Kant vs Nietzsche

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.

Are you saying that Nietzsche was not even a little bit a philosopher?

Fact is that most ILP members are not interested in philosophy but in social criticism. :wink:

Is that funny? … No.
is that an accident? … No.

Nietzsche was a nihilist respectively - because he was at least “a little bit” a philosopher - a nihilstic philosopher.

If Nietzsche had been an ILP member, in which subforum would he have posted the most?

Fact is that Kant had an entire philosophical systsem and that Hegel was the last philosopher who had an entire philosophical system. Since then there has never been a an entiere philosophical system and all entire philosophical systems have been systematically or not systematically been deconstructed or destroyed - by nihilists respectively nihilistic philosophers.

Philosophy was “born” in the Ancient Greece and means “love to wisdom” (“to” - not “of”). So we have to interprete and measure philosophy and philosophers mainly according to the Ancient Greek definition. So Nietzsche’s question “Were there already such philosophers?” (in: Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 211, my translation) is more rhetoric than a serious question, because Nietzsche wanted the philosophers to be “commanders and lawgivers” (ibid) and the philosophy to be a “hammer” (ibid.). According to the the Ancient Greek definition of “philosophy” and “philosophers” philosophers are primarily not “commanders and lawgivers”; and when philosophy comes in like a “hammer”, then it is not a real philosophy but a nihilistic philosophy .

If Nietzsche is a member of the “third league of philosophy”, then Kant is the “champion” of the “first league of philosophy”.

At the fringes it can be perspectival or subjective.

However your credibility on the view of Kant’s philosophy can at least be determined on how much time [assuming we are average learners] and effort you have put in to study Kant.

It is said that the average person need 3 years full time or 5 years part-time reading all of Kant’s major works plus covering secondary texts, to grasp and have a reasonable understanding of Kant’s philosophy.
I have done 75% of the above expectation and still on it towards 100%. Thus I am confident I have a reasonable credibility to express Kant’s view.

So you should be able to know your own level of credibility in expressing Kant’s philosophy or views, i.e. that will depend on how much effort you have committed with reference to the above.
If you have spent say 3 months full time reading Kant’s work, there is no way you can reasonably understand Kant’s ideas and you are likely to misinterpret his views and defending straw-man(s).

Since we are on Moral and Ethics, it is about progress of the Moral Quotient [MQ] of the average human.
Note I listed the following to support the increase of the average MQ of humanity.

I saw a video where Steven Pinker [tried to find it but lost it] elaborated along the same line as the above.

I believe in the near future, the above can be objectively represented by the degree of neural activities when we get more precise within neuroscience.

But supposing you’re right about that development, why is it good? I asked you if it was good because it facilitates humanity’s survival (which it does according to you), and you answered: Yes, its survival and progress. I then asked you what you meant by “progress”, and as I suspected, you meant that very development! To see the circularity thereof even more clearly, forget about survival for a moment. You are then saying that that development is good because it facilitates that same development. This is not an answer; it’s like saying slavery is wrong because it is slavery. So I ask again: is the only reason why the development you describe, including the content of your list, is good the fact (I will suppose that it’s a fact) that it facilitates humanity’s survival?

There is no circularity in this case. You only saw circularity because of a 2D narrow view. Development-X is good because it facilitates greater development-Y from a spiraling 3D perspective. What you did was you collapsed the spiral into 2D from top view and think you saw a full circle. Your thoughts seem to be stuck in a rut and a repeating loop.

Frankly I am not too sure about your point.
Nevertheless, I say again the progressive trend of development in the related moral and ethics of the average humans facilitate greater efficiency towards humanity’s survival within a spiraling perspective.

Long ago, based on an increasing moral and ethical quotient, humans were able to co-operate and empathize to discover and create new medicines that result in the increase of the average life span of the average human. Otherwise a serious virus could possibly make the human specie extinct.

Then there is the nuclear war perspective and the potential possibility of the extinction of the human specie. However it is due to the increase in the average Moral quotient that invoke the awareness of MAD which prevented a greater usage of nuclear weapons.

As the average human progresses humanity is becoming more aware of greater and greater threats [global and galactical] that will threatened the extinction of the human specie and humanity.
There is the possibility of a rogue comet coming Earth’s way with the potential to destroy Earth or cause the extinction of all living things and thereby the human specie. Humanity is in fact aware of this at present and doing their best to avoid this possibility.

All the above progress reflect the moral impulse that Kant had uncovered which at present is difficult for the majority to comprehend. If there is a critical mass of humans who understand Kant’s system of morals and ethics, humanity will be able to use those principles to expedite progress both in ethics, knowledge and technologies in sustaining the survival [optimal] of the human species.

Funny how you’d say all that and then go on to say exactly what I suggested, though in not so many words.

Here’s the first item from the list of problems with the end’s being mere survival that I wrote down yesterday:

Funny?? the fault is from you.
I can’t seem to understand your main point, that is why I am throwing points here and there on a ‘hit and miss’ basis hoping one of them address your point.
Btw, I don’t have such a problem with other posters.

In your post above, you have misrepresented my point.
What I had stated was this;
The general reduction in slavery, capital punishment, racism, cannibalism, punishments that involve tortures, misogyny, and the likes, demonstrate a correlated trend in the improvement of the average moral quotient within humanity.

My main point was to highlight the positive trend in the incremental average moral quotient.
This increasing trend as backed by the inherent moral impulse is a sign of ‘good’ and thus facilitate the survival/preservation of the human species.

Up to this stage, I still do not get your main point.
Why don’t you present a summarized proposition first, e.g.
Your proposition ‘… … …’ is wrong, false or whatever you do not agree.
Then support your points with the details, but do not string too many variables in one sentence.

Yes I stand by my statement that no human being actually thinks and acts in this way. The categorical imperative functions as the controller, and i do not know of any person that uses it to check his moral views to. You need to check if you moral principle can be willed a (descriptive) universal law without contradiction… seriously?

It doesn’t say alot then.

Yes like i said he is a rationalist, and so he starts from general principles… which is exactly my problem with him. I think anything worth a damn starts from the concrete or empirical, and abstracts from that to arrive at more general principles.

The word “progress” is a bit problematic, because the development is spiral cyclic, not simply linear or even exponential. So the so–called “human grogress” is merely in our thoughts and not the real development, but we have to keep the process in motion, and therefore we need such thoughts.

Criticism, scepticism, and (as the extreme form) nihilism are historically justified as well but lack of solutions - that’s tautological, because they are what they are: criticism, scepticism, nihilism. The solutions come from history itself. The “next Kant” will come in about 2000 years or will not come (because humans will be too stupid or not live anymore). :wink:

Apart from FC coming in here with a chip on his shoulder, this has turned out to be a great thread thus far!

I’m enjoying the correspondence between Prismatic and Sauwelios.

Prismatic appears to be a Kant expert and Sauwelios a N. expert. Perfect match.

Keep it going!

I am not too sure what the implications of Your statement that 'you should understand…and misinterpret his views are. You can be a Kantina, an expert i Kant, and spend a lifetime in pursuit of his works. However, i do not really go along with an extended ide that only experts in Kant can present an opinion based summeril on well understood concepts.
The fact is, and i read through Your arguments carefully, it is safe to say, that Kant’s significance begins and ends in moral and social philosophy. Metaphysics was and is totally sweed up , and there is no question that Nietzche’ssignificance arises from
Hegel’s nihilization, as far as rationality goes. Kant was unable to realize the wished for aims of his synthesis, and no amount of argument will save that rm of his thinking. Moral philosophy? Categorical imperative? Does that jive with what is morally going on inn the world? Absolutely not. We as human beings are on the verge of extinction, and can it be professed by anyone thatwe are acting categorically in accorfdance to certain well accepted, objective criteria? Your critique of me, shows deph in studying him yes,but as affording moral principles, by dismissing ressonable arguments in effect, shows an affected inability to give up the type of egressive argument which tries to connect effects to causes.
And this exclusively tied to moral philosophy.

The reason that i consider Nietzche the ‘better’ philosopher, is, that when it comes to Humean doubt, he ‘should’ have categorically left the synthesis in it’s self, because, he should have forseen a nihilization, and a recurrance of Being. (in existentialism). His categorical dismissal, interferes with his moral imperative. For that alone, i consider him second rate next to Nietzche. Please allow me the benefit of applying my own perspectives within this mode of mind set.

“Experts”? The word “expert” is as problemnatic as the word “progress”. One has to be an “expert” or even a “super-expert” In order to decide whether another one is an “expert” or not.

Do you really know whether this one or that one is an “expert”? Maybe this or that “expert” is simply a fanatic or an impostor.

Try to find it out! Ask questions! Ask them as if you were i.e. Peter Sloterdijk in his German tv show “Das Philosophische Quartett”, Erik.

Again:

And by the way: The ILP Nietzschean(ist)s are more than the ILP Kantian(ist)s. The majority is always right? No!

“Nietzsche … next to Nietzsche”? …?
Do you mean Nietzsche’s mental illness?
Like: Binswanger … next to Binswanger?

Again:

Arminius wrote:

Good point

But I don’t, really, think Prismatic is a fanatic or imposter; he has been cool-tempered and even honest ( he made jabs at Kant ).

If anyone is a fanatic, imposter, pompous, it’s Fixed Cross.

I have also been following the discussion between Prismatic and Sauwelios with interest.

I hope the cogency of some of the arguments increases though.

I think looking at some facts and statistics about certain countries, for example China and Egypt, would show that this isn’t the case. Capital Punishment are still practiced in both cases, and China executes the most people in the world annually.

Here is an article about state owned industries producing instruments of torture in China:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2014/09/china-s-booming-torture-trade-revealed/

and here’s an article about the ‘mysognistic’ practice of female infanticide and abortions in china: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-ugliest-form-of-misogyny-sex-selective-abortions-and-the-war-on-baby-gi/

and yet humans have survived and continued to reproduce in China for the past 2000 years, and possesses the highest population in the world.

I don’t think you can make an argument that their future survival is in danger unless you can tell the future, because there is no way of knowing if they will take measures to avert disaster which include reducing these “moral abominations” from your list.

Sauwelios asked:

As far as I can see, the closest you’ve come to answering his question is this:

You say the “increased trend” (of the reductions in the list above) “as backed by the inherent moral impulse is a sign of ‘good’”, but that doesn’t explain how the trend and the “moral impulse” in humanity which you speak of is a sign of ‘good’.

How are you defining good? Are you defining good as moral?

If you are then in the context of the quote above you would only be saying “This increasing trend as backed by the inherent moral impulse is a sign of [morality]” which would be saying nothing.

Are you saying that survival is good and so it is on the basis of survival alone you can affirm those trends as good?

If so, is survival unconditionally good? In a country like China where there is still some of the trends you indicated as declining elsewhere, is survival still good? Also, if survival continues under these conditions without the trends you indicated, does that mean that there are other factors of survival which are of equal validity and might even supercede the trends you indicated as aiding survival?

Also, would survival be good under all conditions?

Another question, if someone could survive in a state where the trends you indicated were regularly practiced, but the same individual, nor those he/she cared about, was not subject to them (did not experience them against his person) but even perhaps enacted them on others, but also while enjoying other benefits, such as physical goods, admiration, music, etc. would the situation for this individual be good or bad, and why?

Finally, I think it would be helpful to know, what is the quality which makes a thing good? What measure can we use to identify what is good?

You forgot one, Erik.