Kant vs Nietzsche

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

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:49 pm

Arminius wrote:History shows the greatness of philosophers.

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

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

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

Arminius wrote:
Ornello wrote:Nietzsche isn't really a philosopher, just a social critic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arminius wrote: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 Schopenhauerian / 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?
_______

Moral:

Please show me one moral, if it both works and is not derivable from Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Arminius wrote:Note: Kant's Categorical Imperative is expandable.


Modern Occidental imperatives:

Here are some examples of modern Occidental imperatives (the first one is Kant's Categorical Imperative):

Arminius wrote:(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 Occidental imperatives of ILP members:
Arminius wrote:(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."
....
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Mar 13, 2015 8:28 pm

Arminius wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Arminius wrote: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 and no" referred to "Be honest: [...] greatest philosopher", not to "Did I say [...] skepsis?" And yes, it's yes and no, not only no.


Sauwelios wrote: 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.


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.)


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

That's no argument. :lol:


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.


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).


Yes, and?


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?".


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

Erik_ wrote:Who is the better philosopher, in your opinion? I know many consider Kant to be the greatest ever, but what do you think?


Such a bad historian even regarding such recent history!


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).


Every living being is prejudiced, biased. At least Nietzsche and I readily acknowledge that.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Mar 13, 2015 9:18 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: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.


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:

It is obvious to any normal human being that genocide in general is evil.
[...]

The categorical imperative is fundamentally a natural inherent moral impulse within humans.
Philosophically, it is abstracted from all 'good' and 'evil' empirical human activities. Genocide is merely one example of evil act of the highest degree.


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:

    "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)

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?
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Mar 13, 2015 9:21 pm

Arminius wrote:Please show me one moral, if it both works and is not derivable from Kant's Categorical Imperative.


What does "work" mean here?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:02 am

Sauwelios wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: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.


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:

It is obvious to any normal human being that genocide in general is evil.
[...]

The categorical imperative is fundamentally a natural inherent moral impulse within humans.
Philosophically, it is abstracted from all 'good' and 'evil' empirical human activities. Genocide is merely one example of evil act of the highest degree.


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:

    "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)

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?
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.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Mar 14, 2015 5:51 am

Prismatic567 wrote: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:

Prismatic567 wrote:It is obvious to any rational human being that genocide in general is evil.


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.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:29 am

Sauwelios wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: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:

Prismatic567 wrote:It is obvious to any rational human being that genocide in general is evil.


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.'

http://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
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Mar 14, 2015 7:40 am

Prismatic567 wrote: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.'

http://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)."
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 14, 2015 8:07 am

Sauwelios wrote: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.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Mar 14, 2015 8:52 am

Prismatic567 wrote: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.


But previously, you said:

Philosophically, it [the categorical imperative] is abstracted from all 'good' and 'evil' empirical human activities. Genocide is merely one example of evil act of the highest degree.


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


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.


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"?


It is noted all living beings strive to produce [cloning, sexual reproduction] the next generations to ensure the continuation of the species.


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


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?
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Sat Mar 14, 2015 9:56 am

Sauwelios wrote:.... Nietzsche ....

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".

Image
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche on his "Mount Everest".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:49 am

Prismatic567 wrote: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.

Sauwelios wrote But previously, you said:

Philosophically, it [the categorical imperative] is abstracted from all 'good' and 'evil' empirical human activities. Genocide is merely one example of evil act of the highest degree.

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

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.

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.


Sauwelios wrote: 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"?

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.

It is noted all living beings strive to produce [cloning, sexual reproduction] the next generations to ensure the continuation of the species.


Sauwelios wrote: 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.

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.
Sauwelios wrote: 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?

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.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Mar 14, 2015 8:24 pm

Arminius wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:.... Nietzsche ....

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?


Can't you actually address my so-called "excuses"?


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.


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


Nobody of you Nietzschean(ist)s has answered any of the many questions in this thread which are asked even for many times.


Like which?


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.


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


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".


    "The founder of a religion can be insignificant--a match, no more!" (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 184, Kaufmann translation.)

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...
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Erik_ » Sat Mar 14, 2015 9:17 pm

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'?
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Sat Mar 14, 2015 11:16 pm

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

Sauwelios wrote:Then what about future history?

Or this one:
Sauwelios wrote:Nietzsche has only very gradually begun to be understood--just as he predicted, by the way.

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.



I hope you have a bit humor. :)

Sauwelios wrote:
    "The founder of a religion can be insignificant--a match, no more!" (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 184, Kaufmann translation.)

No comment without a Nietzsche quotation - like I said.

Sauwelios wrote: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...

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.
Last edited by Arminius on Sat Mar 14, 2015 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby James S Saint » Sat Mar 14, 2015 11:33 pm

Nihilism is being promoted so Nietzsche is being promoted.
If Conservation was being promoted, Jesus would be promoted.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:27 am

Erik_ wrote:Bad historian?

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


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.


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


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.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Mar 15, 2015 2:25 am

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.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:39 am

Sauwelios wrote: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.
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.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:54 am

Sauwelios,
Here is an additional point to my above reply.
Re Why genocide is not permissible as it is not in alignment with the Categorical Imperative [CI].

As I had mentioned, the CI has 5 formulae [3 main and two subs].
The third formula of the CI is as follows;
    “So act that you use Humanity, as much in your own Person as in the Person of every other, always at the same time as an End and never merely as a Means”

Accordingly, genocide entails the using of the humanity-in-other as a means to one's conditional end, i.e. pleasure, ensure security, psychological impulses and other personal sentiments.

The justification of this formulation is another complex process and I will not go into the details unless you understand [not necessary agree with it] what it is about in full.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Mar 15, 2015 9:01 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Sauwelios wrote: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.
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.'


I don't think Erik intended any distinction between "good" and "great" in his OP. My point was that he said "in your opinion" and "what do you think".


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.


Kant does not have the mantle of the greatest philosopher ever, and even if he had, Nietzsche would not take it over from him just because someone believed he was better than Kant.


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


In your opinion, sure.


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.
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 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
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 0#p2528430
I rate Nietzsche as very great but not greater than Kant.


What people will be allowed to vote? And what will the respective weight of their votes be? For example, all people, and equal weight? Why?
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Mar 15, 2015 9:41 am

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

In your opinion, sure.
Yes, that is my belief based on my own objective assessment and the set of criteria I chose. So far that is the best I can do.
As I mentioned, whatever the results, it is always conditioned to a set of criteria and the people [individual or group] participating in the rating.

What people will be allowed to vote? And what will the respective weight of their votes be? For example, all people, and equal weight? Why?
Any one can participate, the more the better.
They must submit their rating of the accepted set of criteria and provide justifications where necessary.

The weightages are not given to the participants.
I meant the weightages are given to the individual criteria.
For example, imo, "paradigm shifting revolutionary ideas" would carry a weightage of say 50% rather than being 'popular' which may be given a weightage of 10%.


Here is an example of how it will work,

Philosopher A
Criteria...Points Score...Weightage....Weighted Points
1. ..............7............60%...............4.2
2. ..............9............20%...............1.8
3................8............10%...............0.8
4................6............10%...............0.6
Total........................100%...............7.4

7.4 would be the final point for Philosopher A for comparison with others based on the same set of agreed criteria with their respective weightages.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Mar 15, 2015 10:01 am

double posting
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby Arminius » Sun Mar 15, 2015 2:24 pm

Sauwelios wrote:Arminius, even if there is such a thing as a historical "fact" ....

So you are denying historical facts. :lol:

Like I said: You are not able to accept historical facts. Is it because the Dutch football team can never win the world championship? :lol:

According to your stupid statements the Roman Empire is no historical fact, the discovery of America is no historical fact, the colonialism is no historical fact, Kant's writing is no historical fact, the so-called "French revolution" is no historical fact, Nietzsche's writing is no historical fact, the World Wars are no hsitorical facts, the Vietnam War is no historical fact, the fall of the Berlin Wall is no historical fact, ILP is no historical fact, the so-called "9/11" is no historical fact, the Euro is no historical fact .... Such a stupidness is more than ridiculous.

Sauwelios wrote:.... history is not a factum, not "done".

Like I said: You have an excuse for everything. There are history facts, regardless whether you agree or disagree.

Again: According to your stupid statements the Roman Empire is no historical fact, the discovery of America is no historical fact, the colonialism is no historical fact, Kant's writing is no historical fact, the so-called "French revolution" is no historical fact, Nietzsche's writing is no historical fact, the World Wars are no hsitorical facts, the Vietnam War is no historical fact, the fall of the Berlin Wall is no historical fact, ILP is no historical fact, the so-called "9/11" is no historical fact, the Euro is no historical fact .... Such a stupidness is more than ridiculous.tupid statements the Roman Empire is no historical fact, the discovery of America is no historical fact, the colonialism is no historical fact, Kant's writing is no historical fact, the so-called "French revolution" is no historical fact, Nietzsche's writing is no historical fact, the World Wars are no hsitorical facts, the Vietnam War is no historical fact, the fall of the Berlin Wall is no historical fact, ILP is no historical fact, the so-called "9/11" is no historical fact, the Euro is no historical fact .... Such a stupidness is more than ridiculous.

Sauwelios wrote:.... The present and the near future will be the past of the more distant future--this is what I meant by "future history".

We know what you meant. But you don't know what will happen in the "future history", child. Probably Kant will even be greater than ever before.

You are not able to accept the historical facts. That's all. You are prseuming and speculating and predicting the resurgence of your false god. that has nothing to do with this thread. You are derailing this thread.

Sauwelios wrote:Kant has had a century more to influence than Nietzsche. When both are finally forgotten, Nietzsche may have had a greater influence than Kant.

:lol:
And the Earth may have changed its position with the position of its moon.

Sauwelios wrote: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".

Nobody said that the quotations matter much. I said that history matters, the historical facts matter. But you are not able to accept history and its facts.

Sauwelios wrote: When you say, like on the very top of this page, "history shows the greatness of philosophers", you are merely ranting.

No. Again: You are prseuming and speculating and predictively threateningly the resurgence of your false god. And that has nothing to do with this thread. Stop derailing!

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Where is the philosophy webforum?

Arminius wrote:
Jr Wells wrote:"This is ILG.

Yes, at least partly. I suggest to reform ILP and to call it "IL" with the following eight subforums:

(1) ILF ("I Love Fun"),
(2) ILG ("I Love Gossip"),
(3) ILL ("I Love Lies"),
(4) ILN 1 ("I love Nietzsche"),
(5) ILN 2 ("I love Nonsense"),
(6) ILN 3 ("I Love Nothing"),
(7) ILP ("I Love Philsophy") (that means: averagely merely 12.5% (1/8) are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC ("I Love Social Criticism").


Nietzschean(Ist)s post always on ILN 1 (=> 4).
Last edited by Arminius on Sun Mar 15, 2015 9:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Kant vs Nietzsche

Postby James S Saint » Sun Mar 15, 2015 2:54 pm

Geez.. you guys are still trying to compare the apple to the banana?

Kant vs Nietzsche is like Logic vs Emotion, Order vs Chaos, or Construction vs Destruction. Each belongs in its own era. But the constructive thinker will think more deeply and analytically (the male) vs the destruction thinker reacting to immediate pressures (the female). The influence that each has is a different kind that belongs in a different era. You can't really compare them any more than you can claim that men or women are superior - "superior at what, at which??"

You might as well ask which has had more influence over humanity, males or females?
.. it's a naive, very feminine question.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Peter Kropotkin