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?
^^^ Lolz
You haven’t made that abundantly clear, actually…It’s clear that you like N. more, but like I insinuated, predilection doesn’t entail conviction of superiority per se.
No one ever stated that you stated that you prefer N., but rather it was implied that given what I know of you already, you prefer N. Get your facts straight, Fix.
Oh dear, oh my…
A) You are a sensitive little bitch.
B) You are dyslexic.
What’s dyslexic about that post?
Which is the better fruit, apple or orange?
… might sort of depend upon what you’re in need of at the time.
Btw, I did propose a methodology with a sample of criteria to assess superiority in an objective manner in this post;
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2529002#p2529002
When we can agree on a set of criteria to be used, then we can determine to some degree who [K or N] is more superior based on the number and quality of people participating.
In any case the final result is conditioned and qualified to the agreed criteria and those who participate.
Kant’s general approach is systematic. However Kant admit he is not building any new moral system, rather he is uncovering the inherent system of morality and ethics that is ongoing within humanity and reality and presenting it in systematic manner.
Kant dealt with metaphysics but he did not cling onto to any metaphysical ideas.
To Kant, metaphysics is a natural impulse but its intended purpose are an impossibility in reality in the sense there is no independent ontological essence.
If you think it’s apples then you’re retarded. Scientifically speaking, it’s clearly the orange, and anyone with any kind of sense would know that.
This is precisely what Nietzsche says about Kant:
[size=95]“I insist that one should finally stop confusing the philosophical workers, and scientific men in general, with the philosopher […]. Those philosophical workers after the noble model of Kant and Hegel need to establish some great body or other of existing value-estimations–that is to say erstwhile value-positings, value-creations, which have come to rule and are called ‘truths’ for some time–and force it into formulas, be it in the realm of logic or of politics (morals) or of art. […] The philosophers proper however are commanders and lawgivers: they say ‘thus it shall be!’, they first determine the Whereto? and For what? of man and avail themselves therein of the preliminary work of all the philosophical workers, all the overpowerers of the past,–they reach for the future with creative hands, and all that was and is becomes for them a means, a tool, a hammer therein.” (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 211, my translation.)[/size]
Kant was basically “just” an establisher and formulator of the value-positings of Plato. But yes, they are inherent–inherent in the herd type, or the slave type… Plato legislated those values–exoterically–for the whole of humanity.
[size=95]“‘The large majority of men,’ the human herd in Nietzsche’s impolite words, constitute one type, and the morality that fits them tends toward the universal because the large majority stands in fear of the exception or the exceptional. The large majority, needing the comfort of the universal, utilizes the power of the universal to rule over and eventually rule out the threatening exception. Moreover–and this will be a major point–Platonism served the morality of the large majority. Universally valid moral rules, valid for all people at all times, can support themselves on the Platonic rational principle founded on the Good, on God–on some cosmic spider in Nietzsche’s language. The contest between Plato and Nietzsche regarding morality takes on a historic dimension: Plato’s strength and power supported a moral teaching that sided with the large majority and set all subsequent philosophers and theologians on the same track. But now the sway of that teaching elicits a philosophic protest that advocates a new moral teaching, one that sides with the other moral type, the only other type, the exceptions.” (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 71-72.)[/size]
The system of morality and ethics that Kant uncovered and presented in a systematic manner is not inherent in all of humanity, let alone in reality. Human reason is a product of (pre)history, after all…
Interesting. However consensual criteria suffers from lack generated by degrees of opinion. An all inclusice set of everyone, re. the criteria You havw set up , including professional philosophers and the general public at large would be an exhaustiove and completely sufficient evaluation. However, even within the philosophical commiunity, there has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever been a study like that concluded. Therefore Your criteria is only a workable framework within which a possible study could be consteucted. That it has not, degeades the opinion that Kant Is the greatest philosopher. It is only a hypothetical based on preference. That charge may be softened by Your refutation, that it meets the above listed references’ criteria. But, those, even if meeting the challenge of ascertaining objectivity, can and would be countered by non-Kantians, whose application to criteria would differ. I see no wauy to get ot of this loop, and although Your observation that Kant’s approach to metaphysical truth is intuitive, they may say that Your seconding that motion intuitively. Kant actually sewed up metaphysics, and thempivotal questionnism theobjetive versus the objectivity in a synthetic a priori proposition. That Kantians defend it, is no surprise, but again it is by begging the question of ontological certainty. That Nietzche rebelled agsinst ultra rationalism of Hegel, who inherited the attempt by Kant, to rescue the rational defense of Geman idealism. Nietzche saw through this, and rebelled against it. Nietzche did not follow prescedence, butm broke away from it. Some wish He had not done so, and saw no reason to categoriclly defend the this process of ressoning. With Nietzche, there came an end to an era, sadly, and some blame him for this, not realizig that it is the era which called upon an equally intuitive thinker, to show the cracks in status quo. So, objectivity build on a consensus of an structural edifice, may or may not stand the test of time. That he did not, is without question, this is where we are in the future post modern world, the tide couldnnot be stopped.
But before You may think I am jumping the gun, i have to conceede, that Kant was a more exact thinker, not as much prone to aphorisms, however, modernity has demolished his ideas, as do sand castles in the coming tide. It is what it is, generations of existenz philosophy idemnify this fact.
That other minds, such as Marx, tried to re-apply synthesis in a different garb, shows how very serious but flawed minds can cause the social catastrophes inherent in non workable arguments. In cases like that, it is not the ideas, but the efficacy of the rhetoric which wins the hears and minds of men.
The ligteral visage of dialectical materialism born out of the hear of fascist darkness, sandwitched between the work kultur ethic of the Western powers, and the forces of a seeming humanistic-socialistic paradigmn,
examplifies in polarity between these three systems, not a synthetis of them. Tjere is no synthesis in the western world, only incorporation of all opposing ideas, thereby overpowering them by the use of utlitarian principles, which have won out. Historical facts, rather then ideas, have come to rule. Nietzchean Nihilism is the only workable tableau for disenchanted utalitarians. There is no exit, only intepretation of signs and signals, a guessing game, where even the individual signals may in them self be open to interpretation by the very ones sending outthe signals. The result is beyond meaning, into the realm of total effect/affect, and the most convincing wins the day hands down. The medium is the message.
Here, Scopehauerian pessimism is echoed, and a recycling of this type of mind set, into the vogue
and surprising twists and turns of the only saving grace, the genius of invention and remodeling the human psyche. Sorry to those whom i may have offended, especially those to whom Ayn Rand has no appeal whatsoever, but, existenz is primary as a way of being in the world, and it was Kant, after all, who finally sewed up metaphysics. He has to be commended monumentally for his great effort, which semd as if it had stood on three legs for a while, but what happened in reality, was not an objective consensus of his ideas’ stability of a lasting perscriptio fo the world.
As Nietzsche stated, ‘there is no absolute truth, there are only perspectives’. Thus there cannot be an absolute result on whichever philosopher is the greatest.
Whoever is ‘greatest’ must be qualified to the set of criteria one used or agreed upon with others.
Even there is no actual study done on the methods I proposed I make it a point to apply the process mentally using various criteria to compare Kant against all the philosophers I have covered.
Thus at least I have made it a point to ensure my personal conclusion is objective to a degree.
Btw, I wonder how credible are your views on Kant’s philosophy. Do you think you have understood >80% of Kant’s philosophy. What and how much have you done to justify your credibility?
Why and how can you justify your above assertion?
A human being is a organism of systems within systems.
To facilitate its survival, the human organism as system has a servomechanism, .e.g. homeostasis and other control feedback loops to promote continual improvements in every aspects of life.
The impulse to Morality, like other advance functions are inherent within humans and even in primates.
Note this thread I have raised Humans are Born with a Sense of Morality?
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187604
Note the natural inherent moral impulse within humanity has improved the morality quotient in the following over the last 100 years and it is continuing to improve towards the future,
- Significant reduction in slavery [condoned by some religions]
- Reduction in capital punishments
- Reduction in Racism
- Reduction in cannibalism
- Reduction in punishments that involve tortures
- Reduction in misogyny
- Increase in global awareness on various matters
- Many others…
One can easily align Kant’s System of Moral and Ethics with the above trend of global improvement.
If more people understand how Kant’s System of Moral and Ethics sufficiently, humanity would be able to expedite the increase of the average moral quotient of humanity along with advancing knowledge and technology.
The approach of Kant’s System of Moral [Pure] and Ethics [Applied] is the same as those of Science and Mathematics, i.e. discovering inherent principles within reality and use them to facilitate the progress of humanity.
Prismatic, you’re going in circles. I just linked you to the thread in whose OP I linked to my post in your thread to which you’ve failed to respond, and now you’re linking me to that thread again? You say “the natural inherent moral impulse within humanity has improved the morality quotient”. What does this mean other than that a natural inherent impulse within humanity to certain ways of thinking, feeling, and acting has driven humanity to think, feel, and act more and more in those ways? Which of course is saying nothing. If, however, you mean that those ways are better, better in what sense? Merely in the sense that they further humanity’s survival?