Kant vs Nietzsche

^^^ 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,

  1. Significant reduction in slavery [condoned by some religions]
  2. Reduction in capital punishments
  3. Reduction in Racism
  4. Reduction in cannibalism
  5. Reduction in punishments that involve tortures
  6. Reduction in misogyny
  7. Increase in global awareness on various matters
  8. 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?

There is not even a comparison between the two. N is no match for Kant, neither in knowledge nor in wisdom, though he (Kant) was not perfect either.

Comparing Kant with N is bit like comparing the sun with a halogen bulb. People may like halogen more because it is within their reach and they can understand it by deconstructing it, but the same cannot be done with the sun.

Kant tried to deduct the ontology of the existence but unable to get through till the end. Standing confused there at this very juncture, he again gathered himself, used his wisdom, and offer something imperfect but still useful. He used his knowledge and experience for good purpose. N did not have the patience for all that. He even did not want to try. His intention was to find something what can give him excuse for his mindset.

And, that is not a mistake but no less than a crime in philosophy, at least to me.

[b]There is nothing wrong in having a presumption but one should always remember that it is only his presumption, not the truth, unless he finds something such that is beyond any doubt and support his initial presumption. But, if one finds something against his presumption or initial premises, he must have enough intellectual honesty to accept that and amend his perception accordingly. If anyone is unable to follow that route, he should not engage with philosophy in the first place. If one cannot be honest with himself, he cannot be honest with others too. It is as simple as that.

Kant did that but N neither tried nor even wanted to try. Throughout his life, N did nothing but try to justify what he liked. He was master in using language and used that very skillfully too. People may get attracted to his poetic style of ambiguous writing but that does not serve any purpose whatsoever in philosophy. All that may be an asset in literature but certainly not in philosophy.

Philosopher must be vivid and clear in his narration, as far as possible. The actual purpose of the philosophy is to interpret things, but if an interpretation is such that it also demands further interpretation, its very purpose is cheated. And, that happens with almost every line of N. If his supporters claim that most of the people misread him, no other than but N himself is to be blamed for that.

It is not the case that N was a fool or stupid person. No, not at all. He was very intelligent and understood human psychology better than most of the philosophers. N starts with WTP and it is the cornerstone of his philosophy. There is nothing wrong with WTP. It is useful and plays its part in reality but it has a limit too. There is where N faulted. He kept it pushing, pushing and pushing, and finally stretched it to such limits which are neither useful nor realistic. He was an extremist and like what use to happen in all cases of extremism, his ideology harms more than benefit.[/b]

Let me give an example to explain how this premise of WTP influences subtly.
Say there is a smoker. Now, he can explain his habit in two ways.

Firstly, he can say that though he understands that it is a bad thing still he is unable to discard that. That is Kant. But, he can explain it in another way too. In spite of accepting his mistake, he can question the questioner by claiming that he has all the right in world to smoke as he is a mature person and it is his right. That is the manifestation of N’s WTP, at least how it looks at face value to a common man.

N breaks every boundary, every limit and everything such that can bridle in any way. He allows subjectivity to its extreme. That is a very dangerous premise to have because it will lead to complete choas by default if not checked. He offers untamed liberty, that is why he so popular with people. People can pass on their burden of guilt to N’s philosophy. That gives them an excuse to believe or do what they would otherwise find difficult to justify. N is a role model for such people. Unfortunately, the number of such people is rising by each passing day.

To sum up, i would like to quote OH remarks regarding N, which i think is the best one that i ever saw about N.

Nietzsche’s like salt for your philosophy. You need a bit to make it interesting, but too much is poison.- Only_Humean

As far as morality and ethics are concerned, one needs 90% of Kant (limitations) and 10% of N. The limit and usefulness of N ends there.

with love,
sanjay

Erik and FC, please keep the discussion within the bounds of civility.

I implied the following;

  1. There is a natural inherent moral impulse within humanity, i.e. the Link;
  2. There is a natural inherent control and feedback system within the individual and humanity, and
  3. There is a natural inherent continuous improvement module within the individual.

The above 3 elements [& others not listed] combine to drive the morality quotient of the average human being in an increasing trend.

Yes, this trend is pointing towards facilitating the net potential of humanity’s survival and progress.
Note the imperative expected improvement in Moral quotient within the present international space station [the Russians, Americans and Muslims cannot afford to fight and quarrel in there] and in future colonization on Mars or other planets.

Yes that is what he claims anyway… he was desperately trying to find a solution for the scepsis about morals that was becoming apparant in his time. He tried, but didn’t succeed. The justification for his solution is unsatifactory, and to make things worse, no actual human being thinks in the way suggested by the inherent system he uncovered.

He did cling to his metaphysical ideas, just look at how his categorical imperative works. If something didn’t fit in his system, he forced it in the system anyway. He was a rationalist… empirical evidence to the contrary be damned!

 Yes it's about crdedibility, one might comment at this juncture that credibility hinges generally on context and perspective, whether it be me , You, Nietzche, Kant or, however.  I could put opinion into the mix, and ever since Leibnitz things have changed.  There are only shades , degrees of certainty, whether it be 80 % or 50.  The numbers don't lie, for sure, but I would give a 1 % certainty it's equal attention, in this age of quanta.  The universals have often been trumped by the unusual, the variance in progression.

Objectivity based on criteris is well and good for specific items succeeding toward more and more generality, but to start at the apex and work downwards, I do not think it works that way. it simply cannot be evaluated, as it were going backwards, since for every downward regression there is an incalculable change which needs to be qualified, as it were in a foreward progression. Again I am not an apologist for Your position, i don’t have to, because, for the vast majority of arguments Your reasoning is sound.

I was actually compiling a long list of problems with its being mere survival, but cut my reply short to ask you if that was all it was. You answer in the affirmative, but add: “and progress”. What kind of progress, then? What does “progress” mean here? It cannot be moral progress, of course, as that would make it circular.

Nietzsche isn’t really a philosopher, just a social critic.

Note in 1763 Kant wrote ‘The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God’. In his early years Kant’s inclination was towards an ontology of being as real like any theist, deist or pantheist. Kant’s early belief of God was something like Newton’s with a scientific background.

It was only after 18 years later and wiser when in 1781 that he wrote his Critique of Pure Reason where he presented a section on the impossibility of the proof for the existence of God.

Thus there is no question of Kant ‘trying’ to get through till the ‘end’. He was already into the ‘end’ when he first started and it was only with wisdom and age that he realized there is no such thing as an ‘end’ [a real ontological being or God] existing as real.

Kant remained a deist, i.e. belief based on a rational basis of God but he did not believe God exist as real. He knew the latter belief [God is real] is illusory and delusional.

One of the fundamental element that Kant revealed in his system of Moral and Ethics is the following System with Control Feedback.


You insist no actual humans thinks and act this way?
In reality all humans has such a natural system within them and such a control feedback system is intellectualized and applied in every aspect of life mentally and technologically.

Btw most people think Kant Moral System is Deontological, but it is not. In the applied aspect of his system, i.e. Ethics, it can accommodate any existing ethical system, i.e. utilitarianism, consequentialism, etc.

It is most likely you are ignorant of what Kant’s System of Moral and Ethics is.

Kant’s system comprised two aspects, i.e.

  1. Moral - the rational based on pure reason.
  2. Ethics - the empirical, practice and applied aspects.

Kant deliberately stated his focus was more on the Moral aspects and less on the empirical aspects. He was more interested in the principles [substance] rather than the varied forms of ethics. He understand the need for the empirical aspects and left it to the empirical technicians to deal with it.

Kant’s approach is the same as those of theoretical scientists who focused more on theories rather than applied science. Note Newton and Einstein who focused on theories and left it to other scientists and technicians to verify their theories, and technologists to translate the theories into practices for the progress of humanity.