonstrate a correlated trend in the improvement of the average moral quotient within humanity.

My main point was to highlight the positive trend in the incremental average moral quotient.
This increasing trend as backed by the inherent moral impulse is a sign of 'good' and thus facilitate the survival/preservation of the human species.

Up to this stage, I still do not get your main point.
Why don't you present a summarized proposition first, e.g.
Your proposition '.... ....... ......' is wrong, false or whatever you do not agree.
Then support your points with the details, but do not string too many variables in one sentence.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Diekon » Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:38 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Diekon wrote:Yes that is what he claims anyway... he was desperately trying to find a solution for the scepsis about morals that was becoming apparant in his time. He tried, but didn't succeed. The justification for his solution is unsatifactory, and to make things worse, no actual human being thinks in the way suggested by the inherent system he uncovered.
One of the fundamental element that Kant revealed in his system of Moral and Ethics is the following System with Control Feedback.

Image
You insist no actual humans thinks and act this way?
In reality all humans has such a natural system within them and such a control feedback system is intellectualized and applied in every aspect of life mentally and technologically.


Yes I stand by my statement that no human being actually thinks and acts in this way. The categorical imperative functions as the controller, and i do not know of any person that uses it to check his moral views to. You need to check if you moral principle can be willed a (descriptive) universal law without contradiction... seriously?

Btw most people think Kant Moral System is Deontological, but it is not. In the applied aspect of his system, i.e. Ethics, it can accommodate any existing ethical system, i.e. utilitarianism, consequentialism, etc.


It doesn't say alot then.

He did cling to his metaphysical ideas, just look at how his categorical imperative works. If something didn't fit in his system, he forced it in the system anyway. He was a rationalist... empirical evidence to the contrary be damned!
It is most likely you are ignorant of what Kant's System of Moral and Ethics is.

Kant's system comprised two aspects, i.e.
1. Moral - the rational based on pure reason.
2. Ethics - the empirical, practice and applied aspects.

Kant deliberately stated his focus was more on the Moral aspects and less on the empirical aspects. He was more interested in the principles [substance] rather than the varied forms of ethics. He understand the need for the empirical aspects and left it to the empirical technicians to deal with it.

Kant's approach is the same as those of theoretical scientists who focused more on theories rather than applied science. Note Newton and Einstein who focused on theories and left it to other scientists and technicians to verify their theories, and technologists to translate the theories into practices for the progress of humanity.


Yes like i said he is a rationalist, and so he starts from general principles... which is exactly my problem with him. I think anything worth a damn starts from the concrete or empirical, and abstracts from that to arrive at more general principles.
Diekon
Thinker
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:40 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Kant's approach is the same as those of theoretical scientists who focused more on theories rather than applied science. Note Newton and Einstein who focused on theories and left it to other scientists and technicians to verify their theories, and technologists to translate the theories into practices for the progress of humanity.

The word "progress" is a bit problematic, because the development is spiral cyclic, not simply linear or even exponential. So the so--called "human grogress" is merely in our thoughts and not the real development, but we have to keep the process in motion, and therefore we need such thoughts.

Sauwelios wrote:But supposing you're right about that development, why is it good? I asked you if it was good because it facilitates humanity's survival (which it does according to you), and you answered: Yes, its survival and progress. I then asked you what you meant by "progress", and as I suspected, you meant that very development! To see the circularity thereof even more clearly, forget about survival for a moment. You are then saying that that development is good because it facilitates that same development. This is not an answer; it's like saying slavery is wrong because it is slavery. So I ask again: is the only reason why the development you describe, including the content of your list, is good the fact (I will suppose that it's a fact) that it facilitates humanity's survival?

Criticism, scepticism, and (as the extreme form) nihilism are historically justified as well but lack of solutions - that's tautological, because they are what they are: criticism, scepticism, nihilism. The solutions come from history itself. The "next Kant" will come in about 2000 years or will not come (because humans will be too stupid or not live anymore). :wink:
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Erik_ » Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:44 pm

Apart from FC coming in here with a chip on his shoulder, this has turned out to be a great thread thus far!

I'm enjoying the correspondence between Prismatic and Sauwelios.

Prismatic appears to be a Kant expert and Sauwelios a N. expert. Perfect match.

Keep it going!
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Orbie » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:21 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Orb wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Btw, I wonder how credible are your views on Kant's
philosophy. Do you think you have understood >80%
of Kant's philosophy. What and how much have you
done to justify your credibility?

Yes it's about crdedibility, one might comment at this juncture that credibility hinges generally on context
and perspective, whether it be me , You, Nietzche,

Kant or, however.
At the fringes it can be perspectival or subjective.



However your credibility on the view of Kant's
philosophy can at least be determined on how much

time [assuming we are average learners] and effort you have put in to study Kant.



It is said that the average person need 3 years full
time or 5 years part-time reading all of Kant's major
works plus covering secondary texts, to grasp and have a reasonable understanding of Kant's philosophy.


I have done 75% of the above expectation and still on it towards 100%. Thus I am confident I have a
reasonable credibility to express Kant's view.


So you should be able to know your own level of
credibility in expressing Kant's philosophy or views,
i.e. that will depend on how much effort you have committed with reference to the above.
If you have spent say 3 months full time reading
Kant's work, there is no way you can reasonably
understand Kant's ideas and you are likely to misinterpret his views and defending straw-man(s).


I am not too sure what the implications of Your statement that 'you should understand....and misinterpret his views are. You can be a Kantina, an expert i Kant, and spend a lifetime in pursuit of his works. However, i do not really go along with an extended ide that only experts in Kant can present an opinion based summeril on well understood concepts.
The fact is, and i read through Your arguments carefully, it is safe to say, that Kant's significance begins and ends in moral and social philosophy. Metaphysics was and is totally sweed up , and there is no question that Nietzche'ssignificance arises from
Hegel's nihilization, as far as rationality goes. Kant was unable to realize the wished for aims of his synthesis, and no amount of argument will save that rm of his thinking. Moral philosophy? Categorical imperative? Does that jive with what is morally going on inn the world? Absolutely not. We as human beings are on the verge of extinction, and can it be professed by anyone thatwe are acting categorically in accorfdance to certain well accepted, objective criteria? Your critique of me, shows deph in studying him yes,but as affording moral principles, by dismissing ressonable arguments in effect, shows an affected inability to give up the type of egressive argument which tries to connect effects to causes.
And this exclusively tied to moral philosophy.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Orbie » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:26 pm

The reason that i consider Nietzche the 'better' philosopher, is, that when it comes to Humean doubt, he 'should' have categorically left the synthesis in it's self, because, he should have forseen a nihilization, and a recurrance of Being. (in existentialism). His categorical dismissal, interferes with his moral imperative. For that alone, i consider him second rate next to Nietzche. Please allow me the benefit of applying my own perspectives within this mode of mind set.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users