Kant vs Nietzsche

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.

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.

Jabs at Kant
Whilst I think Kant has great [rated greatest imo] holistic philosophical ideas, he also has his warts on the side. However I am of the opinion that these negatives [I am not bringing them up for discussion here] are due to he being conditioned in his specific time/era, social, cultural, religious, political factors, personal issues, etc. For example, if Einstein is a pedophile, wife-beater, or any other evils, these has no impact on his E=MC2.

Nonetheless I do not agree whatever negatives that Kant expressed has any effect on his main philosophical ideas that are independent and based on reason, rationality and objectivity.
This is one point why Kant’s ideas is kept pristine because he deliberately did not want to engage in promoting various actual practices and exercises [Kant termed such the ‘anthropological’ -the actual actions] which are changing and relative to time, history, future and other conditions.

One point I do not agree with Kant is his use of the term ‘God’ which he regarded as illusory but used regulatively in his Morality and Ethics. I can easily use the non-religious loaded term ens realissimum instead.

It seems odd that you could hate reasoning as well as religion and yet support Kant, a strong proponent of reasoning.

I guess some people are never satisfied.

I actually prefer his moral ideas, they’re his true reason and quality. As far as identification and systemization of conceptions of knowledge and reason are concerned, I find him incoherent, or simply wrong. Nietzsche went a lot deeper into the abstract, the pure examination of reason, and went beyond what he correctly identified as Kants rather naive assumptions.

But sure, Kant was a powerful thinker. No one here seems to be that interested in him though, no quoting of his writings or references to his concepts. That’s of course how one can continue to claim that Kant represents reason and Nietzsche less so… by ignoring what these guys wrote themselves and reading opinions about them.

Id be surprised if anyone could come up with a correct representation of N’s critique of K.

Fixed, I know this is one of your favorite things to talk about. And I’m sorry that I can’t go all back and fourth with ya. But hey, generally speaking, N was trying to tell people how to live, and K was talking about how the world is. Both of em are gonna have a few hokey bits here and there that don’t quite jive with everything we think about how to act and how the world is, but I think the major divide between the two was just that.

I kinda agree with this. Except maybe you could replace the last part with ‘Nietzsche is more like a philosopher.’… if the goal is not to troll Nietzschians anyway.

Seem to me that originally philosophy was about living well, that was what Socrates was all about. Science grew out of that, but it’s not exactly philosophy if you merely want to understand the world for it’s own sake.

Still, it’s better to decide your actions after coming to a robust understanding of the world than to do so beforehand.

I know you prefer Nietzsche over Kant, personally; but who do you think should be considered the ’ better ’ philosopher?

I have read Nietzsche extensively but not as deeply and intensely as I have read Kant. I have also covered quite a number of articles on Nietzsche’s critique of Kant and find most to be based on Nietzsche’s incomplete understanding of Kant’s work and philosophical ideas.

Why do you claim Kant as incoherent, or simply wrong?
Most often those who critique Kant negatively usually do have grasped and understood Kant’s Critically Philosophy fully and taking into the fine nuances therein.

As far as systemization of conceptions of knowledge and reason are concerned, I find Kant had delivered what he had offered, i.e.

The above is leverage on Kant’s following framework;

I noted Nietzsche’s critique of Kant is like most, based on the incomplete comprehension of Kant’s work. There is no obvious evidence [some claimed he read the 3rd CJ?] that Nietzsche even read Kant’s main books seriously and thoroughly. Most of Neitzsche’s understanding of Kant’s ideas came through his reading of Schopenhauer’s books and ideas. Schopenhauer like most also misunderstood the central core principles of Kant’s philosophy, i.e. the Thing-in-itself, and the idea of Will, Freedom therefrom.

Kant anticipated many would fall victim to an illusion and lose grip on the central core ideal of his philosophy;

Schopenhauer, Fitche, Hegel and others were seduced by this transcendental illusion that Kant warned above.

When Nietzsche rejected Schopenhauer concept of Will, he in fact came within Kant’s framework and scheme. However, Nietzsche claimed the Thing-in-itself is self-contradictory is due to a misconception.
Here is one view reconciling Nietzsche Will-to-Power with the Thing-in-itself;
Abstract:

Kant’s ideas of the Noumenon or Thing-in-itself, Absolute Freedom, Will, God [postulated and assumed] are at first glance like ‘sitting ducks’ for many but they are very sound ideas when one clear the cobwebs to understand them with their nuances.

Sure, but Kant apparently didn’t use his understanding of the world to better decide his actions… he ended up with the categorical imperative.

I mean, if that is the actual goal of philosophy, it seems that he failed as a philosopher.

Yeah but what we know about the categorical imperative is that right and wrong can’t always be a matter of one maxim or another. Shits more complicated than a list of rules or virtues. So again, he requires us to reason a bit more than say…some guy who just wants us to all exercise the will to power.

  If anyone can be accused of being an Indian metaphysician, it is Schopenhauer.  Ergo Nietzsche. 

One for N.

Or, Kant, whichever way you look at it.

Mr R, its acually the other way around. N was acsceptic, had no illusions that there are any given oughts, he only describes what is. He makes mention of his own preferences but does not demand that his readers come to share his values as they grasp his logic.

For Kant, there is a Real Truth and that truth has moral consequences. He gives to my knowledge no conception of what the world is made of at all. If Im wrong please quote his ideas on that. He proposes only the nature of Reason as if it were self evident that Reason corresponds to or can find correspondence with the entire scope of existence. He can be forgiven for that as he lived in an age of still simple science. Nietzsche, as I hope is obvious , already gave us a rudimentary logic of Relativity, which can pretty much be derived from the WtP logic, but I respect that that bores the shit out of you.

Erik- you seem lost. How could I think Nietzsche is superior and at the same time think Kant is better? Superior and better are the same thing.

Prismatic - Ns refutal of Kant pertains to Kants belief in the given integrity of the relation of reason to the world, an integrity which Kant set out to disclose, and which led, consistently with the desire implicit in such an assumption, to a hermetic moral view of being. Kant represents pure idealism. He is akin to the American founding fathers and has inspiring but unverifiable ideas about “the good”. To N, good more or less equals health, which is a measurable condition and not a construct dependent on the assumption that reason is of positive moral quality. The opposite seems rather the case; Pure reason, as in reason referring to itself without the acknowledgement of the all too human valuing at its roots is indifferent to man and its consequences are infinitely cruel.

I prefer the American founding fathers who simply held the sort of Truth Kant was after as self evident and did not bother construing a whole system to convince themselves of actually having proven it. The boldness of that claim is what existence is really made of, if you catch my reference to N’s phenomenology of self-assertion.

Reason can not assert itself. It is property of man and subservient to man, in all the conditions in which this creature exists. “Pure reason” as an analytical principle is thus nonsensical.
Reason is synthetic. Hence N’s phenomenalist treatment of it and his consistency avant la lettre with the scientific geniuses that followed him some decades later.

By all means please challenge my views with more quotations and references, I like that someone stepped up.

Because Kant is so difficult to grasp and understand [not necessary agree with] most [90%] of the views of Kant I have came across are misinterpretations, misunderstandings and ending up as straw-man(s).

It is no doubt Kant regarded reason [ranging from rational to pure] with integrity but at the same time Kant understand reason at its purest can lead to illusions. That is why he came up with a Critique of Pure Reason.
In a way, Kant had used reason for relevant good rational uses, to limit [where applicable] and kill itself [where necessary].

Nevertheless there is a very fine line between ‘sanity’ and ‘madness’ for anyone to venture to tap the positive potential from Pure Reason. It is very natural and quite unadvoidable for most to gravitate towards the illusions of pure reason leading to be delusional on its resultants. Here is how Kant portrayed the delicate balance of pure reason.

Kant is very aware of the above when he formulated his system of hermetical system of pure Moral principles [OUGHT] with a corresponding principles in the varied and conditional applied ethics [IS]. Kant relied on an analogon to reconcile his Moral [the pure aspects] and his Ethics [the applied].
N do not have a system and merely toyed with the conditional applied aspects of Ethics which involved chasing moving goal posts.
K moral system establish a fixed goal [not absolute and can be shifted with an earthquake] post, thus establishing a kind of auto-servo, thermostatic’ homeostatic, and self-regulating Moral/Ethical system to enable humanity to progress towards perpetual peace in the future via progressive iterations, control loops and continuous improvements.

The so-called ‘Categorical Imperative’ is not suppose to be imperative nor enforceable in the real world, it is merely a guide like a lighthouse to ensure the individual(s) and humanity do not end up in the rocks.

Kant’s is not pure idealism. Kant’s is Transcendental Idealism which is also Empirical Realism. If you think you are a realist, you may be a Transcendental Realist and at the same time an Empirical Idealist.

Are you familiar with the ‘Zero Defect’ trend in production quality management? Do you think this people who have set a vision for Zero Defect think they can achieve perfect ‘zero defect’ all the time?
No… this ‘Zero Defect’ as a perfect ideal is merely a guide to ensure they strive to meet the optimal results in relation to the actual conditions they are in. Such a concept enable one to strive to expose all the kinks and weakness in a system and maintain it within optimal pristine conditions.
This is the same with Kant’s Summum Bonum, the Highest Good.

Kant deliberately focus on theoretical principles and deliberately avoid the empirical and applied practices due to time constraints. In addition the empirical and applied are too diversified for one person to deal with. This is why the neo-Kantians and others came after to fill the theoretical-empirical gap. Unfortunately some got trapped in the transcendental illusions that Kant warned about.

IMO, the America founding fathers appear to be simply sprinkling some truths and principles intuitively but they are not reasonably grounded within systematic principles.

Kant never claimed “Pure Reason” to be an absolute but defined it within his terms and conditions. If you understand what Kant meant by ‘Pure Reason’ I think you will agree with him subject to that specific qualification.
If I propose distilled water as ‘pure water’ I am sure you can agree with me and we can use such a term for various acceptable purpose conditioned upon its qualifications.
However, in reality ‘distilled water’ cannot be absolutely pure due to the possibility of some other finer contaminants.

Personally I find N views are in alignment with Kant’s overall systematic framework.

Analogy: Kant’s philosophical approach to reality is like the construction of a overall framework of the airplane in an air crash investigation [note pic below]. Kant’s main interest is in building the accurate framework and very less in searching for the pieces.
When the pieces of the plane are found, they are then attached to the framework like a 3D jigsaw puzzle.
N is like one of the searchers for the bits and pieces of the place and if we are fully aware of the whole framework we will be able to place his ‘pieces’ of philosophical views where they belong within the specific locations of the framework of the whole.

Because N’s approach lack the systematic approach, there is no progressive iterations, feedback control loops and continuous improvements to expedite the process of progress of humanity.

Note example of a system with feedback control loops.

Kant System of Moral [Pure] and Ethic [Applied] incorporate the above principles. The Categorical Imperative acts as a Controller. The applied ethics is the Process, output and feedback control.
N’s approach focus on the Processes [human tragedies] and lacks a sophisticated effective fool proof controller and the feedback loop.

Kant presented the above systematic framework within his Critical Philosophy but so far I noted no one has viewed it in this manner.

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.

No, not lost.

Example: I prefer N. over Kant, i.e., I like reading/learning about him more ( more interesting, imo ); but I can acknowledge that Kant is more significant and influential, i.e., ’ better ’ than Nietzsche.

Make sense? Try, try again.

Btw., I stated that you " prefer N ", not that you " think he is superior ".

Erik wrote:

Read it slower this time, so you don’t get lost.

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.

Erik, as I have made abundantly clear in my posts here, I find Nietzsche superior. Still you manage to ask, and I loosely paraphrase your question: “I know you prefer Nietzsche, but do you perhaps think Kant is superior?”

I did not say I prefer Nietzsche. You said that. What I said did not register with you. I stepped over that mistake of yours and referred back to my own actual statement. Then you say this:

"Btw., I stated that you " prefer N ", not that you " think he is superior "

And you pride yourself on this?

I state that you prefer to get fucked in your mouth by rabid pitbulls over eating a good meal. Now read that very slowly and answer me this. Why do you prefer getting skullfucked by rabid pitbulls? Account for yourself, bitch.

Do I make myself clear, Erik?

A) I spit on anyone who misrepresents me to my face.

B) I do not “prefer” a philosopher on any other ground than his significance and quality. I am baffled by your statement that you do. How is that even possible? Do you take philosophy for some kind of fashion statement?