
mr reasonable wrote:It depends on if you think philosophy ought to be about understanding the world as best it can be or if you think philosophy ought be more about understanding your place in the world as best can be. Kant is like a scientists. Nietzsche is like an emo band.
mr reasonable wrote:It's not fair? What would N say about that?
mr reasonable wrote:It depends on if you think philosophy ought to be about understanding the world as best it can be or if you think philosophy ought be more about understanding your place in the world as best can be. Kant is like a scientists. Nietzsche is like an emo band.
mr reasonable wrote:When it comes down to it really, there's not a lot of inventing in metaphysics so much as there is discovering. The shit gets restated every couple generations but yeah, it's always pretty much been the same.
Erik_ wrote:mr reasonable wrote:When it comes down to it really, there's not a lot of inventing in metaphysics so much as there is discovering. The shit gets restated every couple generations but yeah, it's always pretty much been the same.
So, if Kant simply recycled Indian metaphysics, 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.
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.
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.
mr reasonable wrote:It depends on if you think philosophy ought to be about understanding the world as best it can be or if you think philosophy ought be more about understanding your place in the world as best can be. Kant is like a scientists. Nietzsche is like an emo band.
Erik_ wrote: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.
Kant's metaphysics is not exactly conventional Hinduism (Vedanta). Note Hinduism in general covers a wide extent of religions and other spiritual practices.Erik_ wrote:mr reasonable wrote: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.
It is the future that will unfolds Kant's greatness.Arminius wrote: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.
Prismatic567 wrote:It is the future that will unfolds Kant's greatness.Arminius wrote: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.
|=>#Arminius wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Meno_