Your postulations are wishful thinking.
I can name Pythagoras of Samos: a² + b² = c², this is every relevant in modern times, yet you can’t mention 1 single thing that has relevance for our modern times, only the predecessor to our modern understanding of things, which isn’t the same.
But if you are speaking of compulsive writers, then i dunno, and don’t care.
You failed to understand the function of philosophers and that is why you simply cannot comprehend the contributions made by Kant in comparisons to other genuine philosophers.
Philosophers are not inventors or discoveries of mathematical or scientific theories like
a² + b² = c², or E = MC².
One of the purpose of philosophy and task of philosophers is to revolutionize and systematize thinking about reality. In the past many has the wrong and false representation of reality and it is the task of philosophers to put this right with sound justifications.
Note I wrote this in the OP and you do not seem to pick on it.
Kant improved on [and corrected] the philosophies of the ancients prior to his time up to Hume and changed the entire world by providing a new of thinking about how the human mind relates to the world [and reality].
For more details read here.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/ … /kant.html
You mentioned Pythagoras whose supposedly significant contribution is in the sphere of Mathematics/Geometry but not philosophy. Even then, his contribution is doubtful and vague.
In ancient Greece math was indeed a branch of philosophy, besides we still have a saying “the cure must not be worse than the illness”, or something, that’s a saying lasting for over thousands of years, still in use today and still perfectly valid.
Even if Pythagoras can’t be credited the equation is still valid and still useable, what of Kant are still useable today?
In the words of that dude in my Modern European Class: Jesus Christ
When they derive independent ontological structure with precise detail that is so very accurately reflective of reality, they are far more philosopher than you will ever be.
So why don’t you ever do that?
What is that, merely one out of eight attempts?
There you go with the sheeple socio-political criteria again. Have you ever even thought of anything else?
On that “basis”, you get nothing but bias.
Close, but actually it is “verifications and justifications with wisdom”. Truth is only the initial part of the puzzle and goal.
You haven’t yet. It seems that is the only reason that Kant is your favorite.
Oh but of course, else you would be “biased” and bigoted.
I think Kant is a bit overrated. I’m not going to jump-the-gun and say he is irrelevant, but just over-hyped. I think Nietzsche deserves the spotlight more than he does; he pretty much sticked his middle-finger up to the entire philosophical pantheon, stabbing the belly of all those darling, didactic moralists — contributing to the formation of postmodernity.
Note Ontology is merely a sub-topic of Philosophy that comprised, Epistemology, Logic, Metaphysics [sub- Ontology], Ethics and General. In addition, ultimate ontological claims are impossible.
Their ‘ontological’ claims cannot be independent of their own inherent human framework and conditions as countered by Kant’s Copernican Revolution.
Note I proposed a list of criteria which is open-ended and subject to consensus.
As I said, I proposed a list of criteria which is open-ended and subject to consensus. If you do not agree, then provide your criteria for discussion.
Theistic elements don’t count as they are very bias and based on emotions.
Theistic elements are handed down by an infallible God.
In this case, you would be claiming god to be the philosopher.
God’s messengers are merely puppets on strings.
The fact is God does not exists.
The Buddha and other non-theistic philosophers relied on their own reflective thinking and experience, and they are not God’s loudspeakers.
Jesus, Moses, Paul, Muhammad were claimed to be philosophers. Note my point above.
God’s messengers are merely puppets on strings.
And God does not exist.
That is YOUR naive unprovable and un-demonstrable philosophy. Again, it is back to “what is good is whatever I personally like”.
… you just don’t get it.
Truth and wisdom are not subject to “consensus” any more than mathematics. Is “2+2=4” only when the majority vote it to be true? Is “A <> A” if they decide that it isn’t? Was the Earth really flat merely because most people thought so?
Haha … “propose\d whatever you think is right … as long as I think so too.”
.,.according to your naive theory (handed down by fallible propagandists).
That would depend on whether I said that God did the writing or whether God merely did the inspiring. Did Gravity propose the existence of gravity or did gravity inspire Newton to propose it?
Haha … again, unlike your communist propagandists.
Like you would have a clue.
Irrelevant.
You talk as if you actually had an interest in rational thought. When you first came here, I tested to see if that was real because I would enjoy such a discussion. It wasn’t. And more than that, although you propose logic, you showed that you know nothing about it and can’t distinguish logic or rational thought from your own biased stubbornness and anti-religion propaganda. They have a familiar phrase to explicate that condition;
“You don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground”. - strictly metaphor of course.
But if you ever really want to discuss real philosophical concerns, void of your prejudices, Kant worship, Communist agenda, and blindness, let me know.
I agree Kant’s popularity is over-hyped and underrated because most people who think Kant is great do not understand the full extent and essence of his philosophy. They just follow the respect most serious philosophers had for Kant.
There is no denial amongst ‘serious’ philosophers (after Kant and heavily criticize his other principles) who would acknowledge Kant as the father of modern philosophy based on his very famous work, i.e.
-the reconciliation of Empiricism and Rationalism which had been going in parallel lines since the times of Thales.
The above whilst significant is merely one of Kant great contributions to the philosophy community.
To appreciate the full extent of Kant’s work, one may have to put in considerable time which some have claimed one need 3-5 years of sustained reading and reflections. Personally I have invested a lot of time to study Kant’s work and it is still work in progress and I need to put in more time.
IMO, the greatest work besides the specific philosophical concepts, ideas and theories, what is great about Kant is he ‘teaches one how to fish’ by providing a very extensive and well structured philosophical framework for one to philosophize reality.
One of his claims;
The soundness of Kant’s philosophies is that they are parallel and comparable to the core principles of Eastern philosophies intellectually.
Since Eastern philosophies has been successfully in the practical fields, so Kant’s philosophy has a lot of room to be extended to the practical and actual human actions.
As for postmodernism, Kant is recognized as the pioneer of postmodernism, example.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
I have read most of Nietsczhe’s major books and he is great but I did not sense anything extraordinary great in his works. Nietsczhe acknowledged Kant’s contribution to philosophy in certain areas and at the same time criticized Kant heavily is other areas. However, I noted he missed certain critical nuances of Kant’s work that are critical to make full sense.
Discuss philosophy with you?? your sense of philosophy is so skewed by the following;
I note you are heavily driven by the existential dilemma and philosophically you are a mere desperado like a cornered wounded tiger trapped inside a very tall silo.
Your throwing silly defenses and drivels above out of desperation to deflect the pains & sufferings you bring to yourself is one result of it.
As far as my approach is concern, I don’t give consideration to ‘who’ but as long as there is any philosophical worth in any point raised by anyone, then I will respond [within the rules of this forum] and that is only for my own sake, i.e. to refresh the philosophical ideas I have. I am not here to please anyone or meet their expectations.
That would be fine if you actually knew anything concerning my philosophizing … which you don’t. And that reflects, as I said, your own prejudices and biases (without even hearing what you are criticizing).
You shouldn’t talk to yourself in public. It’s a bad sign related to that psychosis you keep preaching about … [size=85]always accusing of their own guilt[/size]. 
“Why is Kant the greatest philosopher?
Because he preaches my perverse agenda!”
Kant is the GOAT. You can study whatever you want, and whether you realize it or not, you’re stuck in the system he either created, or identified.
That is true with any other philosophers, philosophy, or any system of knowledge [e.g. Science, economics, politics, etc.].
The precaution is to ensure that the system is not worn like a straight-jacket like those of theology and theism.
Actually, everyone is missing the obvious choice. Who awoke Kant from his dogmatic slumbers?
Easy choice for the greatest philosopher of all time and it ain’t Kant.
BTW, has anyone here actually read Kant? His critique might be the most badly written book
of all time and that is in English which actually IMPROVES his book. In German, it is a complete and
total mess. He uses jargon and overwritten crap to say nothing.
Kropotkin
In that sense, Hume may be the best, and the worst. It may be unwise, to awaken a slumber, an idlyll, where, creation it’s self has perhaps not intended to go toward.
Hume was going to be my answer. The OP seems to assume that, since he built upon the ideas of Hume, Kant was ultimately the better philosopher, which I think is mistaken. Hume wasn’t great because he influenced Kant; he influenced Kant because he was already great.
First time someone speaks sense in a long time!
It’s the Emperor’s New Cloth with Kant and so many other weird philosophers, they get blinded by fancy wording, and thinks all this nonsense actually have meaning.
Plato?
Hume’s philosophy is definitely great in many respects. Hume’s ‘Custom and Habits’ [Empiricism] was merely the alarm bells that woke and prompted Kant from his dogmatic slumber [Rationalism], but he still have to resolve the problem.
Where Kant is greater than Hume where it count are the following;
Hume raised the ‘Problem of Induction’ but was never able to resolve it, since regardless of what his problem is, scientists continued to rely on induction and therefrom produce significant positive results for humanity.
Hume ‘Problem of Induction’ and ‘Theory of Constant Conjunction’ create the permanent horns of ‘Rationalism’ and ‘Empiricism’ and the twain could never be met.
Kant resolved Hume’s Problem of Induction and save Science-proper from ungroundlessness and rationality. In that sense Kant is greater relatively to Hume. Kant went on to propose an ethical system that is more efficient than Hume’s experience dependent model of morality.
Unfortunately Kant writing approach was really problematic, but his specific terms are necessary to get his philosophy through pre-conditionings. Given the sight of ‘diamonds’ therein his writings one has no choice but to dig, plod and shift through thickets of this thoughts.
H. J Paton, an Oxford and Kantian scholar expressed the difficulty as, reading and understanding the ‘Deduction’ [note merely one main point] was like crossing the Sahara desert.