<= [661][662][663][664][665][666][667][668][669][670] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
661) Herr Schütze, 09.03.2015, 03:02 (2692)
An der Tatsache, daß hier alle unangenehmen Kommentare gelöscht werden, läßt sich erkennen, wie verlogen es hier zugeht. |
662) Arminius, 10.03.2015, 01:25, 12:10, 01:25, 01:25 (2693-2694)
Arcturus Descending, my little girl, your texts in this kindergarten thread are the ugliest, most lying, and most calumnious texts I have read so far. 80% or even 90% of that what you are saying about me are lies. That's really terrifying.Arcturus Descending wrote:
Are you megalomaniac?I used the verb pretend as a translation for the German verb vorgeben, and vorgeben has no negative but a neutral connotation. As far as I know the Englich verb pretend is the right translation for the German verb vorgeben (also angeben which has not only a neutral connotation). So I used the right word. And it is - again - terribly ugly of you to ascribe evil intentions to me.I invite you to only respond to me in my first language. Any and every word has to be correct. Then I will decide whether you wrote correctly and also what person you exactly are (just in the same way you do it: uglily). That's not my but your ugly behavior.I can show how insulting you are. You started with an ugly ad hom, and that was - by the way - the reason why that post with your ugly ad hom was the first one of the deleted posts. I don't want to talk much about this. Why can you not leave people alone? Your bahvior is so ugly ....Mags J. wrote:
You took the thread off-topic. You!If you really do not know that Mags deleted the posts because you took the thread off-topic, then you really have no consciousness, and therefore you have to be a consciousness seeker.Arcturus Descending wrote:
Again a lie. You absolutely know (unless you have no consciousness - see above) what I am talking about. You want copies? And then? Then you will say: This copies are fakes. Leave me alone with your kindergarten rhetoric.I do not want to talk about your ugly themes. But you do not care about anything what other people want. You can not leave people allone. How would you call that behavior?Jr Wells wrote:
I also did not call you a stalker, but I used the word stalking in a very similar sense and in a very similar situation Jr Wells used it before (therefore the link), because he was right to use it. We asked you many times that you should leave us alone with your childish nonsense, but you did not leave us alone. I asked you even six times, but you did not leave me alone! How would you call such a behavior?Too many laughing emoticons hide often unhappy, depressive persons. Beautiful images hide often ugly persons.___________________________________________________________________________________________To the little brave boys who are defending or advocating A. Descending too quickly:You really know nothing about the incident of Dsecending and me, but you had nothing better to do than defending or advocating her too quickly, without any thought about the facts, because you do not know anything about the incident, thus you also do not know anything about the facts of it. You should have asked you (for example): What happened? What are the facts? Do I know any fact? Is this a nonsense thread of a liar? .... Instaed of that you quickly defended or advocated her. That is foolish and silly (10)^50 (Fuse).___________________________________________________________________________________________Arcturus Descending wrote:
You need those rescuing men very much. But you even do not know that you need them. Your ugly texts in this thread also show it: You are crying rescue me, I am the victim, and the brave men immediately rescue you by defending or advocating you (of course: too quickly and too stupidly, too sillily (10)^50 - Fuse) without any knowledge about any fact of the incident.Arcturus Descending wrote:
No. Obviously not. You behave as long as the victim as you can profit from it. In reality you are the perpetrator, the offender, the abuser. Your texts show it.Arcturus Descending wrote:
Lies over lies (= lol - your trademark). You are lying as much as you can. Truth is that you were the perpetrator, the offender, the abuser, and I was a target of your words. And you took the said thread off-topic with your ad homs.Mags J. wrote:
You took the thread off-topic. You!If you really do not know that Mags deleted the posts because you took the thread off-topic, then you really have no consciousness, and therefore you have to be a consciousness seeker.___________________________________________________________________________________________Jr Wells wrote:
Yes, at least partly. I suggest to reform ILP and to call it IL with the following eight subforums:1) ILF (I Love Fun),
|
2694 |
History did not prove him right ....
Nietzsche took advantage of this flaw,and if Kant would have been greater, he SHOULD have forseen this as one casual possibility.
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.
.... ** **
663) Arminius, 11.03.2015, 01:43, 03:45, 10:55, 12:31, 14:13 (2695-2699)
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?
Knowing and believing are not the same but similar - because of their common source. Science and religion are not the same but similar - because of their common source.
Please show me your moral, if it both works and is not deducible / derivable from Kant's Categorical Imperative.Note: Kant's Categorical Imperative is expandable.
Artimas wrote:
No.Do you mean belief in the sense of faith or even of opinion? And do you mean dreaming in the sense of fantasising?
Mags J. wrote:
Here too. It's beautiful, and today my aunt celebrates her birthday. |
664) Arminius, 12.03.2015, 02:33, 03:22, 12:23, 13:56, 18:10 (2700-2704)
Diekon wrote:Kant apparently didn't use his understanding of the world to better decide his actions... he ended up with the categorical imperative.I mean, if that is the actual goal of philosophy, it seems that he failed as a philosopher. **No. Not Kant as a philosopher but, if at all, the philosophy as a philosophy failed, or, in other words, Kant was the first philosopher who showed that also the philosophy can come to an end. After having its climax the philosophy became more and more redundant and at last something like a pensioner. It was not a coincidence that Kant was a contemporary of Mozart, Hegel a contemporary of Beethoven, and Nietzsche a contemporary of Brahms - and by the way: Sloterdijk is a contemporary of Zappa, and Ecmandu a contemporary of Eminem.Diekon wrote:
I mean that you should show me any moral which both works and is not derivable from Kant's Categorical imperative.Diekon wrote:
And therefore you should show me a (for example: your) moral, if it both works and is not derivable from Kant's Categorical imperative.Diekon wrote:
Yes, Diekon, this thread is not about you. I meant that you should show me a (for example: your) moral, if it both works and is not derivable from Kant's Categorical imperative.Diekon wrote:
No, that's merely nihilistic philosophy, thus nihilism, and of that sort we have already enough. There is no way out of nihlism, if nihlism is already entered.Diekon wrote:
No, that's again social critcism, thus again nihilism, merely nihlistic philosophy. You have the wrong idea about philosophy.If we all would think and act in the sense you are prefering, then in the end (consequently) there will be no philosophy anymore. Everything and anything would be sociology, nothing would be philosophy anymore. We are already on this trip.Diekon wrote:
No, because then most people would say (like you): This thread is not about me.They would say I want to have every and any right because I am the victim. Look at the so-called human rights. They all begin with the word one or the word everyone. Do they work? Does individualism ()extreme egoism) really work? And are they not derivable from Kant's Categorical imperative?Diekon wrote:
Party ideologues, priests, politicians, and other people in power? Like I said: social criticism and sociology, thus nihilism. I say: primarily philosophers should do it., and they should not be allowed to get money for it.
From another thread (**|**):Here are some examples of modern Occidental imperatives like Kant's
Categorical Imperative and other's imperatives:
|
2702 |
So your argument is that there is something like social criticism, and it's nihilistic .... **
And therefor philosophy cannot be that. **
You argue like Kant from definition. **
You know, the root of Nihilism, is not some criticism on the societal system, but the allready present lack of belief in the societal promoted values ..., because the values end up being hollow. God is dead because people killed him. **
The philosopher, or societal critic if you really will, merely reports that God is in fact dead. He's the doctor diagnosing society. To find a cure, it doesn't suffice to desparately try to stitch together the deceased corpse and hope that it will magically come back to live, like Kant does. **
You need to dispose of it alltogether, to create space for something new .... **
The human rights don't really work, there is contradiction abound .... **
2703 |
Look, you are leaving out the reevaluation part .... **
I never said a philosopher should only criticize, but it will be an important part of it. **
There is the sceptic deflationary part and also the constructive positing of his own values. **
You (the philosopher, not you specifically!) cannot build on unsolid ground to good result. The philosopher is the doctor diagnosing ... and looking for a cure. **
The god is dead reference is of course a reference to Nietzsche... and i don't see the problem as he didn't say he died at that exact moment, he was allready dead (for a while), people just hadn't got the memo yet. **
2704 |
I don't agree with your characterisation of non-philosophy and philosophy. **
Criticism is intrinsically tied into philosophy, it's not non-philosophy. **
I don't think you can get good philosophy without it. If it were that simple you could just build whatever arbitrary thing and call it philosophy. **
Influence isn't the only, or even the most important, criterium for a good philosopher. A good philosopher has both aspects, he reëvaluates which implies a certain scepsis and a creative act. **
And some got the memo, but most didn't. **
Kant for example didn't really get the memo, nor did the whole tradition that followed him. **
And if they did get the memo, they certainly didn't fully realise all the ramification of it. **
Nietzsche was the first to do that... to do philosophy without metaphysics. **
665) Arminius, 13.03.2015, 11:55, 13:49, 15:20, 17:53 (2705-2708)
Sauwelios wrote:
No, only no.Sauwelios wrote:
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.Sauwelios wrote:
That's no argument.
When I joned ILP, my sympathy with Nietzsche was about 70%; now it is about 40%. That's the merit of the ILP Nietzscheanists (extreme Nietzscheans). Thank you very much!Are you a Nietzschean(ist)?(1) Yes, I am a Nietzschean.
|
2706 |
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. « ** **
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.
.... ** **
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.
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 interpretation. 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«. ** **
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). ** **
And by the way: The ILP Nietzschean(ist)s are more than the ILP Kantian(ist)s. The majority is always right? No! ** **
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? ** **
_______
Note: Kant's Categorical Imperative is expandable. ** **
(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.«
.... ** **
2707 |
»Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws.« **
2708 |
Belief hardly ever deals with facts. It is imagination. Thinking without knowing. You know, an idea?
Facts are indisputable and do not ever change. Belief changes all the time. **
666) Arminius, 14.03.2015, 02:33, 08:45, 12:21, 13:11, 23:16 (2709-2714)
Artimas wrote:
Which religions do you mean? You use the word always pretty generously, don't you?Christianity as a religion has been existing for about 2000 years.Artimas wrote:
Which different versions do you mean? Christianity (for example) has been existing for about 2000 years.Artimas wrote:
So, according to your statement, belief is the deeper faith.
Sauwelios wrote:
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.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.
Artimas wrote:
Everyone knows, yes, but that is no answer to my question. I did not ask for the origins and the copies, but for the duration of a religion, regardless whether this religion made some compromises with the heathendom or not, regardless whether this religion got several denominations, regardless whether belief and faith are blind or not. Christianity, let's say since its early days when it merged with many aspects of the German religion, has been being a pretty much consistent, coherent, uniform religion, although a bit a mixed, a syncretistic one - but that does not matter.I just wanted you to explain the difference between belief and faith to somebody whose first language is not English and which different versions with similarities you could mean on the evidence of e.g. Christianity as a an old and consistent, coherent, uniform religion.
A very selfish perspective and self defeating.
It is just because of the fact that he is not able to accept historical facts. His last excuse is then: future history ():Sauwelios wrote:
Or this one:Sauwelios wrote:
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.- Http:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7VqsONNvIs
|
667) Arminius, 15.03.2015, 14:24, 15:24, 16:21, 16:42, 17:04, 20:54, 21:29, 22:24 (2714-2721)
Sauwelios wrote:
So you are denying historical facts.Like I said: You are not able to accept historical facts. Is it because the Dutch football team never won the world championship?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:
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.Sauwelios wrote:
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:
|
2715 |
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. **
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 .... **
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. **
2716 |
Nietzsche totally negated it. Therefore Nietzsche is far better. **
2717 |
It is not certain that there is an absolute exclusivity between a negator and a philosopher, although there may be. **
He even negates the negation by his affirmation. **
2718 |
The question was, who was the better philosopher, Nietzsche or Kant. Hegel was not considered, in exclusive terms. That he was an influence, is of no doubt, however, that would be a different topic, and Hegel may very well be better than Kant, or even Leibniz. **
2719 |
2720 |
You want Kant to be the greatest philosopher because you want to believe in »facts«. **
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. « ** **
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.
.... ** **
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.
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 interpretation. 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«. ** **
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). ** **
And by the way: The ILP Nietzschean(ist)s are more than the ILP Kantian(ist)s. The majority is always right? No! ** **
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? ** **
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. ** **
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. ** **
2721
668) Herr Schütze, 16.03.2015, 00:09 (2722)
Ja, aber was bedeutet das in der Schlußfolgerung? Worauf läuft das hinaus?
|
669) Arminius, 17.03.2015, 01:20, 01:20 (2723)
RHARDBC wrote:
Yes. Hegel was right. Hegel is right. Hegel will be right.RHARDBC wrote:
That is - of course - also right.The question was, who was the better philosopher Nietzche or Kant. Heidegger, Hitler, and Neumann were not considered .... :wink: |
670) Arminius, 18.03.2015, 14:50, 15:24, 16:16, 15:24 (2724-2726)
James S. Saint wrote:
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.....Sauwelios wrote:
The question was, who was the better philosopher Nietzche or Kant. Heidegger, Hitler, and Neumann were not considered ........Orb wrote:
And what about the reverse? A belief in a philosopher does not
meet the substantial aspects of the corollary that this philosopher
is better.
|
2725 |
What about intellectual/epistemic duties or virtues? Many would argue there's a moral field to how we examine our beliefs and so on. Doesn't hedonism lead to the conclusion that we should just believe whatever gives us the most pleasure to believe? **
Why are people so vigorously trying to make other people hedonistically stupid?
Mayhaps to bring their demise? **
2726 |
==>
|