Kant vs Nietzsche

[Erik_]

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

[Mr Reasonable]

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.

[Erik_]

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.

^^^ Lolz

Not sure, if that's fair; I mean, one could easily reverse that scenario, as such: Kant is a moral-fa##ot and Nietzsche is a philosophical rock-star, who sticks his middle finger up to the entire philosophical pantheon.

Nietzsche can't, really, be construed as 'emo', though some of his followers can be; Nietzsche wasn't pessimistic in the 'emo' sense, as he believed in affirming life. He did believe in something called " pessimism of strength ", but it's not the Schopenhauerian ' emo ' pessimism that you seem to insinuate.

[Mr Reasonable]

It's not fair? What would N say about that?

[Erik_]

It's not fair? What would N say about that?

I'm not even, really, a Nietzschean; though I derive much inspiration from N.

A jab at Kant:

Kant's metaphysics, really, aren't all that original; Hindu mystics have, basically, been saying the same thing for years and years before he even existed.

[Mr Reasonable]

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.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

Comical. Have you ever read Kant? He is all about being good to one another; morality, and a specific lovely harmless type as the summit of human being, etcetera. How do you see this as scientific?

Nietzsche is a phenomenologist, thus a scientific thinker and not susceptible to emotional judgments. (which is not to say he has no emotions)

Anyway, funny how people can read Kant as a scientist. It would be great if his ideas had anything to do with science. Definite emo heaven!!

[Mr Reasonable]

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

[Erik_]

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.

[Mr Reasonable]

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, 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.

Why'd you ask the question with only the 2 choices?

Like if you said, "what's the best ice cream? chocolate or vanilla?" and I said, "buttered pecan!", then I dunno man that'd just be weird on my part.

[Erik_]

Seems like you are prevaricating, Mr R.

It's a simple question, actually...

[Mr Reasonable]

Because he gave the most robust account to date and the one which still stands as canonical in the field. I'm sure that's debatable, but he hasn't exactly been taken down ya know.

It's one thing for a caveman to draw x = x on a wall of a cave. That's great. But it's more when a dude makes up a whole system by which all sorts of philosophical and abstract entities can be categorized and then interact with each other in the way that he did. It's my opinion that metaphysics is more something that's discovered than created. I'm sure that's debatable too. But whereas some of the old eastern metaphysics type stuff is kind of basic and a bit plain, his goes into a much more complex and descriptive account of how things work and all.

You know I really hate the back and fourth on this issue. I shouldn't have even responded. I know there's a herd of Nietzsche people here who are gonna try and eat me alive.

[Mr Reasonable]

Also, what thesaurus app are you using?

Or is prevaricating a word that you just use every day? If it is...you should stop it.

[Erik_]

Mr R. wrote:

You know I really hate the back and fourth on this issue. I shouldn't have even responded. I know there's a herd of Nietzsche people here who are gonna try and eat me alive.

I think it would be more apt to say that you realized that you went too far into the deep-end and decided it was best to make it back to shore and dry off before you drown...

Just my intuition, that's all...

Also, what thesaurus app are you using?

Or is prevaricating a word that you just use every day? If it is...you should stop it.

When you dedicate your life to the acquisition of knowledge and read philosophical/academic texts on a daily basis, these sorts of words, naturally, become part of your vocabulary. The fact that a word, such as " prevaricating " stuck out to you is indicative of much...

[Mr Reasonable]

You're right, except about the "deep end" part. Dedicate your life? What are you like 25?

I've read tons of philosophy, and if I was writing a paper on something, then I'd find the most precise words that I could. But at a certain point, on a message board, when you seem like you're using a thesaurus it makes me go like...hmm.....

[Arminius]

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

I agree, if "Emo" really means an "Emotional hardcore punk band".

More seriuosly, the time of GREAT philosophy ended at about 1800 when the NIHILISTIC philosphy started. Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi used the word "Nihilismus" ("nihilism") already 1799 in his "Sendschreiben an Fichte". So since about 1800 or e.g. with Schopenhauer's "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung" (1818) there have been being either nihilistic or just eclecticistic philosophers. We really have to separate the period of pre-nihilistic philosophy from the period of nihilistic philosophy in that case.

It may be up to each person to value that. The historians of philosophy, provided that they are not corrupt, speak more about facts than values.

[Arminius]

Nietzsche can't, really, be construed as 'emo', though some of his followers can be; Nietzsche wasn't pessimistic in the 'emo' sense, as he believed in affirming life. He did believe in something called " pessimism of strength ", but it's not the Schopenhauerian ' emo ' pessimism that you seem to insinuate.

Yes, but one does not have to be pesimistic in order to be nihilistic. Nietzsche turned Schopenhauer's pessimism into optimism but remained a Schopenhauerian.

[Prismatic567]

It's not fair? What would N say about that?

I'm not even, really, a Nietzschean; though I derive much inspiration from N.

A jab at Kant:

Kant's metaphysics, really, aren't all that original; Hindu mystics have, basically, been saying the same thing for years and years before he even existed.

Kant's metaphysics is not exactly conventional Hinduism (Vedanta). Note Hinduism in general covers a wide extent of religions and other spiritual practices.

Kant's metaphysics is parallel to Buddhism (which in one sense is Hindu but not conventionally Hinduism).
Buddhism in its ultimate sense is a total contrast to conventional Hinduism [Vedanta for example].
The Buddha ideas are centered on [one principle amongst others] 'anatman' [non-self] as opposed to 'atman' [independent self] is not new but Buddhism presented reality more systematically and realistically.

On the Western end, Kant's metaphysics and philosophy are parallel with Buddhism [imo] but Kant on the theoretical aspect presented it in a more organized, well grounded and systematic manner. One difference in contrast to Buddhism is, Kant's critical philosophy lacks the practice [practical] and 'anthropological' aspects but concentrated more on the theoretical and a systematic framework to deal with reality.

Thus when one combine the core principles of Buddhism and its practices with Kant's critical philosophy, we have a very solid and holistic [whole] philosophy to deal with life and reality.

As I see it, from the Western perspective, Kant provided a solid philosophical framework to deal effectively with reality from the theoretical angle. Nietzsche who is a great philosopher focus more on the human in action contents of the total framework.

There is a possibility Kant's core ideas may be traceable to Indian philosophy via the Greeks or Kant may have read [came across] of Eastern philosophy in various ways and he did not make reference to them.
What is great about Kant is the manner he could hold so many extensive variables in his head at one time and link them in a very systematic framework to represent reality realistically. Btw, I am not referring to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason only, but rather encompassing all [including changing views] that he had written and presented in his lifetime.

[Arminius]

The more change the more cycle.
The more development the more repetition.
The more evolution the more mimicry.
The more history the more eclectics and eclecticists.

It is not Kant's fault that he lived later than the first philosophers of human history.

Kant was a typical Occidental philosopher; he was an enlightener and at last an overcomer of enlightenment, the first modern, especially modern-idealistic philosopher of the Occidental culture.

Some thoughts of Kant can be found in Ancient philosophies too, but that is not preventable, if they are not too many and not core-thoughts. Kant thoughts and ideas were Occidental thoughts and ideas, regardless of whether he had some Ancient non-core-thoughts too.

History shows the greatness of philosophers.

The current world institutions like UNO, WTO, World Bank, and many other global institutions have their origin in Kant's philosophy. Compare for example Kant's "Ewigen Frieden" (1795) - "Perpetual Peace" (1795). How to value it is one point, but the historical fact of the influence is another point. Another example: Platon was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher, but would you live according to his philosophy, especially his ideas, today, just because he was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher? To value philosophies are meaningful in another sense but not in the sense of greatness.

[Prismatic567]

History shows the greatness of philosophers.

The current world institutions like UNO, WTO, World Bank, and many other global institutions have their origin in Kant's philosophy. Compare for example Kant's "Ewigen Frieden" (1795) - "Perpetual Peace" (1795). How to value it ist one point, but the historical fact of the influence is another point. Another example: Platon was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher, but would you live according to his philosophy, especially his ideas, today, just because he was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher? To value philosophies are meaningful in another sense but not in the sense of greatness.

It is the future that will unfolds Kant's greatness.

Kant's philosophy is too far ahead of his and our time.
I agree UN, WTO, World Bank [crude but OK] are the slow unfolding of Kant's philosophy towards the future.

The human brain has appx. 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors [synapse]. Just imagine the possible number of serial combinations and permutations from them. It is also possible the connectivity of the media in the brain may not be serial, thus a greater potential.

It is obvious the average human has not yet exploited the full potential of its brain power. The often speculated usage is we are only using 15% of our total brain power. It is definitely a crude guess, as it is quite impossible to know the total brain power, but we can be quite sure there is a vast potential to be tapped from our brain power. Note the exponential and expansion of knowledge since the last 100 years and its possible in the next 50, 100, 150, ...into the future years.

There will be a greater realization of Kant's critical philosophy as the mental potential of the average humanity increase from its current base and continue to increase in the future.
IMO, this where Kant's ideas will slowly merge with Nietzsche's Übermensch.

[Arminius]

History shows the greatness of philosophers.

The current world institutions like UNO, WTO, World Bank, and many other global institutions have their origin in Kant's philosophy. Compare for example Kant's "Ewigen Frieden" (1795) - "Perpetual Peace" (1795). How to value it ist one point, but the historical fact of the influence is another point. Another example: Platon was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher, but would you live according to his philosophy, especially his ideas, today, just because he was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher? To value philosophies are meaningful in another sense but not in the sense of greatness.

It is the future that will unfolds Kant's greatness.

Yes, thus the history.

[Arminius]

Referring to the topic of this thread - Kant vs. Nietzsche - I say that Kant belongs to the pre-nihilistic period and in his latest stage also to the nihilistic period whereas Nietzsche belongs merely to the nihilistic period.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche:
1) What did he say about the philosophy of technique / technology / engineering?
- Nothing at all.
2) What did he say about the philosophy of physics / kosmology / astronomy?
- Nearly nothing.
3) What did he say about the philosophy of economy / economics?
- Nearly nothing.
4) What did he say about the philosophy of sociology?
- Not much (his statements about the fact that he was really terrified of socialism have not much to do with sociology).
5) What did he say about the philosophy of law / right?
- Not much (his statements about ethics and moral have not much to do with law / right - but much with his concept "will to power").
6) What did he say about epistemology?
- Not much.
....

[Arminius]

Well, I think Nietzsche was a great life philosopher, a great scepticist, a great psychologist (and b.t.w.: the real or original founder of the psychoanalyse), a great immunologist, a great writer, a graet aphorist, a graet essayist, a great poet, a great philologist, but that's all. I don't know whether he overcame nihilism, but I know that it is nearly impossible to overcome nihilism in nihilistic times because it is impossible to eliminate the thought of nihilism in times of nihilism.(Cp.: Zeitgeist). When you think you do not want to think about nihilism, you think about nihilism.

|=>#

[Erik_]

Jab at Nietzsche:

Nietzsche stole his ideas from Spinoza and Schopenhauer!

This nigga regurgitated Spinoza's position on the relation between happiness and the attainment of power! Like wtf, Dog? No originality, bro? Oh " your eternal thirst for originality is a decadence! " Fuck off with that shit, homie. Anyone can become a 'genius' by repeating past philosophers. We shouldn't regard people as great, if they don't bring forth some sort of novelty! Chale homes!

And this nigga Nietzsche was a nihilistic lil' bitch himself; moaning and weeping about women ( had trouble impressing women, esp. Vagnar's wife! ), flattering himself with delusions of grandeur, etc. Motherfucker even admitted a few times that he had been a Nihilist the whole time. When you live a life of wretchedness and eternal weakness, then of course you will start projecting about the acquisition of power. Son of a bitch made a damn teleology out of his psychological depravity.

[Prismatic567]

Generally in most polls where philosophers are compared, the results are due to the intuitive feelings, lack of knowledge of the preferred candidate and others, influenced by popularity, personal bias, etc. There is a lack of objectivity in those polls.

I think the most effective objective approach to compare philosophers is to do it with reference to a set of criteria based on consensus. The final results is conditioned by this criteria and the group in consensus thus not absolute.

An initial list of criteria I can think of would be as follows;

1. Revolutionary philosophical theories -justified and soundly proven
2. Extensiveness and range of involvement in philosophical topics
3. Completeness, efficiency, systematic, etc.
4. Specialization, academic, [to vary weightage for these]
5. Practically and contribution to humanity
6. Extent of potential in time [less weight is only specific to an era]
7. Use significantly in the modern era,
8. Applicable in the future towards perpetual peace.
9. Other variables to be added ..

For each variable we should also agree to include its weightages relative to the others. For example I would rate 1 as more critical and significant than 2, thus 1 should carry a higher weightage.

Here is an example of how we can do a rating using weightages'

Candidate A
.....Points......Weightage.......Weighted Points
1. ....7............60%...............4.2
2. ....9............20%...............1.8
3......8............10%...............0.8
4......6............10%...............0.6
Total.............100%...............7.4

7.4 would be the final point for candidate A for comparison with others based on the same set of agreed criteria with their respective weightages.

Whilst I have not made an official comparison, my personal rating of why Kant is the greatest Western [note] philosophers is based a mental compilation using the above approach.