I concur, Kant did try to blend the two ways of determinism with the opposite, the major theme recurring here, imbues the political-social philosophy from him and unward. That Nietzche tried to nihilize the attempt at resucecting a proto idealism, and as
was observed in another blog, he was notman existentialist. Existentialism was the cure for a failed attempt at that type of resurrection. A political tour
de force, to to undercut the failed synthesis, by
destroying the ideal. That it was a reversely psychological attempt, to furnish impetus, to avoid that, makes his attempt ironic, an act of sophistry. Niertzche wanted the opposite, he wanted a reaction
to prevent the very thing he was advocating.
I am taking this opportunity to express this thought,
because i think it is of significance vis a vis, our
discussion about Kant, and the question of the will, and freedom thereof.
The French needed a method, the way of Descartes,
a saving grace, and it once try to dominate the
intellectual focus of Europe. The method was phenomenological, and not ontological, exhibiting the very reversal Nietzche was wrestling with, but via a
transcendental poesy. Niertzche was reversing, in
order to liberate the will, by an apriori approach, while Sartre was reversing by way of method.
The Schopenhaurian representation was put before
the will, reduced to the basic of social contract. The
war was lost after all, the ideal was not liberated, as
France was , that being an irony in its self. There could not be an apology, only some reason could be
found, ideologically speaking, to butress the
reduction from sinking into total annihilation.
The will was supported by social reinterpretation of
the social contract, another French idea, and
communism was embraced, a winner in the conflict.
As this had also failed, leads back into another kind
of nihilism, the material taking over and replacing the
ideologically possible. The ongtologiclly valuable. At seems Kant lost the battle, Arminius, facts speak louder then words.