maybe Nietzche only tried to imply that reality should not be constructed as it were anything else but appearance but isnt that what schopenhaurt tried to do? , failing because of pessimism on that score?
In modern times critique is very fashionable and popular, but it makes a philosopher not necessarily, not automatically better or even greater. In the first place critique is only critique; in the second place it may lead to a philosophical system, and it did in Kant’s case, but it did not in all cases after Hegel, thus it also did not in the cases Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
Erik asked: “Who is the better philosopher?” He did not ask: “Who is the better sympathiser?”
Persoanlly I can say (for example): “I am not a Kantian, I am not a Hegelian, I am not a Schopnehauerian / Nietzschean / Sloterdijkian” or the reverse; but as an Occidental human I have to say: “I am a Kantian, and I am a Hegelian”, because Kant and Hegel have influenced the Occidental culture vehemently but Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Sloterdijk merely a little bit.
When the German chancellor Helmut Schmidt met the Chinese communistic leader Mao Tsetung (Zedong) in the middle 1970’s, Mao Tsetung said to him: “You are a Kantian”; and Helmut Schmidt responded: “Yes, and you are a Konfuzian (Confucian)”. Kant is typical Occidental, Konfuzius (Confucius) is typical Chinese - each of both influenced his culture more than anyone else of his culture. And by the way: Mao Tsetung, although he was a communist (thus an ideologist of an Occidental ideology), did not contradict Helmut Schmidt.
Now, please replace Kantian by Nietzschean and Konfuzian by Hanfeizian …! Do you even know the last one?
I am very certain your above view [Nietzsche lambasted] is a straw man. Kant did assume and postulate but not to degrade the physical world in favor of some supernatural. There is nothing wrong is assuming and postulating as long as one qualified that transparently. To Kant, what is wrong is to take the thing-in-itself as real, and that is an illusion and if done persistently, it is delusional [e.g. God and/or soul as real].
Nietzsche criticized Kant on a range of ideas merely based on Schopenhauer’s writings and critique of Kant.
It is speculated he read Kant’s third Critique of Judgment but no mentions anywhere he read the full range of Kant’s work. As such I would not give too much credibility on the soundness N’s critique of Kant.
I think N may not even knew Kant assumed or postulated the thing-in-itself.
Here is how Kant assumed and utilized the Noumenon;
Negative employment* meant one can assume or postulate the Noumenon as some thing for some function/purpose, but one CANNOT take it as real.
This principle is applied throughout Kant’s work even when he is seemingly deliberating the thing-in-itself as if it is real.
Kant warned there is a very powerful natural inherent unavoidable impulse embedded within all humans to take the thing-in-itself as really real, thus vulnerable to being delusional.
Note, in many instances Kant factor in the idea of God and a casual [or a not serious] reader will think Kant is taking God for real without aware of Kant’s qualification ‘only negative employment.’ However, Kant is aware of his above warning not to take God [the potential illusion] as real.
As I mentioned above, there is nothing wrong is assuming and postulating as long as one qualified that transparently.
Science assumed a kind of perfection, i.e. principle of uniformity throughout the universe to ensure the related scientific theory is sound and works.
Note the concept of ‘Zero Defects’
The assumption that such an ideal is achievable and strive for it is merely to increase efficiency and profits. It does not mean one will achieve actual zero defects all the time.
So Kant’s concept and idea of the Noumenon aka Thing-in-itself is similar to what Science and others are assuming perfection and the ideals to facilitate greater improvements or understanding of reality.
It is claimed, one can get an enhanced sexual experience by fantasizing [in a way assuming] sex with a perfect woman [of perfect beauty, etc.] or man [some fantasize a perfect God].
Even N himself assumed and postulated the ideal Übermensch to facilitate and consumate his philosophy.
So there is no big issue if one assumes, postulates, fantasize as long as one know what one is doing and do not take them for real.
Note the thread of ‘Szchizotypalism’ which is the various degrees of taking the unreal for real.
I noted many of N’s philosophies are in alignment with Kant’s philosophy, but N’s philosophical ideas made up of a very partial portion of Kant’s full framework.
*Kant did discuss the thing-in-itself in another very refined perspective in a seemingly ‘positive sense’ but it is very nuanced and one has to do very detailed reflection to steer it back to its ultimate ‘negative sense’ to avoid being delusional. It is not advisable to jump into this point less one has a good grasp of a greater range of Kant’s philosophy.
The difference between N and Schopenhauer is S take the thing-in-itself, i.e. the Will as real within oneself as manifestation of the greater Will. This is similar to pantheism.
From what I had read, N’s will-to-power is confined to the self and not extended any further.
Kant’s thing-in-itself is extended [not in any real sense] from the self and the empirical world but it is merely assumed and postulated for various purposes. Any attempts to reify the thing-in-itself is illusory and delusional.
Nothing can be known about the Neumenon, it is not real, and it can only be used purely negative?
But he does use it to postelate free will, pure reason and… to derive his whole morals from.
Since Kant derives his morals only from his fantasy, we can savely ignore them i think.
And Prismatic, you keep stating that i misunderstand Kant and am merely using stawmen, but i am the one giving actual textual evidence for my claim.
In the end your argument only really amounts to an appeal to authority. Kant is a famous posterboy philosopher and he says he awoke from his dogmatic slumber, and went on to reconcile empirism and rationalism… so it must be true.
It’s right there in his work of morals that suppositely came after he awoke from his dogmatic slumber… the moral laws themself need to be derived from pure reason, and experience has to be kept out of it.
Now how messed up is that, that when determining the rules we should live by, we shouldn’t look at how the actual world opperates.
[size=120]Please show me your moral, if it both works and is not deducible / derivable from Kant’s Categorical Imperative.
Note: Kant’s Categorical Imperative is expandable.[/size]
What do you mean ‘both works and not derivable for the Categorical imperative’? If it has to work, it better not be deduced from the CI… because that sure doesn’t work.
And no, i’m not going to show you my moral, this thread is not about me. Before you go on to say you need to formule an alternative… no i don’t. If Kant’s system doesn’t work, it all of sudden doesn’t start to work if there is no alternative. It just doesn’t work, and it can be said that it doesn’t work without presenting a whole other moral system.
Also i think you have the wrong idea about philosophy. Philosophy isn’t about building a system… it’s about finding your way out of the system. Socrates originally questioned the Greek Gods and the arbitrary imposed morals that came with it. That’s what it is about, about questioning the societal imposed norms you happen to find yourself confronted with, reëvaluating them and replacing them with your own view on how to live. It’s first and foremost a personal endeavour. Building universally applicable morals and metaphysical systems to found those, is something for party ideologues, priests, politicans and other people in power… who need to device ways to crowd control.
No. Not Kant as a philosopher but, if at all, the philosophy as a philosophy failed, or, in other words, Kant was the first philosopher who showed that also the philosophy can come to an end. After having its climax the philosophy became more and more redundant and at last something like a „pensioner“. It was not a coincidence that Kant was a contemporary of Mozart, Hegel a contemporary of Beethoven, and Nietzsche a contemporary of Brahms - and by the way: Sloterdijk is a contemporary of Zappa, and Ecmandu a contemporary of Eminem. 
I mean that you or anybody else should show me any moral which both works and is not derivable from Kant’s Categorical imperative.
And therefore you should show me a (for example: your) moral, if it both works and is not derivable from Kant’s Categorical imperative.
Yes, Diekon, this thread is not about you.
I meant that you should show me a (for example: your) moral, if it both works and is not derivable from Kant’s Categorical imperative.
No, that’s merely nihilistic philosophy, thus nihilism, and of that sort we have already enough. There is no way out of nihlism, if nihlism is already entered.
No, that’s again social critcism, thus again nihilism, merely nihlistic philosophy. You have the wrong idea about philosophy.
If we all would think and act in the sense you are prefering, then in the end (consequently) there will be no philosophy anymore. Everything and anything would be sociology, nothing would be philosophy anymore. We are already on this “trip”.
No, because then most people would say (like you): “This thread is not about me”.
They would say “I want to have every and any right because I am the victim”. Look at the so-called “human rights”. They all begin with the word “one” or the word “everyone”. Do they work? Does individualism ()extreme egoism) really work? And are they not derivable from Kant’s Categorical imperative?
“Party ideologues, priests, politicians, and other people in power”? Like I said: social criticism and sociology, thus nihilism. I say: primarily philosophers should do it, and they should not be allowed to get money for it.
Another straw-man.
If you insist you understand the Kantian Moral/Ethics system, show a simple example of how it is done and why it don’t work.
Note I mentioned the Kantian process is leveraged upon experience [though not stated explicitly by Kant] and the moral law is formulated as independent of experience [in contrast to Hume’s psychological association, customs and habits that are dependent on experience.], then applied in parallel to the actual world.
Note that the ILP (1) was formed with the Kant imperatives (1-10) in mind (although not from Kant at the time). It is a “universal law” for any life form focused on ensuring the self while also ensuring maximum momentous harmony with the environment - the most stable, strong, and joyful existence possible, similar too, but not identically the same, as the Buddhist and Christian concept of Heaven on Earth, but far more enduring.
If it is to be something in alignment with the Kantian system it would be as follows;
A. The Categorical Imperative -Formulation 1
(1) “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”
(2) - (5) …
…
B. The Maxims/Laws/Rules to be acted upon
(1) “Know Thyself”
(2) “Be revolutionary.”
(3) “Trust in the absolute spirit and the dialectic processes.”
(4) “Relinquish.”
(5) “Be yourself.”
(6) “Persevere.”
(7) “Be autarkic as much as you can.”
(8) “Take care of you, your relatives and dependents, your surrounding and ecological environment.”
(9) “Participate in the discourse.”
(10) “Take care of your foam, because you live in it.”
(11) Others …
Note this section can be quite complex and need further deliberations to refine and simplify within a system, otherwise it is impossible to deal with the full details within the infinite diversified empirical world.
…
C. Check to ensure all your Maxims comply with A.
D. Implement and apply the Maxims, Laws and Rules in the actual world
[b]E. Measure gap/variance between C and D
F. Introduce strategies to close the gap in E
G. Review to maintain overall system from A-F[/b]
What is complicated about the Kantian system is how to ground and justify every element and the full implementation of the overall system.
Yo Prismatic,
What do you think of Fichte’s metaphysics in comparison to Schelling’s? Do you see any merit in either of their philosophies, or did they deviate from Kant in error?
As with Kant I had always insisted one is not qualified to comment on Kant unless one had delved into his philosophy via his original works thoroughly.
I had not dig deep into Fichte’s and Schelling’s original works. Thus I would have to provide reservation when commenting on them.
I noted Ficthe’s central view on Kant is this;
If this is what Ficthe meant, then he has misunderstood Kant re thing-in-itself.
Kant never considered the thing-in-itself as mind-independent, external ‘cause’ of sensation. He has no way of inferring that. Kant starts from outer world of experience, the human condition [Copernican Revolution] and link them interdependently to the assumed thing-in-itself.
At present, I do not have Schelling’s views within my grasp, thus will have to refresh and research further to give any credible views on him. However I don’t think I will divert resources to it unless someone show something very convincing from Schelling.
prismatic, regardless of whether the thing in itself is dependent or independent of human thoughts , it is closed. The distinction becomes totally irrelevant. the main thing is, that it is closed system, and it’s closure is not attributable to what source the closure is to be accounted to. Predecessor philosophers may, also,have views on this, which do or do not relate to such an idea, but even within this view, such preceding views, and the degree to which, they may have been inffluential on Kant is immaterial.
In this case I do not want to venture to say it is ‘closed’ or ‘open’ as that lead to an infinite regress, i.e. 'what is behind the ‘closed.’
As one of the many uses, Kant justified the idea of the Noumenom [thing-in-itself] rationally to deal with the infinite regress on Negative basis and, thus thwart and give no room for theists to jump in and insist on a real first cause. For Kant, to insist on a positively real first cause is illusory.
This is fast becoming pointless if you going yell strawman every time.
To restate, my basic problem with the CI is that Kant doesn’t present an actual argument for it. It pretty much all follows from definition. “A moral law is a law, and therefore needs to be universal and derived from reason only, etc…” If you don’t buy into his metaphysical jumbling with mere definitions of words, there is no reason to accept any of it. Why use the CI, and not - to give but one example - Nietzsche’s twist on it in the eternal recurrence?
As for practical concerns for why the CI doesn’t work, or at least is of no real use, I think the Artful Pauper did a pretty good job. The CI just doesn’t say alot. If you come up with some maxim (like killing is not permissible), you immediately need to amend it with a host of exception for it to have any use in the real world. The real content comes from experience with real world situations. And it’s not like we can’t come up with some general principle without using the CI.
So in the end I’m stuck with the same question and no real answer : why the CI?
So your argument is that there is something like social criticism, and it’s nihilistic… and therefor philosophy cannot be that. You argue like Kant from definition.
You know, the root of Nihilism, is not some criticism on the societal system, but the allready present lack of belief in the societal promoted values… because the values end up being hollow. God is dead because people killed him. The philosopher, or societal critic if you really will, merely reports that God is in fact dead. He’s the doctor diagnosing society. To find a cure, it doesn’t suffice to desparately try to stitch together the deceased corpse and hope that it will magically come back to live, like Kant does. You need to dispose of it alltogether, to create space for something new…
As a side note, no the human rights don’t really work, there is contradiction abound… and one doesn’t have the power to enforced the rights that are given in the declarations.
Double post.