Kant vs Nietzsche

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

[size=120]

[/size]_______

[size=114]Moral:

Please show me one moral, if it both works and is not derivable from Kant’s Categorical Imperative. [/size]
[size=120]

[/size]

[size=114]Modern Occidental imperatives:

Here are some examples of modern Occidental imperatives (the first one is Kant’s Categorical Imperative):[/size]
[size=120]

[/size]
[size=114]Modern Occidental imperatives of ILP members:[/size]
[size=120]

[/size]

“Yes and no” referred to “Be honest: […] greatest philosopher”, not to “Did I say […] skepsis?” And yes, it’s yes and no, not only no.

No, you are, as Heidegger put it, a man “fishing in the murky waters of values and universals” (Einführung in die Metaphysik (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1953), page 152). If I have learned anything in frequenting forums for over fourteen years (that is, if I have learned only one thing; I actually have learned several things), it’s that people can hardly be persuaded because they want their values to be facts. Until you admit this, you are, as Nietzsche put it, to be treated as a contemptible libertine “hiding in the cloak of the woman ‘truth.’” (The Will to Power, section 465.)

It is, actually. Precisely if all views of the world are valuations, value ontology is at the same time a valuation and the most fundamental fact. Compare Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, page 43.

Yes, and?

Actually, here is the actual text of this thread’s OP:

Such a bad historian even regarding such recent history!

Every living being is prejudiced, biased. At least Nietzsche and I readily acknowledge that.

I would like to respond to this, as it defines what seems to be the only relevant thing you said in your last reply to me, where you wrote:

This means that, philosophically, the categorical imperative is abstracted from all human acts or activities that are obviously good or evil to any normal human being. But now you define “normal” by the hand of the DSM-V. In the Wikipedia article on the DSM, however, it says:

[size=95]“The current version of the DSM […] notes that ‘…no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for the concept of “mental disorder”…different situations call for different definitions’. It states that ‘there is no assumption that each category of mental disorder is a completely discrete entity with absolute boundaries dividing it from other mental disorders or from no mental disorder’ (APA, 1994 and 2000).” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders#Uses_and_definition)[/size]

It immediately adds, though, that “There are attempts to adjust the wording for the upcoming DSM-V”, but marks this as “dated info”. I don’t have the DSM-5, so please tell me if the above disclaimer was retracted from it.

In any case, why could the sovereign–whether it be the majority of the population, a single individual, or anything in between–not define a normal person by the same characteristics that distinguish the sovereign from everyone else? So that, for example, the king or the tyrant is by definition the only normal person?

What does “work” mean here?

OK, forget about the DSM V which is very extensive.

Kant’s moral system assumes humans are rational creatures and capable of being rational.
I qualified ‘normal’ [not Kant term] in anticipation of anyone bringing in irrational counter examples [acts of extreme mad persons] when discussing casuistrical cases.

This means that, in effect, you wrote:

How is that obvious to them, though? Why is genocide in general evil?

Also, if human reason is historical, it may not have been obvious to rational human beings in the past, and may not be in the future, even if it is in the present. In fact, even if it always is, that does not mean that it is true–that’s to say, that it is actually evil.

Without going into the philosophical complexity of what is ‘evil,’ let look at this general perspective.

I presume we have a consensus of what meant by the term ‘genocide.’
Now, if you were to ask all rational [normal] human being in the world,
would you want to be a victim of genocide?
If you can get ‘yes’ to the above, then I will withdraw my point.

I understand the above exercise is not practical to ask all in practice.
However, I am very sure [personal experience and extensive knowledge], the only ones who would answer ‘yes’ are the sick ones [this is one example why I qualify ‘normal’ earlier], i.e. the suicidal, extreme depressed, the perverts the sicko, and anyone who is under abnormally perverse conditions.

I have done an extensive research on ‘what is evil [secular]’.
Avoiding the above, here is the conventional definition of ‘evil.’

dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil?s=t

  1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:
    “evil deeds; an evil life.”
  2. harmful; injurious:
    “evil laws.”
  3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous:
    “to be fallen on evil days.”
  4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character:
    “an evil reputation.”

I don’t think there is any dispute that ‘genocide’ cannot be ‘evil’ within the above meaning of evil. Genocide is rated one of the most evil human acts.
Here is a detailed description of what is genocide,
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/whatisit.html

Yes, I get all that. And I can see how genocide is evil according to definition numbers 2 and 3 (I don’t think number 4 is applicable). But even then, we could say that genocide is only harmful or injurious to its victims, only characterized by misfortune or suffering, unfortunate, or disastrous for its victims. And this is granting that that’s always the case, I won’t even make the case for “sick” exceptions to that rule. But we could still at most say it’s evil for the victims, or more properly worded, bad for the victims. Whether it is morally wrong, immoral, or wicked in itself (definition number 1) is something else entirely. Consider this syllogism:

Premiss A: “Genocide is always bad for all its victims.”
Premiss B: ?
Conclusion: “Genocide is always evil.”

What should premiss B say above? And why should the following syllogism always be unsound?

Premiss A: “Genocide is sometimes good (as opposed to bad) for at least some of its agents.”
Premiss B: ?
Conclusion: “Genocide is sometimes good (as opposed to evil).”

I started with this;

Genocide is evil, i.e. not good and immoral because it cannot pass the test of the 1st condition of the Categorical imperative.
The test is,
if genocide is made a universal maxim that is to be willed by all rational being at the same time, then the human species will go extinct.
Therefore genocide cannot be a permissible universal maxim.

The syllogism is as follows;
P1 A maxim that ensure the extinction of the human specie [in addition to the torture and sufferings] is evil.
P2 Genocide as a universal maxim ensure the extinction of the human specie [as origins of the torture and sufferings]*.
C1 Therefore Genocide as a universal maxim is evil.

P1 is based on induction and the definition of evil is extended to cover the deliberate act by individuals and humans to cause the extinction of the human specie.
It is noted all living beings strive to produce [cloning, sexual reproduction] the next generations to ensure the continuation of the species.

  • I anticipate you may ask how is sufferings related to extinction of the human species. Think and you will get the linkage.

But previously, you said:

Now, then, your reasoning has turned out to be circular.

I think you still haven’t answered the question raised by my syllogisms, though. Induction from what? How does the–granted–fact that the extinction of the human species is bad for the species and/or its members make a maxim ensuring it evil? What is the connection between the concepts “bad for some” and “evil in itself”?

Actually, no. Evolutionary biology admits of no such teleology, in general. Sure, there may be living beings who actually strive to reproduce or even to clone themselves, but as a rule, sexual reproduction just happens to be a regular effect of the temporary gratification of the sexual drive, and cloning does not happen at all.

I don’t understand why I might ask that. Surely any torture and sufferings must precede the extinction of the human species? Or do you mean that the extinction of the human species may cause torture and sufferings when thought of?

Or would genocide as a universal maxim somehow ensure the extinction of the human species by causing torture and sufferings?

As usual.

You do not accept historians.

That’s one of your problems here.

You have an excuse for everything. And your main excuse is Nietzsche himself respectively his texts. By the way: Can you write a “comment” without quoating Nietzsche?

History has judged, clearly decided on Nietzsche’s philosophy, regardless whether some ILP members do not accept it, regardless how often Nietzsche is quoted by Nietzschean(ist)s. You may quote him as often as you want. It is useless.

Nobody of you Nietzschean(ist)s has answered any of the many questions in this thread which are asked even for many times. That’s typical. You have an excuse for everything. And without Nietzsche, the littlle mouse of philosophy, all Nietzschean(ist)s would be philosophical cockroaches, but even thousand times smaller.

Nietzscheans use and Nietzscheanists misuse Nietzsche in the same way as (for example) Marxians use and Marxists misuse Marx. There is no difference at all when it comes to use or misuse idols, false gods. And because of this religious behavior, their religious delirium, they “make mountains out of molehills”.


Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche on his “Mount Everest”.

That point is not meant to be flat that will lend itself into a circular situation.
Note in this case it is a spiral in 3D and not 2D [we gone through this before] and there are two perspectives involved, i.e. the empirical and the rational [transcendental].
Within empirical reality humans observed and experienced acts of good and evil. Empirically it is obvious genocide is most evil in terms of the numbers of casualties involved relative to the murder of one person is generally considered evil.

Those philosophers whose ethics are based on the empirical would deal directly with empirical element to formulate their moral principles. For example, Hume, Sidgwick [intuitional model], and the likes which are tied to ends like happiness, well-being, pleasurable, customs, habits, etc.

Kant moral/ethical system on the other hand differs from the empirical-based ethical system.
From the observation of the empirical, Kant made the attempt to move away from direct involvement with the empirical and abstract [actually formulate] moral principles that are independent of empirical elements. This meant Kant moral principles and maxim are not the sort that are tied to feelings of good, well-being, pleasure, etc. This formulation of the categorical imperative [5 Formulae] is a complicated process. At this point there is no more link to the empirical, thus no possible linkage for circularity as they are no more in the same sense.

There is a good reason why Kant need to formulate moral principles that are independent of intuitions. As I explained to ArtPauper, it is avoid potential and subliminal corruptions by radical evil within humans.

Once Kant moral principles are formulated they need to be applied to the empirical world. Now the question is, if these moral principles are supposed independent of the empirical, how can we connect them with the empirical. This is why the use of Maxims, rules, laws etc. are to be used.

To establish maxims, one has to test them against the principles.

Once tested, the empirical strategies [aligned with the CI] are formulated for implementation. Note the Kantian system process I listed earlier.

There is no circularity at all but a spiral flow reconciling two perspectives, i.e. the higher faculty of reason modulates the lower empirical faculties.

I cannot see any purpose in your syllogisms nor are they leading anywhere.
Premiss A: “Genocide is always bad for all its victims.”
Premiss B: ? Bad is always a degree on the continuum of evil
Conclusion: “Genocide is always evil.”

I am not sure what your second syllogism is driving at?

The induction is based on the observations of the activities of all living entities.
Which living entity is seen to be born with a drive to die instantly?
Even mayflies that live for few hours after emerging from water is observed to have a drive to procreate and produce the next generation.
I infer from this the continuation of the species as verified by observations.

Btw, this is not Kant’s direct point.
He justified the Categorical Imperative is a very long and complicated process which I would prefer to avoid explaining here especially if you are not equipped and understand [not necessary agree] the details.

As I had stated, all living things strives to produce the next generation and/or strive to survive as long as possible till the inevitable.
There are many who infer the principle of the continuation of the species till the inevitable and I agree with that.
You got it wrong, it is the drive to produce the next generation that program sexual reproduction and gratification.

The emergence of living being is set along the following;

  1. Living things emerge
  2. They are imbued in their DNA with the drive to survive long enough to produce the next generation. I infer from this the preservation of the species.
  3. To do 2, they must avoid death
  4. To avoid death, they are programed with pains and sufferings potential that triggers in the face or in the midst of threat of death to steer them away from dangers.
  5. Pains and sufferings from are evil [as defined in the dictionary].

The categorical imperative as formulated in alignment with the moral impulse is to deal with evil (5) and therefore (2).

Note;
There are two main systems of moral/ethics, i.e.

  1. Empirical-intuition based ethics - Applied (Sidgwick)
  2. Reason-based moral principles within a Pure and Applied moral/ethical system. (Kant)
    If you conflate the two in our discussion then you will be caught in a mess.

Can’t you actually address my so-called “excuses”?

Really… Then what about future history? Nietzsche has only very gradually begun to be understood–just as he predicted, by the way.

Like which?

It’s striking how obviously passionate you are about this, considering what I said about values…

[size=95]“The founder of a religion can be insignificant–a match, no more!” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 184, Kaufmann translation.)[/size]

The founder Nietzsche is thinking of in saying this is of course Jesus of Nazareth. And did not this Jesus have quite some historical influence? As for Marx, well…

Bad historian?

So, you disagree that many people consider Kant to be the greatest philosopher ever?

What history books are you reading from? Fixed Cross’?

It is just because of the fact that he is not able to accept historical facts. His last excuse is then: “future history” ( :laughing: ):

Or this one:

We know what Nietzsche “predicted”. But his prediction is absolutely not relevant here. When exactly will he be understood? And who knows whether he will be understood then, if at all? When will those who “know” that Nietzsche will be understood “in the future” be understood?

Perhaps in the year 2525.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7VqsONNvIs[/youtube]

I hope you have a bit humor. :slight_smile:

No comment without a Nietzsche quotation - like I said.

Please accept the historical facts. For example: Nietzsche has had no or merely little influence; that is an example of an historical fact. Please accept it!

We merely expect that you accept historical facts. You are presuming and speculating - or predicting Nietzsche’s “comeback”. That is a “fine” excuse and has nothing to do with this thread.

Nihilism is being promoted so Nietzsche is being promoted.
If Conservation was being promoted, Jesus would be promoted.

No, look, I was calling Arminius a bad historian, among other things because he got your OP–which was from less than two weeks earlier–wrong: he said the question of the OP was “Who is the greatest philosopher?”, whereas it was actually “Who is the better philosopher, in your opinion? I know many consider Kant to be the greatest ever, but what do you think?” So, I do not disagree that many people consider Kant to be the greatest philosopher ever, but I disagree that that, or even if it was most or all people, makes Kant the greatest philosopher ever.

This is now an irrelevant question, considering what I just wrote. However, I would advise you to bear with Fixed Cross. He may, to put it mildly, not always adopt the most agreeable attitude, but I’ve found time and again that he has made significant progress in corroborating the logic of will to power.

Arminius, even if there is such a thing as a historical “fact”, history is not a factum, not “done”. The present and the near future will be the past of the more distant future–this is what I meant by “future history”. Kant has had a century more to influence than Nietzsche. When both are finally forgotten, Nietzsche may have had a greater influence than Kant. So it does matter how often Nietzsche is quoted by “Nietzschean(ist)s”, just as it has mattered how often Kant was quoted by “Kantian(ist)s”.

In any case, greatness of influence is not greatness per se. When you say, like on the very top of this page, “history shows the greatness of philosophers”, you are merely ranting.

If we read Erik’s OP with ‘Principle of Charity’ I would interpret he meant ‘greatest’ as the main predicate for the OP re Kant versus Nietzche.
In the OP, ‘better’ is the subset with the set ‘greatest.’ If any one believe Nietzsche is better than Kant who many consider to be the greatest philosopher ever, then Nietzsche will take over Kant’s mantle as the greatest philosopher ever.

From what I have read so far, I have not come across any Western philosopher who is greater than Kant.

In any case, who ever is rated ‘greatest’ has to be conditioned upon a set of criteria with various weightages given to each criteria (I gave a sample in the other thread) that is to be agreed upon those accept the result.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187452

Based on certain specific criteria [e.g. systemicity, revolutionary, ] Kant may be better than Nietzsche while it will be the other way round for other criteria [readability, inspirational, emotional, motivating ideas?]. Note better in one sense may not carry much weight in the overall sense.
However to be considered the ‘greatest,’ the result is based on the weighted total.

The initial result will be based on the individual’s rating on the same set of criteria.
To get greater objectivity, the results will need to be averaged out from a larger representative sample.

At this point, based on my own set of criteria, e.g. in
viewtopic.php?p=2528430#p2528430
I rate Nietzsche as very great but not greater than Kant.