Kant vs Nietzsche

[James S Saint]

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.

[Prismatic567]

From another thread:

Here are some examples of modern Occidental imperatives like Kant's categorical imperative and other's imperatives:
(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) "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 dependants, your surrounding and ecolgical environment."
(9) "Participate in the discourse."
(10) "Take care of your foam, because you live in it."
....

Modern imperatives of ILP members:
....
(I) "Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony."
(II) "Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them."
(III) "The important thing is KINDNESS."
....

What do you think about that?

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

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

What is complicated about the Kantian system is how to ground and justify every element and the full implementation of the overall system.

[Erik_]

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?

[Prismatic567]

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;

First of all, he [Ficthe] argued that the very concept of a “thing in itself,” understood as a mind-independent, external “cause” of sensations, is indefensible on Critical grounds.

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.

[Orbie]

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.

[Prismatic567]

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.

[Diekon]

And Prismatic, you keep stating that i misunderstand Kant and am merely using strawmen, 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 operates.

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.

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?

[Diekon]

Sure, but Kant apparently didn't use his understanding of the world to better decide his actions... he ended up with the categorical imperative.

I mean, if that is the actual goal of philosophy, it seems that he failed as a philosopher.

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.

What do you mean 'both works and not derivable for the Categorical imperative'?

I mean that you or anybody else should show me any moral which both works and is not derivable from Kant's Categorical imperative.

If it has to work, it better not be deduced from the CI... because that sure doesn't work.

And therefore you should show me a (for example: your) moral, if it both works and is not derivable from Kant's Categorical imperative.

And no, i'm not going to show you my moral, this thread is not about me.

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.

Philosophy isn't about building a system... it's about finding your way out of the system.

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.

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.

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".

It's first and foremost a personal endeavour.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

[Diekon]

Double post.

[Arminius]

So your argument is that there is something like social criticism, and it's nihilistic ....

It is not my "Argument", it is an historical fact.

... and therefor philosophy cannot be that.

No. Therfore nihilistic philosophy can not be an entire philosophy and has to remain something like criticism, skepticism .... and so on. I am not complainin about this much but referring to the topic of this thread and saying that philosophy is the better means than criticism, skepticism .... and so on, but if we do not have any other possibility, then we have to accept it.

You argue like Kant from definition.

Really?

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.

I hope you are not referring to Nietzsche, because: long before Nietzsche was born there was alraedy nihilism. Nihilism began in the end of the 18th century or the beginning of the 19th century, thus, let's say, nihilism began about 1800.

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.

Who is "the doctor diagnosing society"? I think, you are again referring to social criticism, aren't you? A social critic or a nihilist nihilistic philosopher is not the better philosopher (and this is the question of this thread) but merely the better cocial critic or nihilistic philosopher. It's simple. You only have to refer to the topic of this thread.

You need to dispose of it alltogether, to create space for something new...

No. I do not need to, but I can "dispose of it alltogether, to create space for something new". If all current humans would "create space for something new", then there were perhaps already no humans anymore.

.... The human rights don't really work, there is contradiction abound .....

So, in that point, you agree with me. That's fine.

[Diekon]

You are leaving out the reëvaluation part, i never said a philosopher should only criticize, but it will be an important part of it. There is the sceptic deflationary part and also the constructive positing of his own values. You (the philosopher, not you specifically!) cannot build on unsolid ground to good result. The philosopher is the doctor diagnosing... and looking for a cure.

The god is dead reference is ofcourse a reference to Nietzsche... and i don't see the problem as he didn't say he died at that exact moment, he was allready dead (for a while), people just hadn't got the memo yet.

[Arminius]

Look, you are leaving out the reëvaluation part ....

No. I am not "leaving out the reëvaluation part". Please read ort reread my posts.

I never said a philosopher should only criticize, but it will be an important part of it.

Yes, unfortunately, because it is too much criticism. The more criticicsm or nihilism the less philosophy you have. You have to accept the historical facts. You can not have both non-philosophy and philosophy.

There is the sceptic deflationary part and also the constructive positing of his own values.

No one of those skepticists has ever achieved and will never achieve such a huge influence that Kant has achieved. And that belongs to the answer of the question in the topic of this thread. I remind you again: please refer to the topic. This little philosophers you mean are dwarfs in comparison to Kant.

You (the philosopher, not you specifically!) cannot build on unsolid ground to good result. The philosopher is the doctor diagnosing... and looking for a cure.

Nietzsche said that - and I like it very much -, but that does not mean that it is always (for ever, ad infinitum) right. It depends on the time and space humans live in.

The god is dead reference is of course a reference to Nietzsche... and i don't see the problem as he didn't say he died at that exact moment, he was allready dead (for a while), people just hadn't got the memo yet.

They had got the memo. An example: In the 1790's Johann Gottlieb Fichte was accused of atheism. And because of this Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi used also the word „Nihilismus“ („nihilism“) in his „Sendschreiben an Fichte“ (1799). I know for a fact that at least since then the God-is-dead-philosophem has been knowing and keeping in mind. Later, Nietzsche just repeated it, but he did it with much language violence, because he was powerfully eloquent.

[Diekon]

I don't agree with your characterisation of non-philosophy and philosophy. Criticism is intrinsically tied into philosophy, it's not non-philosophy. I don't think you can get good philosophy without it. If it were that simple you could just build whatever arbitrary thing and call it philosophy.

Influence isn't the only, or even the most important, criterium for a good philosopher. A good philosopher has both aspects, he reëvaluates which implies a certain scepsis and a creative act.

And some got the memo, but most didn't. Kant for example didn't really get the memo, nor did the whole tradition that followed him. And if they did get the memo, they certainly didn't fully realise all the ramification of it. Nietzsche was the first to do that... to do philosophy without metaphysics.

[Arminius]

I don't agree with your characterisation of non-philosophy and philosophy.

That was not a "characterisation" but a statement that you can not have both non-philosophy and philosophy. That is logical, even tautolgical: A non-philosophy can not also be a philosophy. That is impossible. Either "It rains" or "it does not rain" - both is not possible.

Philosophy contains logic, Diekon. Is ILP a philosophy forum or not?

Criticism is intrinsically tied into philosophy, it's not non-philosophy.

I did not say that criticism has nothing to do with philosophy, but I said: if criticism is merely nihilism or turns its fury on philosophy, then it is not a part of philosophy anymore.

Have you really read my posts?

I don't think you can get good philosophy without it. If it were that simple you could just build whatever arbitrary thing and call it philosophy.

Again: I did not say that criticism has nothing to do with philosophy, but I said: if criticism is merely nihilism or turns its fury on philosophy, then it is not a part of philosophy anymore. Modern criticisms are often advertised as philosophy, although most of them are obviously not philosophy. That is the problem. We do not have too much philosophy - we have too little philosophy. That's why I joined ILP, b.t.w..

Influence isn't the only, or even the most important, criterium for a good philosopher. A good philosopher has both aspects, he reëvaluates which implies a certain scepsis and a creative act.

Did I say that a philosopher has nothing to do with reevaluation or skepsis? No. I did not.

Be honest: you do not want Kant to be the greatest philosopher. Not your or anybody else's "opinion" but the history itself decides about the greatness of a philosopher. You do not accept historical facts. That's all.

And some got the memo, but most didn't.

Some are enough. There have always been merely some with an interest in getting a memo. Most have always been not interested in philosophy. So why should they have got the memo? It's just irrelevant.

Kant for example didn't really get the memo, nor did the whole tradition that followed him.

That is not true.

And if they did get the memo, they certainly didn't fully realise all the ramification of it.

That is also not true. I think you do not know much about Kant and Kantians, Neo-Kantians, Neo-Neo-Kantians.

Nietzsche was the first to do that... to do philosophy without metaphysics.

And already about 20 years after his death metaphysics returned (was it because of the eternal recurrence? ).

[Diekon]

Yeah some never seem to get the memo... I'm done here.

[Sauwelios]

Influence isn't the only, or even the most important, criterium for a good philosopher. A good philosopher has both aspects, he reëvaluates which implies a certain scepsis and a creative act.

Did I say that a philosopher has nothing to do with reevaluation or skepsis? No. I did not.

Be honest: you do not want Kant to be the greatest philosopher.

Yes and no. Yes, that goes for all of us: I want Nietzsche to be the greatest philosopher, and you want Kant to be the greatest philosopher. But because Nietzsche would, in sharp contrast with Kant, actually affirm this, he is the greatest philosopher.

Not your or anybody else's "opinion" but the history itself decides about the greatness of a philosopher. You do not accept historical facts. That's all.

Even if there were such a thing as a fact, that depends on what you mean by "greatness". You seem to mean "influence". I therefore give you an excerpt of an old post of mine:

It does not matter what he [in this case Jesus] was to others.

Then you have a very simple sense of value. Where do you see value in life? Is the value of your life the value YOU assign it? If so, who wouldn't value their own life beyond measure? Even the most deplorable would do so... TRUE value, or the only meaningful value, is the value OTHERS assign your life.

This is obviously(?) completely un-Nietzschean. I'm immediately reminded of a passage that supports my position:

The best example of the degree to which a plebeian agitator of the mob is incapable of comprehending the concept "higher nature" is provided by Buckle. The view he combats so passionately---that "great men," individuals, princes, statesmen, geniuses, generals are the levers and causes of all great movements---is instinctively misunderstood by him, as if it meant that what is essential and valuable in such "higher men" were their capacity for setting masses in motion: in short, their effect.
But the "higher nature" of the great man lies in being different, in incommunicability, in distance of rank, not in an effect of any kind---even if he made the whole globe tremble.
[WP 876, entire.]

Note that the editor and translator of the English translation, Walter Kaufmann, adds the following footnote to this passage as a whole:

The misunderstanding attacked here is widespread among those who have attempted popular expositions of Nietzsche. Again and again, the view he castigates has been attributed to him.

By the way, it works both ways: men who "make the whole globe tremble" do not have to be great men:

The founder of a religion can be insignificant---a match, no more!
[WP 178, entire.]

Who do you think Nietzsche is referring to here? But there cannot be any doubt:

Consider with what degree of freedom Paul treats, indeed almost juggles with, the problem of the person of Jesus: someone who died, who was seen again after his death, who was delivered over to death by the Jews--- A mere "motif": he then wrote the music to it--- A zero in the beginning.
[WP 177.]

So far Nietzsche's position in regard to the value of human beings. Or wait---that reminds me:

[E]very human being, with his total activity, only has dignity in so far as he is a tool of the genius, consciously or unconsciously; from this we may immediately deduce the ethical conclusion, that "man in himself," the absolute man possesses neither dignity, nor rights, nor duties[.]
[Nietzsche, The Greek State.]

Okay, so far Nietzsche's position etc. I subscribe to his position, but I want to provide my own argument against yours. You say:

TRUE value, or the only meaningful value, is the value OTHERS assign your life.

If that goes for all men, the only meaningful value a man has is that assigned to him by other men. But those other men are then also worthless in themselves. So you're saying the assignment of value to one another by inherently worthless beings is somehow capable of making them all worthful, i.e., valuable. This is irrational, of course.

No, we cannot do without a being who has value in and of himself. "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Is a human being assigned value by others because he is inherently valuable, or is he valuable because he is assigned value by others? Either the one assigned value must be valuable in himself, or those who assign value to him must be valuable in themselves. [http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2079122#p2079122]

Nietzsche was the first to do that... to do philosophy without metaphysics.

And already about 20 years after his death metaphysics returned (was it because of the eternal recurrence? :wink: ).

No, it was not eternal recurrence, nor even historical recurrence; it was merely a shadow of the dead God (compare section 108 of The Gay Science).

[Diekon]

It's good that you brought this up Sauwelios, because i hadn't really thought about it much further when i wrote my response. I kinda just assumed what i wrote.

Thinking about it some more, maybe a useful way to look at it is throught concepts used in poker. Playing a hand of poker you need to evaluate at every stage whether or not you want to put your money in. It's an evaluation you make based on a calculation of odds and incomplete information. A good decision, is a decision that gives you positive expected value at the time you needed to make the desicion. But because it's a game of odds and incomplete information, you can allways loose the hand even if you made a good decision. You loosing the hand, doesn't make the decision bad retrospectively, because at the time you didn't have that information. If you'd base your future decisions on what the results happened to be, you are going to start to loose a lot more. Results-oriented thinking is a big no no in poker.

Tying it back to philosophy and value... I guess in the evaluation of a work of philosophy, i'm going to filter out what an author could actually do to at the time of writing. Quality of arguments, method, technique, originality of ideas, knowledge of the subject given the times, style,... all these things matter. And what influence it had only is an indicator insofar there are people reading it that know something about philosophy. Ultimatly chance plays a large part in what makes something influencial or not. Because it's something you don't have much control over as an author(it's not a solid value), i don't think one should put to much value on it.

Nietzsche is i think the better philosopher simply because his works are a lot better in a lot of these aspects.

[Prismatic567]

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.

This is fast becoming pointless if you going yell strawman every time.

Isn't that a fair request?

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?

Did any other philosophers provide an actual argument for their moral/ethical system?
What Kant did was he provided sound and reasonable justifications from various angles to support his moral/ethical system with the CI therein.

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.

This is what I meant, another straw man again because you have not a thorough knowledge of how Kant moral/ethical system works.
I have stated many times, Kant moral/ethical system comprised theory and its use in the real world. So why is the complain about adapting the CI to the real world.

I have already given a lot of draft examples on how Kant moral/ethical system works but you did not seem to understand nor did not read them.

Note, earlier I listed this draft process of how the Kantian system would work, i.e.
viewtopic.php?p=2530896#p2530896

A. The Categorical Imperative
Formulation (1) "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."
Formulation (2) - (5) to note.
............................................................

B. The Maxims/Laws/Rules to be acted upon
(1) ....
(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 in B comply with A.
D. Implement and apply the Maxims, Laws and Rules in the actual world
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

Do you have any issue with the above?

When we set the general maxim, 'killing is not permissible,' it is in alignment with A, the CI [note 5 of them].
Based on an iterative control loop form A-F, it will be natural to adapt it [without changing the original obligatory maxim] to the varied real world.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
The CI and Maxim are very useful as benchmarks in telling us that we need further constant improvements within the real world as situation changes.

Note the zero defect example I gave earlier.

So in the end I'm stuck with the same question and no real answer : why the CI?

I have given you the reason for the CI, i.e. it is an ideal benchmark for humanity to strive towards. Of course the ideal is not expected to be achieved at all times, but such a benchmark is a 'push factor' to enable continuous improvement at every optimal point.

The other reason why the CI is necessary because the CI as a guide is based on reason which is more preferable than any thing that is based primarily on emotions and subjective feelings, e.g. utilitarianism and consequentialism ethical system.
For any actions, there must be a good "reason." However in general a 'good' reason influenced by psychological feelings in not good enough. As such we have to rely on the best or highest possible reason, i.e. pure reason.

Note the other formulations of the CI assume all normal human beings within the ethical community [Kingdom of Ends] are perfect individuals who collectively formulate the necessary Law, rules and maxim acting on the basis of absolute freewill. Btw, I am not interested to discuss these more complicated elements till you are really familiar and understand [not necessary agree] them.

[Sauwelios]

Prismatic, when will you reply to The Artful Pauper's last reply to you, in which I think he raised all the pertinent questions begged by your last reply to me?

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic, when will you reply to The Artful Pauper's last reply to you, in which I think he raised all the pertinent questions begged by your last reply to me?

Which one?

[Sauwelios]

Prismatic, when will you reply to The Artful Pauper's last reply to you, in which I think he raised all the pertinent questions begged by your last reply to me?

Which one?

This one: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2530257#p2530257

[Diekon]

Did any other philosophers provide an actual argument for their moral/ethical system?
What Kant did was he provided sound and reasonable justifications from various angles to support his moral/ethical system with the CI therein.

Yes some other philosophers did provide actual arguments. A lot of Nietzsche deals precisely with that question, with the value of morality.

You say Kant provides sound and reasonable justifications for his moral/ethical system... maybe he has for some other parts of his system, but i don't think he has one for the CI, which is of key importance i'd think becaue it's where he starts and how he determines the basic moral laws. I doubt his moral system still works if you don't accept the CI.

He kinda just deduces it from the definition of a moral law. That is only a tautology, not a justification.

This is what I meant, another straw man again because you have not a thorough knowledge of how Kant moral/ethical system works.
I have stated many times, Kant moral/ethical system comprised theory and its use in the real world. So why is the complain about adapting the CI to the real world.

I have already given a lot of draft examples on how Kant moral/ethical system works but you did not seem to understand nor did not read them.

Note, earlier I listed this draft process of how the Kantian system would work, i.e.
viewtopic.php?p=2530896#p2530896

A. The Categorical Imperative
Formulation (1) "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."
Formulation (2) - (5) to note.
............................................................

Do you have any issue with the above?

Yeah, i mean i have an issue with the CI, and i don't think i can follow him further if i don't accept that. I think if we were to determine moral laws, we shouldn't start with the CI. They should reflect from the start at least some of our inner and outer experiences... e.g. we come up with moral laws like killing is wrong, because killing harms people and it has been shown to lead to more violence, and we want to do something to prevent that.

So in the end I'm stuck with the same question and no real answer : why the CI?

I have given you the reason for the CI, i.e. it is an ideal benchmark for humanity to strive towards. Of course the ideal is not expected to be achieved at all times, but such a benchmark is a 'push factor' to enable continuous improvement at every optimal point.

The other reason why the CI is necessary because the CI as a guide is based on reason which is more preferable than any thing that is based primarily on emotions and subjective feelings, e.g. utilitarianism and consequentialism ethical system.
For any actions, there must be a good "reason." However in general a 'good' reason influenced by psychological feelings in not good enough. As such we have to rely on the best or highest possible reason, i.e. pure reason.

Note the other formulations of the CI assume all normal human beings within the ethical community [Kingdom of Ends] are perfect individuals who collectively formulate the necessary Law, rules and maxim acting on the basis of absolute freewill. Btw, I am not interested to discuss these more complicated elements till you are really familiar and understand [not necessary agree] them.

But emotions and feelings are the core of humans valuing things. I don't think you can just cut them out. Reason by itself is empty, and doesn't tell us much on it's own (I probably disagree with Kant's metaphysics here)... don't you think it's strange to start from there?

[Arminius]

Did I say that a philosopher has nothing to do with reevaluation or skepsis? No. I did not.

Be honest: you do not want Kant to be the greatest philosopher.

Yes and no.

No, only no.

Yes, that goes for all of us: I want Nietzsche to be the greatest philosopher, and you want Kant to be the greatest philosopher.

No. I do not want Kant to be the greatest philosopher, but history has proved that Kant is the greatest philosopher. I only repeat what history has decided.

But because Nietzsche would, in sharp contrast with Kant, actually affirm this, he is the greatest philosopher.

That's no argument.

Like I said: you and all the other Nietzschean(ist)s want Nietzsche (the little mouse) to be the greatest philosopher (the greatest elephant), and that is also a good joke.

When I joned ILP, my sympathy with Nietzsche was about 70%; now it is about 40%. That's the merit of the ILP Nietzscheanists (extreme Nietzscheans). Thank you very much!

Are you a Nietzschean(ist)?

(1) Yes, I am a Nietzschean.
(2) Yes, I am even a Nietzscheanist (extreme Nietzschean).
(3) No.
(4) No, and I hate Nietzscheanists.
(5) No, and I hate both Nietzscheanists and Nietzscheans.
(6) No, and I hate Nietzscheanists, Nietzscheans, and Nietzsche.
(7) I do not know.
(8) I do even not know who Nietzsche is.

You, Sauwelios, are a Nietzschean (=> 1) or even a Nietzscheanist (=> 2).

It's your funeral! But the question in the op of this thread is not "Who is the greater sympathiser?" but "Who is the greatest philosopher?". I am not a Kantian; I am an historian, in this case: an historian of philosophy.

So you are prejudiced, biased.

I am not a Kantian, and I am not a Nietzschean (because of the Nietzscheanists - again: thank you very much).


"Who ...?"

[Prismatic567]

The Artful Pauper, sorry I totally missed this.

Prismatic567 wrote: Willed as a Universal Law meant it is applicable to all normal rational person. In principle [note principle] if all [universally] normal rational person applies this [permitted to kill others], then it will lead to the eventual extinction of the human species after the last person is dead.

You repeat this without demonstration. I have already shown above it is incorrect. See below:

Prismatic567 wrote:Your examples are not applicable as you are conflating 'Ought' with "IS." What is needed is a reconciliation of 'ought' with "is" not a conflation of them.
As I mentioned, in principle, if killing is permissible to all people, then, the final result is the extinction of the human specie.
In contrast, if killing is not permissible, then there is no threat to the human specie as a far as 'killing' is concerned.

What I am saying is that in the way you have formulated the imperative about killing, there is no ought involved (which is not to conflate ought and is).
You say, if "killing is permissible" is willed by people it will result in the extinction of humanity.
I am saying, in the context of the example you gave, the imperative "killing is permissible" does not imply an ought.
To bring ought into this context would mean framing the imperative as "you should kill". But even that does not imply that one will kill, so in that case I would not be conflating ought and is either, I would be separating them.
The only way for an imperative to necessitate killing (melding the ought of an imperative with an is) would be if it was phrased as something like "Kill" in the sense of a demand, which was then willed as an imperative.

What I had said (which it seems kind of strange to restate it because I thought it was clear) is that, just because it to be permissible does not mean that it is necessary.

So, the imperative that it is permissible to kill does not necessitate the result that people will kill each other. Which is separating the is from the ought, not conflating them.
Saying that killing is permissible is equivalent to saying "You can kill", can is different than ought (should), and will.
I can kill this person — I should kill this person — I will kill this person.
I am separating them. On the contrary, I would assert that you are conflating can and will (They can kill each other with they will kill each other).

I think you missed my point.
What I implied was if we are to find out whether ‘killing is permissible’ can be an acceptable maxim, then we have to test it against the Categorical Imperative, in this case Formulation 1 which states;
F1: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time WILL that it should become a universal law without contradiction.
To test ‘killing is permissible’ is acceptable, we have to assume it to be an ‘ought’ in principle or theoretically.
Theoretically, when we implement this maxim fully, it will possibly lead to the extinction of the human specie.
Therefore ‘killing is permissible’ cannot be accepted as a maxim in alignment with the CI [condition F1 – note there are 5 conditions].
In this case, exceptions are not applicable, as long as there is a possibility then it cannot be an acceptable moral maxim.
I hope you get my point as when I first presented it.

Prismatic567 wrote:For example, there is a perfect triangle within Pure Geometry in theory and measurements but there will not be any perfect triangle in empirical reality.
Similarly, we can postulate and assume ideal and perfect absolute moral principles, i.e. the Categorical Imperative, but we do not expect the CI to exist in empirical reality.

You seem to be implying here that the categorical imperative is for use as some kind of measuring or gauging tool, but I don't think these two are comparable in a useful sense.

The application of the concept of triangles in empirical situations is based off other criteria than the model of equilateral triangles. If an equilateral triangle was necessary by application it would be determined in the context of the situation, not by the foreknowledge of its existence as an imperative to use equilateral triangles.
In this sense I question the usefulness of the categorical imperative. You say:

Prismatic567 wrote:To reconcile and align actual practice with the CI we need to introduce Maxims that are aligned as near as possible to the CI.
We may start the maxim with 'No killing is permissible.'
But we know this is not realistic in practice.
So we add a provision to the Maxim with a Law,
'Killing is permissible only with the following exceptions'
It is then up to the judiciary to deal with such exceptions.

and by saying so you mean that we address the empirical reality with reasoning (which in your statement above would be done by whichever parties would formulate exceptions and by the judiciary). If the categorical imperatives are just to be put aside as empirical reality approaches, there is no real reason for creating them in the first place. All one would really need is a goal or conclusion in order to examine the situation and decide on the best course of action to reach that goal or conclusion, and the categorical imperative can be done away with entirely. But it is first up to reason to decide what constitutes a worthwhile goal and consider whether diverse held goals contradict each other.

The above are merely example to give you an idea of how it works in a limited sense. Here is a comment from Allen Wood.

The primary function of a Fundamental Principle of Morality is not to tell us what to do, but instead to provide a basic framework, or Value-oriented background, for Justifying, Modifying, and Applying the more particular Rules or precepts of Morality.

Kant had justified why moral precepts based on common reasons and other pragmatic reason are not efficient. Rather he argued the most effective is a system that rely on moral principles that are based on reason’s reason, i.e. the Categorical Imperative [note 5 Formulations].

Prismatic567 wrote:The positive direction is the setting of the CI establish a fixed goal post to modulate and improve on actual ethical conditions.
When the Maxim is 'No killing is permissible, ' i.e. Zero,
then there is a benchmark for the executive to manage the variance between zero and the actual number of killings.
Say, the number of actual killings is 100,000 in 2015.
We will analyze the root cause of these killing and find preventive measure to reduce the number to as close as possible to the [quite] impossible ought of zero.

Here you say something similar to what I've said above, in terms of setting a goal, but what I am saying is that the categorical imperative is not needed for what you have set as your conclusion to the process:

"We will analyze the root cause of these killing and find preventive measure to reduce the number to as close as possible to the [quite] impossible ought of zero."

This is an argument for the analytic process, and my argument is also for the analytic process which is used to decide goals (the what and the why) and figure out how the goals can be achieved in empirical situations. The categorical imperative seems like an extra addition without real use, because the goal has already been set by which the outcome (and by relation to the outcome the modes of action) is measured.

What I am taking issue with is the assertion that there should be some need to create a categorical imperative, which we immediately disregard based on "empirical reality", why not just skip the categorical imperative and simply use the critical and analytic faculties (which to my mind are going to be determined by irrational desires) to decide on a goal, analyze the empirical factors to generate solutions, then measure the solutions based by weighing the outcome against the goal, with consideration of empirical factors?

Btw, Kant is not ignoring “empirical reality” but has delegate this aspect to the applied, i.e. applied anthropology to deal with empirical reality.
DNA wise humans are 96/98% beast, Kant is aware of this intuitively and inductively and he understand that moral principles that are empirical-based are vulnerable to the corruption of a radical evil from the ‘beast’ in humans.
Now, humans has evolved with a faculty of reason, so we should use the best that reason can give, i.e. the reason-based categorical imperative.
Kant is also aware of the empirical-based ethical systems of his days and he came up with a system that avoided all their pitfalls and limitations.
In a way, Kant’s moral/ethical system provides a over-view [helicopter view] over the ethics of the empirical world. In this case, his system cater for the best of both world, i.e. reason and empirical. That is what is he is famous for, epistemologically reconciling rationalism and empiricism, and therewith extending to the moral/ethical elements as well

Prismatic567 wrote: Applying the principle of the CI, genocide will lead to eventual human extinction. The CI will stand as a moral principle regardless. Thus the initial maxim is,
No genocide is permissible.
Theoretical: IF [big IF] genocide really necessary, the judiciary will then implement laws to cater for exception where genocide is necessary. In reality I don't think such a provision for genocide will ever be considered. Within the taxonomy of evil, genocide will be categorized as one of those with the highest degree of evil and obviously no compromise will be allowed.

My argument against this is the same as what I have given above against the categorical imperative, which is that if by some human reasoning we would forego the conclusions of the imperative, there is no reason for the imperative to begin with but only for the critical and analytical faculties be applied to empirical circumstances to accomplish an (analytically) chosen goal.

Note my reply re why reason + empirical based moral/ethical system is more superior to one that is focussed on the empirical with a limited use of reason.

Prismatic567 wrote:Re why the preservation of the specie is good, I have explained in my earlier post. It is like asking why breathing is good, i.e. a critical universal necessity. The test of whether something is good can be done by putting it through Formula 1 of the CI. If it lead to the extinction of the specie, then, it is not good. In other cases, the test is that of general reciprocity.
Btw, the formulation of the CI assume humans are normal rational people and thus exclude people who are mentally sick.

Breathing is a critical necessity for survival, but should we not subject even survival to rational inquiry to understand if and how survival is good?

I would personally maintain that humans are not at the base rational creatures, we are driven by irrational desires and subject to our instincts (survival being one of them). In this sense we can say "I desire life", but it does not follow that because we desire a thing it is good, else by the same reasoning whatever someone desired would be good which I think can be proven false by the fact that some of our desires contradict our own and those of others.

Also, what is a "normal" person? What criteria are you basing that on, is it on something like a majority of the population? If that is the case, if the majority of the population desired genocide or even human's extinction, would that then be normal? If not, could you please describe for me what criteria you are basing the classification "normal" on.

We can research into why survival is good. However, I don’t think there is room to compromise the otherwise in reality. Logically it is the only option if one is dead, at this point there is no sense in asking the question.
As I said, DNA wise all humans are beast fundamentally and actively. However based on observation and experience, one can infer human beings are evolving towards being more rational. On this basis, the Kantian moral/ethical system assumes all normal human being are rational creatures.
By ‘normal’ I meant of sound mind, i.e. to exclude the mentally sick as per the DSM-V to avoid someone bringing them into the discussion unnecessarily.

Prismatic567 wrote:Note the Law of Non-Contradiction imply same time and same sense.
There is no contradiction in my case as it involves two different senses, i.e.
1. the transcendental pure reason and
2. the empirical
I explained we can strive for perfect ideals [via pure reason] as merely a guide but such ideals are not achievable in empirical reality.

So now I have above posed a new question, which is, what is the need of what you call "transcendental pure reason" if we can deal analytically with empirical reality?
And I will add two more:
Where do the concepts that inform and compose the judgements of transcendental pure reason come from? (concepts such as normal, good, etc.)?
and,
How can we be sure that the concepts we are using in transcendent rational thought reflect the reality of the world around us in such a way as to make them useful?

The ideas of pure transcendental reason are extended from possible experience. Example the perfect man, zero defects in production, other perfect variables, etc. I a gave an example re the ideal target of zero defects in production of good.

For example if an organization accept defects of 30,000 per million because that is normal in the industry, then they will likely live with that level of defects all the time.
But if another organization is innovative and set their target of Zero defects, i.e. zero per million then this vision will push them to find new ways to achieve this quite impossible ideal. But the plus point is it give them the possibility of continuously reducing the defects level from 30,000 per million to lower levels as they ventured to research new techniques, technology, materials, skills etc.
This was already done in the real world and that was how the Japanese took over the American home products, cars, electrical etc. industry the last 60s to late 70s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Defects
There is hope we can do it with morality and ethics in the near future by incorporating principles from the Kantian system in tandem with advancing knowledge from the various fields.

Prismatic567 wrote: When an action/thought is in alignment with the categorical imperative, it is considered good.
If an action/thought is in misalignment with the categorical imperative [it is considered not so good or bad], it impinges on the survival of the individual, the preservation of the human specie and the progress and well-being of humanity. Note there are degrees [1 -99.99%] of 'good' and 'evil.'

I don't think this follows. You say that the categorical imperative is put aside in empirical situations and when laws and maxims need to take their place, and presumably the categorical imperative is put aside for the sake of decisions (from a judiciary for example) because they could correct inflexibility of the categorical imperative in such occassions when survival is endangered and the categorical imperative does not cover the situation.

In that case (of overriding the categorical imperative) the reason would presumably for survival or some "greater good" (than would be served by following it). But if this is the case then what is good is not determined by its adherance to the imperative as you imply but by some other reason which determines when it is permissible to deviate from it.

Besides this, we still haven't answered what is good? and why is it good?

The Categorical Imperative is the supreme principle.
The categorical imperative is not put a side, rather it is used to ground the empirical precepts/maxim in anticipation for implementations.
For example if an organization set their mission of Zero Defects. It does not mean they are putting aside this mission and maxim.
Some organization that adopted the Zero Defects mission adapted this with the six-sigma maxim which facilitate measurements towards the ultimate maxim of Zero Defects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma
Analogically, the Zero Defect is like the Categorical Imperative, this idea is never put aside but imbued in the mind of all concerns and guide/motivate them in their empirical activities.
It will be the same if the maxim involve the Summum Bonum –the Highest Good. What is good is another complex topic that Kant justified. It is not relevant to go into the details of it here.

Prismatic567 wrote:
The Artful Pauper wrote: Without a reason why "all rational individuals should strive to act in accordance with the above CI", what you are stating is mere dogmatism, one would be obligated to act in accordance with the imperative merely because someone (in this case Kant) says so.
In general, when one is a member of a NBA team, being professional one will strive to perform optimally in alignment with the rest of the team member and the team's mission [team CI and goals], not because the coach said so.

The example of the NBA team implies that the individuals who make up the team have voluntarily chosen to enter the team and strive for its collective goal, whereas the categorical imperative makes general statements about how one should live.

An imperative such as "One should not kill" may not be in the interest of a particular individual who could benefit from killing, so when I asked for a reason why one should comply with the categorical imperative what I was looking for was a reason why an individual, for example, should not give the appearance that he is innocent to his peers (to escape their condemnation) while secretly committing murder, provided he was certain he could get away with it?

We have only discussed Formulation 1 – i.e. the Universality.
Formulation 1 has its limitations and it is supplemented with another 4 formulations to complete the whole.
Since you raise the point, Formulation 5 will answer your above question, i.e.
So act as if you were always through your Maxims a Law-MAKING Member in a Universal Kingdom of Ends.
Within Kant moral/ethical system all humans [normal] are rational creatures and they collectively participate to create the maxims as members within the collective.
Note this is why I mentioned somewhere Kant’s moral and ethical system is too far ahead of his time but this natural unfolding inherent system is manifesting in small degrees in reality, empirical and rational.
Btw, I am not saying this is to be applied or practiced immediately. However, it is an ideal that humanity must strive towards and close the gap between empirical reality and ideality.

Prismatic567 wrote:In the case of Kant, it is not because Kant said so. Kant merely highlighted the natural moral impulse within the individual and humanity and presented it very systematically. It is up to the rational and complete individual to understand the principles involved and strive to rewire his/her brain [this is the critical phase we need to consider now into the future] to align with the CI optimally.

Okay, so you are making a statement here about human nature and asserting that it is moral. I am wondering how you explain 'immorality' and in particular 'immorality' in successful individuals?

And, by what measure do you determine with certainty that humanity is moving toward a state of increased morality? Another empirical example I can bring up is practices of torture used by the US in Guantanamo. The US has had a recent history (so far as the public knows anyway) of not using torture but yet readopted this practice that, if I am not incorrect, your analysis would view as outmoded. So do you see a reason why there would be a reversion to such behaviour, if the moral instinct as you have described it is inbuilt in the human species?

To translate morality and ethics into objective terms we can use various approaches. One of them is the Science of Axiology. There are many other ways example number of crimes or observed non-conformance behaviours within empirical reality.
The moral instinct is inbuilt in the human species. I raised an OP re experiments on babies. This instinct is just a seed. It is up to humanity as a whole to nurture and expedite its growth. This is possible in the future with reliance on the advancing knowledge from various fields that are now expanding exponentially.
With the advancing knowledge and technology humanity could for a start modulate on weakness and propensity of psychopathy and thus reduce the urge of people to torture and commit all sort of other evils. Humanity can then continue to progress from there within the framework of the Kantian moral and ethical system.

[Prismatic567]

Yeah, i mean i have an issue with the CI, and i don't think i can follow him further if i don't accept that. I think if we were to determine moral laws, we shouldn't start with the CI.
...
Reason by itself is empty, and doesn't tell us much on it's own (I probably disagree with Kant's metaphysics here)... don't you think it's strange to start from there?

It is your discretion not to accept Kant's moral and ethical views.