Kant vs Nietzsche

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:35 pm

Erik_ wrote: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!

"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.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:35 pm

orb wrote: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.

Again:

Arminius wrote:"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.

And by the way: The ILP Nietzschean(ist)s are more than the ILP Kantian(ist)s. The majority is always right? No!
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:37 pm

Orb wrote: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.

"Nietzsche ... next to Nietzsche"? ...?
Do you mean Nietzsche's mental illness?
Like: Binswanger ... next to Binswanger?

Again:

Arminius wrote:Referring to the topic of this thread - Kant vs. Nietzsche - I say that Kant belongs to the pre-nihilistic period and in his latest stage also to the nihilistic period whereas Nietzsche belongs merely to the nihilistic period.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche:
1) What did he say about the philosophy of technique / technology / engineering?
- Nothing at all.
2) What did he say about the philosophy of physics / kosmology / astronomy?
- Nearly nothing.
3) What did he say about the philosophy of economy / economics?
- Nearly nothing.
4) What did he say about the philosophy of sociology?
- Not much (his statements about the fact that he was really terrified of socialism have not much to do with sociology).
5) What did he say about the philosophy of law / right?
- Not much (his statements about ethics and moral have not much to do with law / right - but much with his concept "will to power").
6) What did he say about epistemology?
- Not much.
....
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Erik_ » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:40 pm

Arminius wrote:

"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.


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.
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2380
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby The Artful Pauper » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:47 pm

Erik_ wrote:I'm enjoying the correspondence between Prismatic and Sauwelios.


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

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

Prismatic567 wrote: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..


+

Prismatic567 wrote: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.


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:

Sauwelios wrote:But supposing you're right about that development, why is it good?


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

Prismatic567 wrote: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.


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?
Last edited by The Artful Pauper on Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
The Artful Pauper
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:16 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:45 pm

Erik_ wrote:Arminius wrote:

"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.


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.

You forgot one, Erik.

Erik_ wrote:Prismatic appears to be a Kant expert and Sauwelios a N. expert.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Orbie » Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:46 pm

Arminius wrote:
Orb wrote:The reason that i consider Nietzche the 'better' philosopher, is, that when it comes to Humean doubt////////////, he -Kant///////////'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.

"Nietzsche ... next to Nietzsche"? ...?
Do you mean Nietzsche's mental illness?
Like: Binswanger ... next to Binswanger?

Again:

Arminius wrote:Referring to the topic of this thread - Kant vs. Nietzsche - I say that Kant belongs to the pre-nihilistic period and in his latest stage also to the nihilistic period whereas Nietzsche belongs merely to the nihilistic period.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche:
1) What did he say about the philosophy of technique / technology / engineering?
- Nothing at all.
2) What did he say about the philosophy of physics / kosmology / astronomy?
- Nearly nothing.
3) What did he say about the philosophy of economy / economics?
- Nearly nothing.
4) What did he say about the philosophy of sociology?
- Not much (his statements about the fact that he was really terrified of socialism have not much to do with sociology).
5) What did he say about the philosophy of law / right?
- Not much (his statements about ethics and moral have not much to do with law / right - but much with his concept "will to power").
6) What did he say about epistemology?
- Not much.
....
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Orbie » Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:54 pm

Arminius: The synthesis works both ways, and progressively, as has been pointed out, it works out fine. Causation cn work both ways, an effect can become a cuse, retroactively? How? You may ask? Well, categorically. If You wore to assign moral principles for posterity, the question of forseeability arises, and intelligent estimates csn be made as to their effected outcome. Conversely, connection may be attempted, between the effects and the closely resembling models which set them up in the firstplace, factoring in the degrees of varience. In this way, philosophers who have effected each other, can/may be evaluated on basis of such effects. Since, Kant did not eliminate metaphisics, only sewed it up, his insight is ,largely intuitive. So is Nietzhe's. In thismprescription, Kan't 'should' have categorically not given Nietzche the opportunity for refutation, albeit through Hegel's absolutism.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Orbie » Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:58 pm

Kant's transcendental arguments are of this type.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:28 pm

Obe:

Number of my last questions: 9.
Number of your last answers: 0.5.


Your "answers" are very deficient.

:violence-hammer:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Lev Muishkin » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:04 pm

Orb wrote: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.



Nietzsche said nothing his whole career.
Kant made contributions to epistemology and ethics, as well as astronomy and maths.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:06 pm

Thank you, Artful Pauper, for your attempt at streamlining my discussion with Prismatic567. I think you have understood and clarified what I'm driving at.


Prismatic567 wrote:
Sauwelios wrote: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:

I wrote:If [the ways of thinking, feeling, and acting to which humanity has a natural inherent impulse are better merely in the sense that they further humanity's survival],
then insofar as slavery, capital punishment, racism, cannibalism, punishments that involve tortures, misogyny, lack of global awareness and the like further humanity's survival,
for example in an environment where they do,
they must be good.
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.


In order to do so, I must first be sure I understand your proposition. Let me go all the way back to my first post in your "Humans are Born with a Sense of Morality?" thread (don't worry, I won't be going into the Picht quote again at this point). Let us look closely at what was said there:

Sauwelios wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:With a neural circuit of moral impulses humanity could develop and establish a morality-ethics framework by themselves collectively and need not have to rely on a God.

Agree?


No more than without such a neural circuit. After all, why are those impulses moral? That is, why call them moral?


Now in order to understand what I asked there, it may be helpful to know that I subsequently thought I had been mistaken. I had taken the phrase "moral impulses", for example, to mean that you considered these impulses moral, as opposed to immoral. In other words, I had taken your use of the word "moral" to be prescriptive. Then, however, I came to think that I had probably been mistaken; that I had read that prescription into your words, and that you had really meant the word "moral" in a purely descriptive sense--that you had called those impulses moral because they pertained to the phenomenon we just happen to call "morality". Those impulses were then only moral in the sense that the impulse to breathe, for instance, is non-moral.

Since then, I've been trying to determine whether your proposition was indeed merely descriptive. Your continuing failure to understand what I'm saying, however, (which may indeed be at least as much my fault as yours) has kept me in doubt--has kept suggesting to me that your proposition was prescriptive after all. To make sure it was descriptive, I might ask at this point: Do you consider humanity's survival a good thing, a value, at all? Do you not just consider it a fact? Just as Darwinism, for example, does not consider the dodo's extinction a bad thing, but just a fact?

At this point, I'm afraid that I may not have been mistaken initially at all. Perhaps you do not understand what I'm driving at because you consider the items on your list to be obviously good. In order to clarify my problem with that, I will share with you part of a Facebook discussion from November 2012. I'm Oliver.

    Chad: "Oliver, I would have thought that, if a moral theory entails that, say, the Emperor Palpatine (from Star Wars) is some kind of moral exemplar, then this would constitute a decisive counterexample to the theory. Is your idea that N's moral theory is somehow impervious (even in principle) to counterexamples? Is this true generally of all moral theories on your view? Do you think it would be reasonable for an act utilitarian, for example, to simply ignore the standard counterexamples to his view?"

    Oliver: "Yes, because counterexamples presuppose a given moral standard."

    Chad: "Suppose then that I said that there is exactly one thing that is morally wrong: wearing a wristwatch. How else could you refute this theory than by pointing out that it is open to obvious counterexamples?"
    (This comment was liked by Dereck.)

    Dereck: "^[This is—at least one reason—why moral nihilism is untenable]^"

    Oliver: "No, suppose that _I_ said that thing about wearing a wristwatch. Now give me a counterexample."

    Chad: "No problem. A man rapes a woman while wearing no wristwatch. That's a case in which the proposed (absurd) analysis is clearly going to fail. For something wrong has obviously been done in this case, but the theory entails the falsehood that no wrong action has been performed."

    Oliver: "Nothing wrong has been done, since the only thing that is morally wrong is wearing a wristwatch. It's fine for a man to rape a woman."
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Orbie » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:24 pm

Arminius wrote:Obe:

Number of my last questions: 9.
Number of your last answers: 0.5.




Your "answers" are very deficient.



:violence-hammer:


So are yours to my implied questions. You do not have a monopoly on questioning.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:46 pm

Orb wrote:
Arminius wrote:Obe:

Number of my last questions: 9.
Number of your last answers: 0.5.




Your "answers" are very deficient.



:violence-hammer:


So are yours to my implied questions. You do not have a monopoly on questioning.

Everyone has a monopoly on questioning. Everyone is allowed to ask questions. Everyone has the right to note that his questions are not sufficiently answered. :)
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Orbie » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:55 pm

thats again, debatlable. if everyone has a right to monopoly only a capacity to attain it will prevent chaos. therefore lack of capacity is a saving grace.
of what do capacity consists of? a masure of strength , mixed with convincing rhetoric gaining popular
support. Minus that hostility is engendered by frustraion, and that stymied can and does at times result in open conflict. that is not the aim of dialogue.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:09 pm

I did not say that the questioner has the right to force an answer. Did you notice that? .... Oh, that was a question. :oops:

And where are your "implied questions"? And if there is any: Why do you not ask directly? .... Oh, questions. :oops:

B.t.w.: Your English is not always clear. Excuse me, please.

Okay, we should not derail this thread.

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:History shows the greatness of philosophers.

The current world institutions like UNO, WTO, World Bank, and many other global institutions have their origin in Kant's philosophy. Compare for example Kant's "Ewigen Frieden" (1795) - "Perpetual Peace" (1795). How to value it ist one point, but the historical fact of the influence is another point. Another example: Platon was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher, but would you live according to his philosophy, especially his ideas, today, just because he was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher? To value philosophies are meaningful in another sense but not in the sense of greatness.
It is the future that will unfolds Kant's greatness.

Kant's philosophy is too far ahead of his and our time.
I agree UN, WTO, World Bank [crude but OK] are the slow unfolding of Kant's philosophy towards the future.

The human brain has appx. 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors [synapse]. Just imagine the possible number of serial combinations and permutations from them. It is also possible the connectivity of the media in the brain may not be serial, thus a greater potential.

It is obvious the average human has not yet exploited the full potential of its brain power. The often speculated usage is we are only using 15% of our total brain power. It is definitely a crude guess, as it is quite impossible to know the total brain power, but we can be quite sure there is a vast potential to be tapped from our brain power. Note the exponential and expansion of knowledge since the last 100 years and its possible in the next 50, 100, 150, ...into the future years.

There will be a greater realization of Kant's critical philosophy as the mental potential of the average humanity increase from its current base and continue to increase in the future.
IMO, this where Kant's ideas will slowly merge with Nietzsche's Übermensch.

Will there ever be any tiny institution with an origin in Nietzsche's philosophy?
Last edited by Arminius on Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:12 am

Erik_ wrote: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!
Noted your reservation.
Personally I am not claiming to be an expert. I hope I can be an expert but I think that will take some time provided I keep at reading and revising Kant's philosophy constantly and consistently. One of the problem with trying to master Kant is by the time one move on to concentrate to read the 2nd Critique on Morals, one is likely to loose grip on finer nuance points in the first critique. When one move on to the 3rd critique, one also loose the grasp on the other two. So constant refreshing is very necessary.

What I am comparing with other readers of Kant is based on some degree of objective comparison of actual efforts put into reading Kant assuming we are average learners [not genius].
On that basis, objectively [roughly] there is a difference in one's understanding of Kant between one who has spent 5000+ hours full-time basis and another who has spent 600 hours.
I personally have spent round 5000 hours full-time on reading Kant.

It is very difficult to gain a comprehensive understanding of Kant's ideas in its full perspective.
Henry E Alison a supposedly Kant scholar expert with 40 years of experience still missed [he acknowledge that] a critical point as pointed out by one of his student.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:06 am

Diekon wrote: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?
I mentioned elsewhere the Kantian System of Morals and Ethics is too far ahead of its and our time. Nevertheless the categorical imperative is manifesting partially in principle in fact and reality, subliminally if not consciously.
I dare say you do not understand [not necessary agree] Kant's Categorical Imperative fully, that is why your views in it fall short and thus are straw-man(s). It is not easy for you to get onto the same boat unless you have put in your fair share of effort to understand Kant's philosophy systematically. [not independently]

Here are some rough points and hopefully you get some ideas of what the CI is really about;
    1. There are 5 formulations of the CI. [policies]
    2. The CIs are not expected to imperative nor enforceable in practice, they are merely guides.
    3. To put the CI in actual action, one need to formulate Maxims, enforceable Laws and rules that are parallel and in alignment with the CI.
    4. The Maxims are then translated into strategies to be executed in practice.
    5. Actual results are compared with the Maxims.
    6. Gaps and variances are to be closed via corrective steps [or punishment if necessary] on the principle of continuous improvement.

For example note the first formulation of the CI [1],
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.

Within Kant's philosophy, the formulation of the CI [1-5] is referred as the Moral [Pure] aspects.

The practice aspects of the Kantian system is referred to Ethics [Applied]
If one has a maxim, e.g. 'Killing is permissible.'
If this maxim is made into a universal law that is WILLed and activated by all rational beings at the SAME TIME, then that will result in the extinction of the human species after the last man dies.

Therefore in alignment with CI [I], the general Maxim should be 'Killing is not permissible.'
But the fact is we must face reality.
Thus we need cater for variations and conditions in real life by codifying Laws and rules that made provision for exceptions where certain killings can be legal.

The point here is CI[1] is universal and will not change, but the Maxims, Laws and Rules can be changed to adapt to changing time and conditions.


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 doesn't say alot then.
In dealing with closing the variances and gaps, one can use and apply the utilitarianism, consequentialism, principles under the umbrella of the CI.

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 problem is you did not bother to read and understand Kant's critically philosophy in totality.

Note the Kantian process;
    1. Kant start his Moral and Ethic systems from observations and empirical evidence.
    2. From this empirical sphere he used philosophy to abstract the universal principles.
    3. Then he put these universal principles through the metaphysical tests.
    4. Once the universal principles are derived he retested them within the empirical sphere.

The above is exactly how Science and Mathematic deal with their Pure and Applied aspects.

If you are still not convinced, read up Kant thoroughly to confirm what I had stated above!
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:41 am

The Artful Pauper wrote: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:

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.
Btw, I am not claiming there is a total elimination of those practices at present.
I said over the last 100 years, if not try stretching it back to last 1000, 5000, 50,000 years or the time homo-sapiens first emerged.
If you draw a graph of the various traits, there is an increasing and net trend. Btw, I am referring to humanity on a global basis not specific locations or groups.
If you compare China and elsewhere they don't behead anyone as easily as they do 1,000 years or more ago.
One element for consideration from the neural perspective is the evolution of mirror neurons in primates and human being.

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?
What is 'good' is leveraged against the sustaining and preservation of the individual and therefrom the species. This is grounded on the Categorical Imperative [note 1-5] I discussed in the earlier post.
That is the general idea. Note the idea of Good is that which opposed 'evil' in the secular sense is a very complicated issue involving the Summum Bonum, i.e. what is the highest unconditional good. Next you may ask what is 'Evil.' To understand what is 'evil' one need to do extensive research and define what it meant by 'evil.' For example, it is obvious 'genocide' is evil and cannot be good as a universal law. Genocide as a good universal law would imply the extinction of the human specie. The other aspect is to present a taxonomy of evil to encompass all necessary elements of evil.

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?
It is not that 'survival' is good.
What is 'good' is that which is aligned and support the preservation of the individual and the species [i.e. humanity] in the optimal sense.
Those trends that I mentioned are not exhaustive, but the relevance is whatever it takes to be 'good' that will contribute the survival of the individual and the specie.

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?
What is good need to be aligned with the Categorical Imperative where one of them is as follows;
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.
Any trend or actions that do support the above is not considered 'good' per se.
According to Kant's Moral system all rational individuals should strive to act in accordance with the above CI.
However within the Kantian System, it is recognized in reality the individual human can never conform to the above and thus humanity must re-align the CI with Maxims [not mathematical sense], Laws and rules to reconcile the empirical with the rational.
In this case, relative to the current conditions, what is 'good' is conditioned upon compliance with the Laws and rules implemented.

Nevertheless there should be an awareness of the gap between what is categorical good and legally & ethically good. Humanity must thus take step to increase the Moral Quotient of the individual to narrow this gap. The question is how to narrow the gap and we should towards Science, philosophy and adoption of other advancing knowledge to expedite the manifestation of the moral impulse within.

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?

I have explained above what is the categorical good, i.e. a near absolute good, the highest good, the Summum Bonum.
Then we have the relative good with applied Ethics which is subject to continuous improvement. A greater understanding of the Kantian system will enable humanity to expedite and narrow the gap between the categorical good [Moral -OUGHT] and the relative empirical practical good [Ethical-IS].

One [amongst many] effective approach of measurement is the Science of Axiology.
Axiology (from Greek ἀξίᾱ, axiā, "value, worth"; and -λόγος, -logos) is the philosophical study of value. It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics[1]—philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of value—or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics. The term was first used by Paul Lapie, in 1902,[2] and Eduard von Hartmann, in 1908.[3][4


Coherence and cogent??
Frankly I am only interested in discussing Kant for my own selfish interest as a means of a refresher. I am not interested in convincing anyone when the subject is so complicated, complex and difficult to understand.
If you need coherence and cogency, you yourself will need to do the hard work of understanding [not necessary agree] what Kant is about. This is also to ensure I am presenting an accurate representation of Kant's ideas as I generally one cannot merely to accept the words of the other by faith or even arguments.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:54 am

Sauwelios wrote:At this point, I'm afraid that I may not have been mistaken initially at all. Perhaps you do not understand what I'm driving at because you consider the items on your list to be obviously good. In order to clarify my problem with that, I will share with you part of a Facebook discussion from November 2012. I'm Oliver.
I think our line of discussion has somewhat been twisted like an tight bundle of fishing lines.

I have gone into more details of the Kantian system of Moral and Ethics in my last two posts and also explained what I meant by 'good'.
Perhaps you could pick up again from the later posts and raised your disagreements again anew.

Note again, the Kantian System comprised two aspects, i.e.
1. Moral - formulation of the Pure and universal principles [only five, 3 mains and two subs]
2. Ethics - the applied empirical aspects of the diversified actual human conditions.

The Kantian system provides sophisticated strategies to reconcile the Moral [OUGHT] and the Ethics [IS], thus resolving Hume's dilemma.

The Moral aspect is strictly referring to the universal principles of the Categorical Principles only.
Perhaps I may have mixed the two up somewhere and caused confusion. If so, take note of the above strict distinction and dichotomy, i.e. Moral is strictly Moral and Ethics is strictly related to the practices and empirical.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Sat Mar 07, 2015 1:50 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:It is very difficult to gain a comprehensive understanding of Kant's ideas in its full perspective.
Henry E Alison a supposedly Kant scholar expert with 40 years of experience still missed [he acknowledge that] a critical point as pointed out by one of his student.

If he can't speak or at least read German, then he he has a huge problem with the understanding of Kant.

Everyone should know the language of the author he is concerned with.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Erik_ » Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:20 pm

All of this talk about how one needs to study Kant for thousands of hours and that one needs to know the German language, if one is to truly understand Kant, kind of reminds me of how Christian and Muslim apologists will say similar things, when they feel threatened. For example: An atheist will point out a contradiction or something unflattering about the Quran, and the Islamic apologist will just resort to, say, " You need to read the Quran in Arabic in order to understand that ".

I haven't read the CPR and I'm sure Kant's philosophy is nuanced, but I'm confident that I understand the gist of his major themes.

1.) Space/time are parts of our ' spectacles ', not things that exists independent of the mind.

2.) There is a phenomenal world, i.e., the world we experience --- and there is a noumenonal world, that is to say, a world we don't/can't experience, as it is beyond our spectacles.

3.) Morality is absolute and imperative.
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2380
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Orbie » Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:55 pm

That is as the Prolegomena, which has been anaylized to be a defense to the Critique. But what of the corpus of my argument, which was implied, and consisted of historicism, vis. the interweaving of philosophical successions between Kant, Hegel, and Nietzche? It has never been answered, and i too, do not wish to continue to beat a dead horse. For those, who missed, skipped over, or ignored the argument, read the above, however, Eric, Your comments are a noteworthy core idea, which has effected the evolution of German Idealism in general.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:15 pm

I am very late to this party, but having read both, N is a far better philosopher.
Kant is boring, pedantic and wrong and books like his critique are some of the worst written
books of all time and that is in English. I have tried reading the German version and got nowhere
mainly because it is worse in German. I read the critique along with Smith's book "commentary on
Kant critique" at the same time. took me 6 months to get through it. Philosophers like Kaufman dislike
Kant immensely and show why in books like "discovery of the mind" three volumes.

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8624
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:46 pm

Erik_ wrote:All of this talk about how one needs to study Kant for thousands of hours and that one needs to know the German language, if one is to truly understand Kant, kind of reminds me of how Christian and Muslim apologists will say similar things, when they feel threatened. For example: An atheist will point out a contradiction or something unflattering about the Quran, and the Islamic apologist will just resort to, say, " You need to read the Quran in Arabic in order to understand that".

That is pretty much right, Erik, although i.e. the differences between two Germanic languages are not as large as the differences between i.e one Germanic language and one Romanic language. Very huge are the differences between one Indogermanic language and i.e. one Afroasiatic language.

To know i.e. the language of the Koran is very useful in order to understand the Muslims and their religion, their "spiritual exercise" (Peter Sloterdijk).

To study Kant does not necessarily mean to invest "thousands of hours", but you need more time for studying Kant, if you do not know the German language, than you need, if you know the German language. So it is a huge adavantage to know the German language when it coems to understand Kant, his country, his culture, and - last but not least - his philosophy. This does not only concern the time you need or other special aspects but also general aspects.
Last edited by Arminius on Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users