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