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.