Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

James_S_Saint · January 8, 2015, 2:20pm

He didn’t reveal the basic resolve to it (definitional logic).

Arminius · January 8, 2015, 3:30pm

Prismatic567:

Wandering_Lands:

Prismatic567:

Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant? and the reasons for your claim?

Hegel - he inverted Kant and brought into a more comprehending view in metaphysics and the nature of reality.

I agree Hegel is very great as well with regards with various aspects of philosophy but not greater than Kant on where it matters, counts and the ultimate.

Hegel was influenced by Kant.
Kant demonstrated why the absolute, thing-in-itself [aka noumenon, Ding an Sich] is to be taken in term of negative employment;

Kant:

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment. B311

Elsewhere he also showed why the thing-in-itself [aka Absolute] should NOT be reified.
If such an idea is to be used, then, it should only be used regulatively not constitutively.

From what I have read of Hegel’s main principle, he ignored all the above advice of Kant and reified the Absolute, aka the thing-in-itself.

It is difficult to translate Kant’s “Ding an sich”. One would do better to not translate it and after the use of it to describe what is meant. The “Ding an sich” has much to do with “Erkenntnis” (“knowledge”, “cognition”), “Erkenntnistheorie” (“theory of knowledge”, “theory of cognition”). It is not possible to (exactly, really) know the Ding an sich.

That is true. And, b.t.w., it refers also to the Ding an sich and to the sentences I said above. It is a problem of Erkenntnis.

Prismatic567:

That is the illusion where,

Kant:

the Ideas produce what, though a mere Illusion, is nonetheless irresistible, and the harmful influence of which we can barely succeed in neutralizing even by means of the severest criticism.

Here is another warning from Kant;

Kant:

And since the Dialectical Illusion does not merely deceive us in our Judgments, but also, because of the Interest which we take in these [deceived] Judgments, has a certain natural attraction which it will always continue to possess,

It is unfortunately Hegel lost his intellectual grip on the above and psychologically [subliminal] succumb to the seductive illusion of the ‘Absolute’. Schopenhauer also suffered the same corrupted virus.
This ‘Absolute’ is the same as the Absolute Brahman of Hindu and other Pantheists.
In contrast, Kant non-reification of the Absolute is similar to that of the core of Buddhism.

On the above basis and where it counts, Kant’s philosophy is ‘greater’ than of Hegel’s.

Schopenhauer (some people call him “Eurobuddhist”) accpeted merely two philosophers before himself: Kant and Platon.

If Kant (or Hegel) is the father of the current modernity, the Occidental modernity, then Platon (or Aristoteles) was the father of the former modernity, the Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman modernity.

Or do we have to say: Hegel (or Kant) … and Aristoteles (or Platon) …?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187452&p=2518630#p2518539

quantum · January 8, 2015, 3:46pm

Any Western Philosopher Greater than Kant?

And answer is yes,
[b][i][size=150]IT IS LADY JANE
LADY JANE LADY JANE LADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANE

LADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANE
LADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANE
LADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANELADY JANE
[/size][/i][/b]LADY JANE

Artimas · January 8, 2015, 6:34pm

No… just no.

Prismatic567 · January 9, 2015, 5:00am

Do you understand what “going off topic” means.

This is again off topic in the manner of your above question.

If you say;

The “Categorical Imperative” [CI] is the main “keystone” of Kant’s philosophy.
The CI is a useless concept because of X, Y, Z.
Therefore Kant is not the greatest.
then, perhaps that is relevant.

The CI is central to Kant’s ethical system, which is one the best ethical system I know of. However Kant is ‘greatest’ in consideration of his many other significant contributions to philosophy. Even without this ethical system, Kant is still the greatest.
Thus your CI question is irrelevant to this OP.

In any case, before you discuss CI let us know what you understand 'what is the Categorical Imperative" proper.

Prismatic567 · January 9, 2015, 5:12am

His resolution of the ‘Problem of Induction’ is sufficient enough for many purposes. Given Kant’s time, he had limitations. However we can now use neuroscience and neuro-philosophy to refine the solution.

Kant’s discovered ethical system was too far ahead of his time and even now. It is the best ethical system I know of that is most optimal for the future. Point is you need to understand his ethical system fully within a system and conceptual framework of reality. For the average person, one will need at least 2 years of sustained reading of Kant’s work.

Kant readily tell us he was not introducing an ethical system that he invented by himself. What he did was discovering the natural inherent ethical system and its principles that are unfolding as humanity evolve with improvements continually.

Orbie · January 9, 2015, 5:34am

I consider Kant’s Critique to be vastly inferior to Leibnitz’s Monadology. The mathematical model’s compare similarly between them.

Prismatic567 · January 9, 2015, 5:59am

Leibniz defined a Monad in the Monadology (written 1714, published 1720) as a ‘Simple Substance that enters into composites’ (§1), one which is capable of ‘Perception’ (§15) and ‘Appetition’ (§16).

Kant allotted on significant chapter in criticizing Leibniz’s Monad - a Simple Substance.
A Simple Substance is one that has no parts.
It is something equivalent to the claim of an absolute.

Kant accepted Leibniz’s theory of Monad before his Critique of Pure Reason [CPR].
However in the CPR, Kant asserted and demonstrated Monads are illusory, but like the idea of God, it can be useful as long as it is not used constitutively or reified as real.

Kant thus explained away the idea of Monads, thus they cannot be superior to the Critical Philosophy of Kant explanation and conceptual framework of reality.

Here is a commentary by G J Mattey,

G J Mattey:

The expression ‘monad’ was coined by Leibniz in the eighteenth century. The metaphysics of monads is most famously spelled out in Leibniz’s article “Monadology.” Monads are simple substances which lack extension, figure and divisibility. They are the elements of all compound objects, “the real atoms of nature” (“Monadology,” §3). All monads, even non-living “bare” monads, are endowed with both perception and appetition.

Because of their simplicity, monads cannot come into being or cease to be by natural means, but only by creation or destruction. The only qualities of monads are intrinsic, and any change that comes about in them is due to an internal principle. The internal principles of monads are fully co-ordinated with one another, resulting in a harmonious correlation of changes in nature, which appears just as if monads were acting upon one another. (This is the so-called “pre-established harmony.”

From Kant’s point of view, monads are noumena, or beings of the understanding. Kant criticized the monadology in that it illicitly treats sensible appearances as if they were were objects of the understanding alone, thereby “intellectualizing” them (A271/B327). This criticism is laid out in “The Amphiboly of Concepts of Reflection,” which is described here.

Prismatic567 · January 9, 2015, 6:18am

You think Kant is misguided because you have not guided yourself in understanding Kant sufficiently. I know because I have taken a lot of trouble in an attempt to understand Kant’s theories.

Rightly, there should be no question of trying to know the ‘noumenon.’ The noumenon is merely a limiter and should always be used negatively. It should not be used in the positive sense as ‘something’ to be known.
If we need to consider the noumenon as something, then the most we can do is to assume it and never ever consider it as something real in reality.

Within Eastern philosophy [Buddhism], the seduction to know ‘something’ or the ultimate thing is the work of ‘maya.’
The Vedanta consideration of Braham as ‘something’ ultimate is still the work of maya at another deeper and finer subliminal level which the Vedantist overlooked.

Lump · January 9, 2015, 8:12am

Prismatic567:

You think Kant is misguided because you have not guided yourself in understanding Kant sufficiently. I know because I have taken a lot of trouble in an attempt to understand Kant’s theories.

Rightly, there should be no question of trying to know the ‘noumenon.’ The noumenon is merely a limiter and should always be used negatively. It should not be used in the positive sense as ‘something’ to be known.
If we need to consider the noumenon as something, then the most we can do is to assume it and never ever consider it as something real in reality.

Within Eastern philosophy [Buddhism], the seduction to know ‘something’ or the ultimate thing is the work of ‘maya.’
The Vedanta consideration of Braham as ‘something’ ultimate is still the work of maya at another deeper and finer subliminal level which the Vedantist overlooked.

You havn’t given a single proof, only talked about some weird principles that doesn’t make any solid case. It’s like hearing a religious guy saying the end is nigh, we’re all heard the sales pitch before, but never any proof.

Orbie · January 9, 2015, 8:44am

I not consider GJ Mattey’s quote of Kant’s critique as sufficent in terms of the intellectualization of matter, as You describe, because he has taken the Noumina as am equivalent non-material, albeit divorced materially. What Kant is doing,is trying to preserve, e.g. synthesize the two, bringing in Hume’s absolute material interpretation, yet trying to save the noumenal, immaterial part. Mathematically, the idea of synthesis does not work on any level, the idea of a pure understanding works on the levelmof approximation. Hegel took the ideological dielectic as the form of pure understanding, his synthesis not abject to the one Kant was up against, in the question posed, 'How are synthetic a-priori judgements possible?
That history did in fact not bear him up on this, is proof positive of the dubious nature of his ontology in this regard.

I Leibnitz’s case, the mathematical model of understanding is successfully demonstrated, as applied to pure logicsl diagrams of functional relation. That this can be adapted toward the models upon which theories of sets, limits, and approximations are based, I i to the idea of the functional use, of models correlated and not synthesized with them.

Monadology resembles atomism, which in fact has turned out to be the right intellectual model to a theory of the material universe. The question arises as to the nature of mathematical models, and that is a different question.

But to ascribe a synthesis , is only an effort to unify an intrinsic theory of pattern recognition and logical criteria and try to unify it with it’s material counterpaert , as it was a material idea. This has proven to be a failure for Marx, a disaster of what i consider more of ascribing political revision in detriment of ontological certainty.

Ethics, as has been pointed out, was not an original concept, but brought back from classical sources, and dressed up in an a-posteriori proof, as it were.

I agree, that Kant embodied a stage in philosophy,
which could not be circumsribed, because the fallacy of the a-priori synthetic was needed to demonstrate the more relevant dialectic of the pure understanding, which in turn had to be surpassed by it’s nihilization, and it’s ultimate existentially based reduction, an anti development of the progressive decay of Hegel. Inn any case, Leibnitz pre dated this problem by his model.

Wandering_Lands · January 9, 2015, 1:32pm

Okay - I’ll admit that I haven’t gone deep into Kant, as to read his Critique; doesn’t mean that I don’t know exactly what his philosophy is.

Coming to the conclusion of the Absolute is quite easy; what it takes really is higher reasoning and further exploration (psychological, in the sense of Jung’s psychology) into the nature of reality. It’s just that it also takes a sense of knowing that you’re a human being, and that life flows eternally.

Some sects of Buddhism (ie. Mahayana, etc) and Vedanta (for example, Advaita Vendanta as I recall) actually in fact do speculate on the nature of the Absolute. I think you need to look further into those philosophies, as it actually does go beyond what Kant is talking about.

Prismatic567 · January 10, 2015, 2:44am

I am not too sure of where your above post is driving at.

Your original claim was;

My main point to the above was;
Kant accepted Leibniz’s monadology in his earlier philosophy but subsequently rejected it by justifying that ‘Simple Substance’ are not tenable, i.e. Leibniz intellectualized sensibility as mentioned by Mattey. I agree Mattey’s comment is merely an outline. The details are explained within Kant’s book.

Another addition point, this OP is about Kant and philosophy, therefore we cannot compare Mathematics. Leibniz is definitely greater than Kant in terms of Mathematics but Leibniz cannot be greater than Kant in terms of philosophy based on the points I presented.

Another further point re Leibniz’s Monads is they lead to the theory of the Soul and God.

In terms of philosophy, I believe the criticalness of Leibniz monadology is his justification for the existence of God.

In addition to Kant proving that Monads are not realistic, Kant has justified why the independent soul and God are impossibility.

Therefore in terms of philosophy [not mathematics], Kant is greater than Leibniz.

James_S_Saint · January 10, 2015, 2:52am

How did Kant “prove that monads are not realistic”?

Prismatic567 · January 10, 2015, 3:10am

To infer the Absolute is not that easy but it is not difficult either.
The Vedantist infer that there must be a permanent self within the changing selves [over child, youth, adult ages] over time. This permanent self must be a part of an overall absolute self like a drop of water [the individual self] to the ocean [higher absolute SELF].
The point here is the Absolute Self is a mere speculation and cannot be proven.

My basic philosophy is based on Eastern philosophy so I am very familiar with the above. I had explained how the Vedantist infer the Absolute above.
The Mahayanas do consider the ‘higher’ Dharmakaya, the Buddha Nature, Alaya Consciousness, etc. but these are not absolutely Absolute like those of the Vedantist pantheism or the theistic God.

The core principles of Buddhism has no room for the absolutely ABSOLUTE. Kant’s philosophy is parallel and almost exactly the same as Buddhism core principles on the intellectual aspects. Buddhism has a lot of practical and practices whilst Kant is restricted to merely theories and principles.

James_S_Saint · January 10, 2015, 3:51am

Can’t answer that one either??

Is there anything about Kant’s thesis that you actually understand?

Uccisore · January 10, 2015, 5:24am

I’d say DesCartes was created than Kant, if only because he basically dictated the questions that every notable philosopher after him would be trying to answer, including Kant, through to phenomenology.

Uccisore · January 10, 2015, 5:25am

Prismatic567:

Wandering_Lands:

Coming to the conclusion of the Absolute is quite easy; what it takes really is higher reasoning and further exploration (psychological, in the sense of Jung’s psychology) into the nature of reality. It’s just that it also takes a sense of knowing that you’re a human being, and that life flows eternally.

To infer the Absolute is not that easy but it is not difficult either.
The Vedantist infer that there must be a permanent self within the changing selves [over child, youth, adult ages] over time. This permanent self must be a part of an overall absolute self like a drop of water [the individual self] to the ocean [higher absolute SELF].
The point here is the Absolute Self is a mere speculation and cannot be proven.

Some sects of Buddhism (ie. Mahayana, etc) and Vedanta (for example, Advaita Vendanta as I recall) actually in fact do speculate on the nature of the Absolute. I think you need to look further into those philosophies, as it actually does go beyond what Kant is talking about.

My basic philosophy is based on Eastern philosophy so I am very familiar with the above. I had explained how the Vedantist infer the Absolute above.
The Mahayanas do consider the ‘higher’ Dharmakaya, the Buddha Nature, Alaya Consciousness, etc. but these are not absolutely Absolute like those of the Vedantist pantheism or the theistic God.

The core principles of Buddhism has no room for the absolutely ABSOLUTE. Kant’s philosophy is parallel and almost exactly the same as Buddhism core principles on the intellectual aspects. Buddhism has a lot of practical and practices whilst Kant is restricted to merely theories and principles.

Not that your purpose here is to advance Eastern religion at the expense of western civilization.

James_S_Saint · January 10, 2015, 6:29am

Programmed drones know nothing of purpose.

zinnat · January 10, 2015, 7:57pm

Actually, philosophers should not be compared unless they deal strictly with the same issue, which does not happen generally. Philosophy is very broad and loose term, just like science. One cannot compare a physicist with a biologist.

Having said that, the main objective of the philosophy is put a complete ontology of the existence forth, in as far as deductive detail as possible, and Kant tried that. Hume also did that.

In my opinion, which is certainly just the opposite of the general perception, Kant would certainly be the greatest philosophers of all times if he would have not written anything after his self imposed exile. His first half is truly innovative and in the right direction. But, not being able to complete the ontology for the various reasons, he also compromised later.

To me, Kant is the height of both of intellectuality and effort. Not many western philosophers made efforts which can match Kant. I would have certainly rated him the greatest of all times, had he left the ontology incomplete.

I rate Socrates as all time great of western philosophy. Kant and Aristotle are 2nd and 3rd place. I am not sure who was better. Kant made more inroads but Aristotle was certainly the wiser and more knowledgeable between the two.

But, I would rate Hume very below. There are many other who deserve the place before him. Skepticism is not a bad thing but he put everything in the doubt, which does not serve any purpose either.

Given my knowledge of the western philosophy, I am not competent enough to make claims about it, but it seems to me that Hume is one of the main culprits of the mitigation of the philosophy and science superseding it. Intellectual populace, who considered Hume as an authority on philosophy at the time, taking clue from him, put all the philosophy in the doubt and started looking at science for more concrete and demonstrable answers and ontologies.

Philosophy was never the same for the people. Fertile minds started migrating from the philosophy to the science. That is why we were not able to produce any such philosopher since Kant, which would be remembered after 2-3 centuries, in the same way we today remember Kant, Descartes, Socrates, Aristotle etc. Kant was the last in that league. Perhaps, Wittgenstein is the only exception.

It is not the case that there was a scarcity of the intelligence. There were people like Newton and Einstein, which were not less capable than any past philosopher, but philosophy lost the capacity to attract the best, which was the default phenomenon before Kant.

To summarize the issue, Kant was perhaps the best only in the terms of efforts, not the findings.

with love,
sanjay