So how would you propose a reasonable objective comparison.
As Nietzsche had implied, ‘there is no absolute, there are only perspectives’.
I have no issue with poll or rating, as long as I am aware of the terms and conditions.
If the greats are egoistical, narcissistic, etc. they may be bias only to their own greatness.
As I said, the final resultant is conditioned to the terms, criteria and other conditions that are used within the framework.
Thus in this case we need to understand who are the participants.
Let say we select 200 credible philosophers who has at least 15 years of teaching in a university and are familiar with Kant and Nietzsche. Their credentials are open for all to read and verify. If you find all the variable acceptable, then you should find the final results acceptable.
The point is whatever the approach used, we need to understand and agree with the variables used. The result is then conditioned upon these agreed variables.
The following points are bad understanding of Kant’s view and straw-men.
This is a delineation in line with progressive evolution from animality (senses to thinking) to humanity (thinking to higher reasoning). What Kant did was representing the fact in a more detailed form and explanation.
Picht and I, however, are talking about the entire human cognitive apparatus, which makes synthetic a priori judgments.
Note Kant’s main approach is ‘Completeness’ and his forte is systematicity and architectonic. However to get an idea of the whole we need to understand the parts in details. This is why Kant analyzed the parts of the mental faculty in detail.
Completeness - this is what neuroscience and connectome is attempting to do.
When understood thoroughly, Kant’s ‘history’ cover from the epigenesis of the first one cell entity to the human being. What Kant deliberately left out was the later cruder history of mankind which he left for others [from Hegel to the postmodernists] that followed him to take up.
To be sure, according to Kant, the transcendent God is impossible to be real and to insist it is real is illusory and delusional.
It is your phrasing of the things-in-themselves as ontological that is misleading yourself to what Kant meant.
Kant never intended the thing-in-itself as some independent ontological substance or essence that need to be or possible to be known at all.
I have quoted, to Kant, the thing-in-itself is an assumption to be used negatively as a limit and never be used positively in the real sense.
Kant used the thing-in-itself within his moral system in another sense but that require extensive analysis to understand where it stand, but ultimately it is never an independent ontological absolute substance nor essence.
If Ficthe unable to align the idea of the thing-in-itself epistemologically within philosophy, then he had wrongly interpret Kant’s view. Note Schopenhauer’s positive Will.
As far as I had gathered, Nietzsche’s philosophy is in alignment with Kant’s but fall short of Kant’s total ‘complete’ framework representing reality.
Nah … this ‘an afterlife with rewards or punishments’ is rubbish to Kant and he detested organized religions.
But Kant did state,
This require VERY heavy and in depth analysis to understand and ‘faith’ in this case is not religion nor the theistic God.
This contradict your above;
To be sure, he does not teach that it was created by a transcendent God;
I had already stated Kant asserted the transcendent and real God is an impossibility.
Kant did use the idea of a transcendental [not transcendent =illusion] God within his System of Morality. However we need detail analysis to avoid conflating it with the conventional belief in God as in theism and theistic religions.
I personally do not agree with his use of the term ‘God’ [carry a lot of negative baggage] rather I would prefer the term ens realissimum as an assumption [not ontological substance].
This is all bullshit, nonsense and has no relevance to Kant’s philosophy.
Hegel’s philosophy is grounded on the Absolute as in pantheism and Brahman of Vedanta.
Hegel was blinded by a natural and unavoidable illusion;
Once Hegel [other pantheists] has been seduced by the natural unadvoidable transcendent illusion it is not easy for him to rationalize away and this basic virus infect and distort his philosophy.
As for the progressive-evolutionary process, Kant went into great details to lay down the principles of
-the logical principle of genera
-the logical principles of specification
and tying in with the taxonomy of Carolus Linnaeus.
Note this related point;
Schopenhauer also wrote on the above as if the idea was from himself.