Kant vs Nietzsche

Or a mouse with an elephant, or a molehill with an huge mountain like the Mount Everest.

Trying to compare a nihilistic philosopher with a non-nhilistic philosopher is difficult but not impossible.

Thre is realitiy, and so there is objectivity. There should be science, thus there should be history too. Thers is still science, thus there is still history too. We have logic, empirical evidence, and history in order to know that a nihilistic philosopher can never be the greater or better philosopher. Nihilistic philosophy has merely a litte bit to do with philosophy.

The question was, who was the better philosopher Nietzche or Kant. Heidegger, Hitler, and Neumann were not considered … :wink:

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

And what about the reverse? A belief in a philosopher “does not meet the substantial aspects of the corollary that” this philosopher is “better”.
Nihilistic philosophers may be more sympathic - and in nihlistic times they mostly are, at least for other nihilists -, but they can never be the greater or better philosophers.
It is the definition itself that makes it impossible to really have a little philosophy as the greatest or better philosophy.

That’s the main problem I am having with the idea of trying to uplift people here. There’s some people who have it in them to dare to understand but they don’t really require teaching. As for valuing normal honest people, that is inevitable to a great soul, I think, but valuing them does not mean trying to teach them to think like great men. They might be great in their own nature, such as a man like our friend whom I will refer to as “El”, who surely has greatness in him even though he may understand less than petty hearted people with some intellectual cleverness. What he does understand he understands generously and joyously, and he is able to act on it.

Part of valuing the great hearted and the honest is also denouncing the petty an the dishonest. It never ceases to amaze me, even though from a VO perspective it is perfectly comprehensible and predictable, to what lengths people will go to ignore, misread or otherwise stupidly interpret my writing so as to be able to disregard it. I am afraid I do not have your patience at all and will also never attain it.

This is of course the weak link. That group is exactly the group that does require teaching. But how large is that group really? How many posters are likely to eventually come to value their valuing so consciously as to break through into understanding?

Noted your use of the term ‘passion,’ and ‘energy’.
If it is not qualified accordingly it can be easily misunderstood. Note the controversial Hume’s ‘Reason is the slave to Passions …’

Kant was not misled.
Kant’s system comprised the Moral [pure[ and Ethics [applied] aspects. Kant understood for humanity to progress both the pure and applied aspects must work complementarily and interdependently.

Due to the very divergent sphere within the world of the empirical, practices [practical], pragmatic and the likes, Kant preferred [passion perhaps] to concentrate on the converging principles, systems and framework, i.e. the pure moral aspect rather than the applied ethical aspects. In addition Kant has limited time to deal with the ‘anthropological’, pragmatic-practices due to his age (64 when he wrote Critique of Pure Reason].

Kant did attend to the practices of the empirical world [he called it anthropology then - not the same as its current use ], but his work on this aspect was not significant.

There is a very strong correlation between Buddhism and Kantian philosophy in essence however Buddhism is not as systematic in its presentation. The additional feature that Buddhism over the theoretical Kantian system is its personal self-development program of the individual to align optimally with the natural moral impulse towards the ideal. This involve actual rewiring of the neural circuitry in the brain.

Thus in my case, whatever is omitted from the Kantian system is supplemented by the affective system from Buddhism.

I required, and still require, teaching. To be sure, though, I haven’t required proselytising–in fact, I’ve always been most adverse to it. I’ve required proselytising myself, indoctrinating myself, with ideas I myself found, or which found me, and which I myself chose and thereby honoured. So for me, “trying to uplift people here” means to put my ideas–by which I mean both the ideas I’ve chosen and made my own and those I myself thought of–out here. It’s like recreational fishing for men, for human beings, for potential philosophers, or at least for potential lovers of philosophy: a recreational fisherman does not use a net; he just puts his bait out there, waits until something bites, and then, if and when something does, tries to pull it up into the air and the light with the right measure of force and gentleness, patience and resolve. To be sure, that’s something I’ve needed to learn. And of course, it’s not merely recreational–at least not in the shallow sense. It’s re-creational:

[size=95]“Nietzsche often speaks of self-overcoming in terms of self-creation, and this fecund metaphor conveys his sense of the nomothetic [= legislative] influence of exemplary human beings. Great individuals are always artists in Nietzsche’s sense, for, in the course of their self-overcomings, they inadvertently produce in themselves the beauty that alone arouses erotic attachment. By virtue of their self-creation, exemplary figures come to embody ‘the great stimulus to life,’ unwittingly inviting others to join them in the pursuit of self-perfection.” (Daniel Conway, “Love’s labor’s lost: the philosopher’s Versucherkunst [= art of the (at)tempter]”.)[/size]

Indeed. In fact, I was thinking in this direction for my one-sentence summary of what I’d call Value Ethics: “The philosopher is obliged to express his appreciation of beings as much as he can in ways they can appreciate, though not necessarily exclusively.” I was especially thinking of beings that make him possible as a philosopher, that make his philosophising possible.

Yes. I would say that they are great insofar as they are pre-forms of the philosopher and/or make him possible, like the man in the street who is a–more or less–valuable member of the society in which the philosopher lives; even the little yappy dog that helps keep some such people’s happiness with their little lives above the minimum level required for that. Though no, I don’t think our friend has a yappy dog.

Yes, but not absolutely, because they are necessary links in the chain of which the great-hearted and the honest, and especially the philosophers, constitute the links that justify the whole chain. I think the philosophers justify the whole chain because the unexamined life is not worth living; the philosophers examine the whole chain and especially the essence of it and of each of its links, and on examining it discover that it is valuable in itself to them.

But you will have to try and develop yours, because the success of our political philosophy may depend in no small part on your courteousness.

I must disagree with Kant here. I think a philosiphical work can and should account for everything that it claims. That in fact philosophy can and therefore ultimately must be more exact than mathematics. This is because mathematics postulates the integer, whereas philosophy must derive it, arrive at it. That’s at least what my work has been about.

Ultimately the integer is given, and it is therefore not dangerous or dishonest to postulate it, but to speak of it one must arrive at it from within itself, one must uncover what makes it an integer, even though it is irreducible.

That is the ground of an understanding of how integers can come to interact without damaging each others integrity.

I too have been trained rigorously in Buddhism as well as in Yogic and Vedic philosophies, which indeed include or even start with physical practices. Yes, the brain does need to be rewired (though some form of meditational disclipline, not necessarily eastern) for it to grasp the inner workings of being.

deleted

Btw, what Kant meant in the above quote was the substance, i.e. principles, system and framework, is more important than the forms. Thus it is critical to keep the framework intact while one can experiments with the forms.

In his works, Kant did discuss and differentiate between Mathematics and philosophy [especially metaphysics] to establish ‘How Pure Mathematics is Possible?’ while metaphysics [once touted as the queen of the sciences] cannot be possible. This would be a long story thus off topic.

As for exactness or definite answers, I am with Russell’s

Sauwelios - Realize that I have been fishing for four years now. The catch has been quite alright, especially with you now on board, but the efforts it took me have been very great. Also note that my acute and exact understanding of being came to be precisely as a remedy against an impending non-being - against valuing other beings and their perspectives too much, being too courteous and considerate, something that actually brought me on the brink of death, as can be understood at the hand of that principle. Its emerging in my mind was due to a necessity on the level of life and death. You must see my aggression as a medicine against unwarranted sympathies and good will. Erik, for example, had received much good will from me, long before I made that one unfortunate expression. My investments in him turned out to have been futile, he had understood (perhaps taken setiously) absolutely nothing, and this was so disappointing as to cause nausea. Lyssa on the other hand, to give an example, has been a rewarding object of investment, despite her and my violent and scornful clashing. Perhaps actually because rather than despite that she is able to muster such brute intellectual force. I still see philosophy as a glorious battle, and diplomacy is warranted only when the stakes are sufficiently high, when much has already been gained.

Yeah, you really spazzed out on me, buddy. What was that all about? Just having a bad day? I was genuinely interested in your thoughts on the subject, but you decided to get snide and nasty…

Was it because I casted aspersions on Nietzsche?

An issue of separating philosophical power from philosophical value, assuming you can do that, and suggesting that I would do that.

Fixed Cross,

What are your thoughts on the following quote:

You are quite creative, I gotta hand it to ya.

That was my version of expressing myself to you in exaggerated caricature of the way you expressed yourself to me.

You said to me: “I stated that you prefer Nietzsche” and went on to say that this did not mean that I thought Nietzsche is the better, stronger, greater, more influential, more relevant philosopher. As strange as this may have been to you, this was a very grave insult to me. You implicitly said that I stated a preference or a philosopher without having philosophical ground for that preference. Hence, I wanted to show you how that comes across to me, and I used a creative way of expressing that (stating something about a preference of yours that was not something you stated at all).

The point was that I prefer Nietzsche only and alone because is greater, more significant, deeper, more powerful, more relevant, more important, has more impact, is more honest, more intelligent, etc etc etc etc - and that I felt and feel that I had made this very clear, throughout all my posts about Nietzsche.

I admire Nietzsche as a master-logician. I look down on Kant whom I consider to be a failed wannabe logician.

In my view Fixed Cross’s analogy is sound: you did say the same thing to him first, Erik–in form, that is, not in content. And in fact, it’s quite evident that, for him, the content was on the same par.

An example of what I was trying to get at:

I like the movie Scarface, I prefer it over the Godfather collection. I prefer Scarface, because I can relate to it more, I can identity with the main character better. But I can acknowledge that the Godfather collection is superior to the Scarface movie, as there is better acting, better structure, more depth to the story, etc – even though it gets kind of boring at many times, like Plato, and because I don’t relate to the characters on a personal level, like I do in Scarface.

That’s an example of how one can prefer something, yet think something else, which is non-prefered or less preferred, is generally superior/better.

Could I have worded my question differently? Of course - I could have just asked him: " Who do you think is better? Nietzsche or Kant? ".

But at the same time, Fixed Cross didn’t need to get snide and pissy over a triviality.

Erik, it seems you have still not understood my objection.

Let me take another approach and straight-out say that philosophy is and always has been a singular endeavor. It all strives for one and the same thing: the truth about man. Kant made an attempt, Nietzsche made an attempt. Kant failed, his work is all but irrelevant now. Nietzsche succeeded, his work is deeply relevant and as with all the greatest human work (i.e. the wheel, metallurgy, geometry, etc) grows in relevance as time passes. No one will remember Kant’s ideas in the future. This is why I do not prefer him. He is meaningless now. He did not accomplish the task that he took on.

The second part I need to clarify is that my own mode of thought is singular, philosophical, rigorous, logic-oriented, and has always been. My illogical, ‘crazy’ posts are the excess, the sparks that fly off the metal as it is forged. My writing on Nietzsche explores and fleshes out his logic, his hard, systematic thought. I think you may not have grasped this before, even though my early entries in this thread were clear enough about the criteria I use to judge the worth of the two men. Responding to mr. reasonable’s statement that he likes Kant’s systematic thought:

This means that I consider Nietzsche to be greater, not by a mere inspirational or poetic standard, but in the field that is supposed (by those who do not understand that Nietzsche is a logician, i.e. those who do not understand Nietzsche) to be Kant’s forte - the rigorous quest for truth and truth-models, i.e. philosophy.

I figured that you had to have understood this if you had read my post. When you then came out and suggested that Nietzsche was, to use your metaphor, the exiting and in your face Scarface, and Kant the rather tedious but deeper Godfather, and implied that I work with this sort of distinction, I figured that you do not consider philosophy to be a singular endeavor, which would mean that you do not take philosophy as seriously as I do, and I hated that you suggested that I join you in judging the thinkers by that much lower standard.

I accept that you can not understand why this matters so much to me, but you will have to live with the fact that it does.

I acknowledge that my question was puzzling. Like I said, I could have re-worded it. My apologies, if I offended you in the process; but it wasn’t intended.

I take philosophy seriously, very seriously, actually; my life is centered around it, nay, it IS my life. I see now that you take it very seriously too, and that’s excellent!

We both overreacted — I could have rephrased my question; you could have not been snarky — let’s allow sleeping dogs to lay; I’m not interested in squabbling.

I disagree with your views on Kant and I think that is because you have not grasped and understood [not necessary agree with] Kant’s philosophy fully.
I had read Schopenhauer’s work seriously and deeply [not difficult to understand as he wrote fluently] and Nietzsche extensively but not deeply. Based on what I have read of Kant [still incomplete] I find Kant a notch ‘greater’ [based on my own set of criteria] than both S and N. I have great admiration for Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, thus I extract the best out of both of them and also from Kant. Btw I don’t idolize Kant and I don’t agree with his use of the term ‘god’ in some aspects.

Personally I don’t think there is a need for the below;

If Buddhism and its practice work in you, your mind would have triggered a pause, practice Principle of Charity, step into the shoe of the other and evoke some sense of understanding the other before you write the above.

I strongly disagree with your views on Kant but with your tendency to the above heavy extremes and emotional attachments to Nietzsche, I would not want to engage on a discussion to express my counter views.

Hi,

I’m new here and am wondering if somebody could point me in the right direction to find transcripts of any Harry Neumann classes. In another thread from a while ago I saw an extract of one. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.