Kant vs Nietzsche

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.

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 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”.

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.

In your opinion, sure.

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?

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.

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.

double posting

So you are denying historical facts. :laughing:

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Nietzschean(Ist)s post always on ILN 1 (=> 4).

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.

Yes, or like non-nihilistic or pre-nihilistic philosophy verus nihilistic philosophy - as I said before.

Leibniz’ philosophy contains all things philosophy needs, thus also mathematics. After Leibniz mathematics vanished from philosophy. Kant’s philosophy contains all things philosophy needs except mathematics, thus Kant’s philosophy contains also physics / cosmology / astronomy. After the middle (not the late) Kant physics / cosmology / astronomy vanished from philosophy. So the base of metaphysics vanished - which necessarily means: nihilism. A philosophy without any metaphysics is not a complete philosophy anymore. Since then the nihilistic philosophy has been triumphing over the non-nihilistic philosophy as the very much more real philosophy, the destruction has been triumphing over the construction, the chaos has been triumphing over the order, the emotion has been triumphing over the logic, …, and so on.

Nihilistic philosophy has merely a litte bit to do with philosophy. The greater or better philosopher can never be a nihilistic philosopher. A partly destroyed house can never be the greater or better house.

That’s again a bad excuse.

True.

But both Kant and Leibniz left out one very important philosophical issue (Nietzsche never even approached it). And due to that oversight, very many bad things have taken place unnecessarily. They left out the issue of ontological construction (the very make of Truth itself).

The not only left it out, they were de-constructionists.
It was not them who took on themselves to do that, they were privy to the socio politico processes of the time, the question is, who was more in touch with what was going on Kant tried to remedy the conflict, Nitzche totally negated it. Therefore Nietzche is far better.

But not the better philosopher! He was the better negator, the better nihilist … (see above).

It is not certain that there is an absolute exclusivity between a negator and a philosopher, although there may be situations of proximal perception, there of.

He even negates the negation by his affirmation, or, a re-affirmation.

As I said before: A nihilistic philosophy has not nothing, but merely a little bit to do with philosophy.

Long before Nietzsche, Hegel did it in a better way. So Nietzsche was not the only, not the best, and even not the frist one who did that.