Visit brilliant.org/Weltgeist/ to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription. Thank you for watching! You guys seem to enjoy this series of "Why Nietzsche Hated..." so hopefully this instalment doesn't disappoint. -Weltgeist
Quran says: “Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-one/indivisible/loving/self-sufficient perfection.
I like Nietzsche, but Kant is my guy. The Noumena, is the Tao of Lau Tzu, the Logos of Heraclitus, the Will of Schopenhauer, & inferred by quantum mechanics. The great mystery Nietzsche didn't appreciate.
Yeah, I want a whole series. Why Nietzsche Hated Socrates Why Nietzsche Hated Plato Why Nietzsche Hated Aristotle Why Nietzsche Hated Kant Why Nietzsche Hated Hegel Why Nietzsche Hated John Locke Why Nietzsche Hated David Hume Why Nietzsche Hated Berkeley Why Nietzsche Didn't Hated Sartre, but would if he had known him I'd watch it all.
whenever a philsopher or scientist hits a brick wall of their own making and declares that it implies some underlying complex truth of the universe, this is when I say 'they Kant understand it'.
to presuppose a figurative character in parables is greater than a mistaken individual which many people look up to 🤔 .. seems a bit mal conceived for starters
"I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason). Kant himself says it! Nietzsche was spot on! Kant is a continuation of religious metaphysics (this world is unreal), epistemology (reason is limited), and ethics (obedience/duty). Nice coverage of a complex topic! Thank you!
This isn’t what Kant meant when he said that in my opinion. It is actually quite the opposite of continuing the religious metaphysics of the early modern philosophers like Leibniz, who saw a rational basis for true knowledge of God. Kant was actually breaking from religious orthodoxy by making it clear that faith in God was just that; only faith. He was not speaking of faith in his metaphysics, and God was not included in those things he had proven to his satisfaction within the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant thought that by taking religion away from reason and giving it back to faith, reason could bear out a more fruitful path.
""I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason). Kant himself says it!" And neitzsche lied about it. Nothing neitzsche ever said was objective. His whole body of work is subjective opinion. Neitzsche criticizing Kant for this is like a serial killer criticizing a mugger.
A great video. I agree with Nietzsche's criticism that Kant was far too circular. But I also get the impression that as part of his critique Nietzsche effectively argued that philosophy must lack any motivation, which is when I'd ask him; "So, lacking motivation, why would I do it?"
Kant's total lack of motivation to do philosophy is apparent. He's like a drunken lout on a ditch-digging job, sneaking swigs from his hip flask between half-shovel fulls of dirt, most of which don't make it to the pile before sliding back into the ditch.
You can extend this logic to anything. I believe his answer would be that's the point. Why do it? That is up to YOU. Nihilism in and of itself wasn't the end of his philosophy. We are supposed to grow past it and create our own meaning and value in life. Everyone listens to the "nothing matters" part of his philosophy and never hears "thus we are meant to overcome this and in doing so become men greater than ourselves" He wasn't trying to tell people how to live. He isn't trying to dig down to some ultimate truth above all others.
Kant did not ask the question, "How does the mind work?" That was not even in his sights. He asked, "How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?" Be careful when you listen to other people's (Nietzsche's) opinions and, in the long run, rely on your own judgment.
Really great summation, not only of Nietzsche but also for Kant. I have read his Critique of Pure Reason book and it is not the easiest to fathom, but hearing commentary of this quality brings it all together. Would be also good to see some videos featuring Kant given his association with Schopenhauer. Thank you JZ (John)
If that was "not the easiest to fathom"... please don't read Derrida!!! That guy is so convoluted that it seems like he is full of shit. Michael Foucault at least makes sense at some point. I read these philosophers when I start to think I might be full of it. LOL
@4:00 Kant did not really say that, he said we cannot rightly claim to _perceive_ a clear black & white distinction, which is not to say there is none. It is a near trivial statement. Also, fuzzy sets and algorithmic complexity (impossibility of real time knowledge from empiricism) were not understood back then, and an awful lot of Continental philosophy bickering boils down to not acknowledging in the other guy is really invoking fuzzy sets or algorithmic complexity.
I do not think I agree with N. here, although I am often fascinated by him. A priori reasonings that give us additional knowledge seem to exist - such as when we use maths to get new info about numbers or geometry or even predictions about the physical world. The question how this is possible is important, and Kant's articulation of /different/ intellectual functions (not "by means of a means" but "by means of these different means") is valid and still significant. EDIT: The important point here is that Kant establishes that the one faculty of knowledge works through the articulation of many, separate but unifiable faculties, that can bridge the gap between dispersed and disorganised sensory information and univocal and disrinct but arbitrary mental ideas. Kant did not start from a prejudice, his desire to bridge Descartes and Hume. He started from the puzzling observation that modern science works, giving us objective knowledge through subjective faculties (reason and senses), and set out to analyse how by using D. and H. as intellectual tools.
About ethics, I do agree somewhat with N., as Kant is indeed too rationalistic and I do think there needs to be room for joy and empowerment in ethics. But I still think that Kant's first aim was to make ethics compatible with his epistemology, namely to understand how it's possible to get universal, true knowledge beyond merely subjective faculties (including unproven subjective ideas about God). In order to be rationally accepted, morality needs to appeal to something that we all share. Kant should have just acknowledged that there are other faculties, beyond rationality, that can contribute to this, like Schopenhauer's compassion and Nietzsche's desire to be empowered and transcend one's limitations.
IMO Its a mistake to think of math as apriori knowledge. It's not, as is anyones actual experience in math class. It _all_ synthetic, a great pyramid of knowledge. Sure, humans built blocks, wheels and pyramids with math but even those shapes are things we defined because they were useful to the animal homo sapiens. Math knowledge is not metaphysical at all. You can't divine it through mediation as anyone stuck on a math question on a test knows.
@@ludlowaloysius maths is logically based on axioms (the zfc system) that are true by definition. Thus athough these systems generate paradoxes they are still soundly based in apriori statements and are thus a reliable source of (constructive) knowledge.
Kants Moral system which he provides in Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten is indeed very rationalistic, but it has the great advantage, that its extreamly constistent
Nietzsche said Kant started with a conclusion (which is true) but forgot to mention (and weltgeist forgot to mention this too) that he started his philosophical journey with a conclusion as well, that life is worth living/life must be loved/life is beautiful/life must be enjoyed you know the rest
I disagree with this point as Nietzsche had been chronically ill for the vast majority of his life and had written letters to friends abt unbearable the pain was and how much he wanted to end it all.
@@elia8544 He's still believe about the majority of Schopenhauer philosophy, he just don't have the same view about the final conclusion or decide to create his own version.
feels like Nietzsche is hard strawmanning him, and then fleeing into generalities like his principle of the hidden goal. Nietzsche is horribly polemic and through that shallow in his writing. The only thing that catches some interest is his non-conformity. Hegel has a much better point proclaiming that "substance is subject". It is obvious that morals cant be based on pure joy or other subjective, individualist emotions, since there are enough examples where the joy of one is destroying the lives and worlds of others. Nietzsche is like a restaurant critic... they cant cook as well as the chef, but aspire to sour every product with their opinion derived from pure entitlement.
I do know that Nietzsche hated Kant, however I am currently reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It is his magnum opus, in my opinion. I think Nietzsche disagreed with Kant about ethics and morals. However, I do believe that Kant projected a philosophy that gave a pretty dynamic part of the subjective participant, which is us mankind, in shaping the world that we all live, that everything is a priori synthetically connected by our experience. He revolutionized philosophy in a really compelling way, I think that Schopenhauer gave his own misanthropic take on Kant's philosophy. Hegel takes Kant's synthetic thesis and converts to his dynamic "An sich," "being-in-itself, for itself." How a priori manifests posteriori, in my humble opinion Nietzsche has a really unique way of seeing philosophy. However, I think Kant and Hegel are the most layered and profound philosophers that systemized mental thought process. Of course that Nietzsche is not satisfied with mental faculties and all of that. However, Kant had a way of looking things much spiritually and mystically as well Hegel. Nietzsche, in contrast, was a Christian and then became atheist. Nietzsche's attacks against religion are well-grounded by far the best I have seen and read. By the way, great and insightful video Weltgeist!
@@Sam-_- Ok? It is not paragraphs, it is a paragraph (singular). If you think I said absolutely nothing, that is on you; not me. You are supposed to know better right? Why bother commenting to me, if I am saying absolutely nothing? Peace out
The thing I noticed is that nietzche notion of the 'will to power' is underpinned by the same logic he used in hos criticism against kant. Namely that he is answering a means with a means. 'Will to power' can be understood as nietzche categorizing an inherent faculty within humans. And since the phrase itself is very vague, it cant be considered an original philosophical discovery. 'Power' can refer to anything. Any human endeavor can be classified as being resulted through the manifestation of one's will of power. It becomes a circular reasoning of sort. It can be argued that a businessman endeavors to be rich in order to manifest their will of power as well as the will of power within the businessman works to manifest itself into the business desire to be rich. To put it in crude terms, nietzche arguments is basically saying that the businessman endeavors to be rich because the businessman wants to. This isn't really a take at all. There's no attempt to answer anything. To believe that the will of power is some inherent faculty that drives the action of humans, a faculty that one is subjected to rather than it being a choice, is basically justifying a depersonalized attitude towards ethics as one's volition and consideration does not impact the existence of the 'will to power'. To state that human actions is predicated on a vague notion of achieving power and control isnt an original point at all. Nietzche argues that Kant does not employ a critical attitude in deriving a teleogical justification in ethics and seeks to only justify his own conclusions of 'how' ethics comes to be rather than 'why'. But the same criticism can be directed at nietzche. His notion of the 'will to power' only serves to explain 'how' human actions come to exist rather than 'why'. I supposed one can argue that nietzche's notion of 'will to power' points to human behaviour and ethics being engendered by an 'active agent'; an end in of itself but I find this contradictory. Nietzche argument of the 'will of power' being the basis of human motivation for action is utilizing the same, underpinning logic that Kant's argument of 'categorical imperative', being a basis of human motivation for action. Both of these notions justifies its conclusions by holding its ends to be the same as its means; that the means and the ends are indistinguishable. Kant believes that human behaviour and morality is an expression of reason in of it self and that the tools used to discern proper ethics is justified, not by its ends but the tool in of itself. Likewise for nietzche, he determines the best course of action for human behaviour to be of one that best exemplifies one's will to power. Neither of these thinkers bother to expound on the means they employed, of which they both used to formulated their perspective of human behaviour and instead, uncritically and dogmatically held these 'means' as true. The way I see it, Kant systematically justifies the existence of the element of 'negative freedom' in human ethics while nietzche justified the existence of the element of 'positive freedom' in human ethics. Neither of them were able to deconstruct the notion of ethics and instead, reaffirmed the dogmatic assumptions regarding human motivations, actions, morality and ethics.
I just took an introductory class of Philosophy in college and my professor would just lecture and ramble. I don't remember one thing that I can say wow I learned that in that class. But literally in 20 seconds from 2:58 I've learned more than a whole semester worth.
@@martiendejong8857 maybe know at least one thing about machiavelli before coming to a comment section full of philosophy nerds 🤣 machiavelli's writings were... Brutal but effective advice for Princes and Kings to hold their nations. It was banned in many Christian nations. The comparison to fascism is moot as this came at a time of monarchy.
Good video! My only gripe is that the explanation given for why Kant would think that murder was wrong was a consequentialist explanation, and not really a deontological one. Murder is wrong (at least with regard to the first interpretation of the Categorical Imperative) because the hypothetical execution of such a maxim ultimately leads to a contradiction within itself.
It’s not a question of morality but of rights. So it is a matter of which answer is the most just. In his answer, Kant stated that justice is best served, whatever the outcome of the scenario, when the innkeeper tells the truth.
Weltgeist I love your videos. Thank you very much for your many interesting uploads. Please keep up the great work you've been doing for our viewing pleasure 💪
@@WeltgeistYT You quoted a book called "Process and Reality" by A.N. Whitehead in one of your videos iirc. Any plans on making a video about it for us modern adhd viewers? Also maybe you've heard of it there's a website called Project Gutenberg a free online library. Maybe you could link it for your audience to read the books themselves it's great I use it all the time
In your previous video, you also mentioned Kant's moral philosophy about doing good for its own sake, and it's something I've been thinking about for a long time since I heard the question posed as "Is it actually possible to do a _selfless_ act of charity, seeing as how you gain a feeling of self-satisfaction from having done so? I think it's an interesting question when put that way. I agree with Kant that someone who "does good works" in the hope of getting into heaven as a reward is not a moral person but a self-interested person. If someone donates to charity from their salary so that they can claim a tax writeoff for the year, this is a calculating and opportunistic person, not a selfless person. I also think that two people doing the same action resulting in the same outcome could be polar opposites in terms of morality. Think of a man who pushes an old woman into the street. In one case, the man could be desperately trying to push her out of harm's way of a falling piano from a third story building directly above her. Another man could simply be trying to push her into traffic out of malice. Both scenarios look the same to the bystander, but what makes the crucial difference is motivation and intent!
I'm by no means defending Kant's morality (I actually don't get how the categorical imperative actually says anything - you can always define your rule to be more complex and nuanced to the point of universalization becoming meaningless), and I can't do more than defer to personal experience, but you absolutely can do an act of "charity" without neither feeling good nor regretting it. Sometimes you just do what you think you should do. One reason can be a sense of duty, but it could also be down to a sense of righteousness, training, instinct, and a million other factors - that's before taking into account that a single action can have many different and often contradictory effects on you or that "self-satisfaction" is not really a single, well defined thing.
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p in Kantian terms, there is but ONE categorical imperative (to avoid harm), plus a multitude of hypothetical imperatives (that is to say, to understand under what circumstances harm may be justified, such as the killing of an unborn human child, in the case of abortion).
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p I understand what you say and I think it is valid, that there can be acting in accordance with duty or what our gut tells us is the right thing to do. Sometimes you hear people say phrases like "Even though it pains me, I must do 'X'", or "Although it goes against my better judgement, I will give that person the benefit of the doubt.", for example, but then doesn't this give the person who is acting according to this "higher moral code" against his own baser instincts to the contrary, a feeling of righteousness at having "done the right thing?" Even if we're feeling somewhat conflicted with the decision to "be the better person", doesn't that still give us a sense that we're the kind of person who "acts for the good of others" or "for the greater good"? Despite any simultaneous feelings of bitterness, haven't we still gained a sense of pride in ourselves about having some kind of ability to defer self- interest and archive a higher moral character? I think you might be referrimg to the law of intended consequences at the end there, and yes this can really throw a spanner in the works as far as morality and the avoidance of harm, which is why I think objective judgement of these things must examine motivations and intentions.
Someone who do good because he Hope to go to heaven is still moral, if there's no heaven doing good won't even make sense...as the great dostoeyvsky said, if there's no god everything is permitted
Clearly Nietzsche is driven by ego. BTW, I completely lack context because I've never read his work but I also find his supposedly critiques of Kant to be out of context. And as far as the difficulty in understanding Kant's tough language goes, I always wonder, did he personally do that or the people around him did it in order to obscure his philosophy? I've seen a similar practice in today's textbooks where a simple concept is purposely made so convoluted to discourage certain pple.
Stopped reading after you said “never read his work.” 99% of anti Nietzscheans are just 105 iq Christians or somebody who grew up with slave morality complaining about him being mean.
I swear I was just thinking this, and if you lived in a small town/college, your local/ school library wasn’t stocked with anything considered controversial, especially in the Bible Belt. Most locals hadn’t actually read any of these works, but “ heard” that they were “ bad.”
The wisest man doesn't hold any real answers, but rather - one who asks the right questions. Like most of us, he should've walked away from the table when he was ahead. But he let his own hubris take over and instead doubles down
I like how the way the ‘Dualist Christian Worldview’ is reached again, means that the material is what is beyond us, and in a way we are the spiritual.
Great stuff Weltgeist, excellent presentation and narration. You've earned a comment, a like and a sub. Nietzsche also called Kant "The Great Chinaman of Konigsberg". Not sure what he meant by it?
He used the Chinese to exemplify an industrious, materialistic type without regard for higher culture, he thought Chinese society was very herdlike and based on obedience. He saw the same thing in a Kantian framework. Thank you for the kind words!
he probably saw Kant's philosophy as some kind of European Confucianism (duty-based moral system); like he explicitly saw Schopenhauer's philosophy as 'a European Buddhism' (neither were meant as a compliment)
Great -- This is the most profound sort of philosophical education. I suggest that any young person who wants to learn about philosophy ought to listen to this lecture once per day -- or even once per week for 3 months.
Uberboyo conceptualizes Nietzsche's attempt to psychoanalyze people he wishes to critique as an ad homenim attack. This is completely in error and not the right way of looking at it at all. Nietzshe is simply using the character of a person behind an argument to better understand the argument itself as he correctly points out that the two are inseparable: once you understand that Peterson is conflict avoidant in his personality, you understand why he is infatuated with conflict, specifically the dragon fight. Ignoring these things entirely is not fair play -- it's tying one hand behind your back and avoiding the obvious for no reason.
Yes it is a common mistake in intellectual history to ignore important context. Ultimately it is a life hating perspective because it asks you to eliminate people from your understanding of the world and focus only on ideas.
I really appreciate your work and enjoy your content. It's knowledgeable, and your explanation is simple. As a viewer, i request you to please start a series in the Sartre's Existentialism. Thank you Regards.
Nietzsche hated Kant, because he never properly read Kant, but was only familiar with Kantianism, that is with how his contemporary Philosophers understood Kant. And that understanding of Kant was heavily informed by the perceived necessities of academic practise: Kant uses terminology. You can easily learn Kants terms and phrases. You can easily test knowledge of those terms and phrases. In other words: You can easily rip Kants philosophy of its essence and reduce it to a dead hulk managable at university courses. That is what Johann Gottlieb Fichte (the direct successor to Kant who further developped transcendental idealism and went beyond Kant) critizied not about Kant, but Kantians. You could easily read Kant and misunderstand him. Fichte himelf avoided this by refusing to create any strict terminology, reading Fichte and understanding him requires actual thinking, you must take his philosophy as a sort of a living thing. That you can misunderstand Kant and view his philosophy as a dead edifice does not mean that this reading is correct, though. In general: Fichte understood Kant much better than Nietzsche and he understood philosophy itself much better. Yes, you cannot be entirely impartial in philosophical inquiry. Because truth itself is not impartial. Furthermore: Philosophy is reflection upon life. It is not creating life. So of course, since philosophy reflects upon life, it's direction is predetermined. And of course, since life is consciousness, we have some awareness of where philosophical inquiry must lead towards. Philosophy does not so much generate new knowledge as it merely makes it explicit. (It makes explicit all that the thought "I" implies, a thought the first cave dwelling humans allready had, but not fully understood. Developping this understanding is what philosophy does.) So yes: At the beginning of every philosophical inquiry lies a belief. And the philosophical question is: What is that belief and why do we have to belief it? That is exactly what Kant explores. If Nietzsche had known actually Kant, then he would have seen how Kants philosophy was an attempt of a sollution of many problems Nietzsche had with his time. Nietzsche hated not Kant, but an understand of Kant that would read Kant as an example of slave morality and negative enlightenment, that is: The reduction of reason to a tool of avoiding prejudice and an understanding of morality as negative, as mere avoidance of evil. Fichte understood, that Kants philosophy does not end at lower morality (Fichtes name for Nietzsches "slave morality"), but to a higher, positive morality (and he himself developped that much beyond Kant): Humanity guiding itself through reason, being guided by positive ideas and shaping life and the world according to these ideas. That higher morality is at the core of transcendental idealism, and Fichte shows how it is the condition for any belief at all. Kant himself wanted to explain, why 1. science is possible and 2. universal morality is possible. He explained 1 by pointing out, that science (which is not understood as the collection of facts, but understanding of laws) does only find the laws of our own mind. Since we contruct the world with our mind, the laws of our mind must apply, so science must be possible. This solves Humes problem, when he sees, that empiricism does not allow to find universal laws, like causal laws. And the second questions is answered by that morality is not about the phenomenal world, but the noumenal one, and therefor falls into an entirely different category. Morality is a thing, because we can use reason practically. There is no possible correspondent of practical laws in experience. Therefore practical laws can neither appear (and be validated), nor be proven wrong by any experience and remain purely practical: We must act as though we were free to act guiding ourself by reason. Kant himself leaves practical and theoretical (speculative) reason next to one another, even though he already saw the practical as the more central thing. Fichte then showed, that actually we have th theoretical because, because we are practical beings: We don't act because we understand, but we must understand in order to act. (His example: I'm not hungry because I recognize something as food, but I recognize something as food, because I'm hungry.) That is the primate of the practical ("Primat des Praktischen"), which, I think, is something Nietzsche himself would very much agree to. So, all our knowledge and the world and it's object etc. MUST be constructed by our mind, because otherwise we would have nothing to act with. By the way: If philosophy was supposed to "invent" morality, than what that means is that it would require philosophical education and knowledge to be a moral human being. Kant knew that this could not be the case. Moral philosophy does not create morality, just as physical science does not create the laws of mechanics. It's about making these things explicit. So the demand that philosophy could lead anywhere is actually quite ridiculous. Edit: What I answered to some post here, but seems also relevant for this one: Happiness is external, reason is not. I use reason autonomously, but I can't autonosmly determine what I find agreeable: If I dont like coffee, than I don't like it. If I'm into guys rather then womend, than what am I supposed to do about it? But I can determine that I want to treat everybody with dignity, as end of themselves and not only as means. How to apply this is of course a matter of judgement. So yes: There is a universal law. But that law must be apllied in every situation in a specific way, and how to do this is a matter of judgement, which also includes experience. That's why Kant had 3 critiques, not only one or two. (This, by the way, is why modern political correctness is wrong: It attemps ro regulate moral behaviour through general rules which are to be adhered to at every occasion. That will lead to a life-negating practise, to what Nietzsche would call Nihilism. Kant himself would say: Don't try to just use certain pronouns or avoid certain words etc., but allways act with respect and attention to everybodies humanity. Treat them with dignity! Doing so needs to judge evey particular situation and every particular person. You cannot say, for example: "Never touch your (female) coworker" (in order to avoid sexual harrasment or some other offense), because if said coworker might have lost a close person and needs a hug, then hugging them is the best thing to do. You must pay attention, not invent a rule and then blindly follow that rule. Kants universal kategorical imperative is a thing of alignment, general attitide, not a general rule of "do x under any circumstance" with x being some specific thing. (In the end it is, but what that specific thing, that satisfies the moral law, is in this particular situation, depends on your judgement.) This is why Kants philosphy is not life-negating as Nietzsche thought. Kant wanted for people to take responcibility and to bravely make judgements on their own accord and boldly use their reason to positively shape their lives and actions, not to cowardly hide behind dead, negative rules of mere decency and the concept of relativism, that is: "I'm not shure, so I don't believe anything, I'm not shure, so I better just do as they tell me and avoid tripping on anybodies toes") Nietzsche hated cowardly avoiding responcibility. Kants philosophy is the opposite of that, it's ultimately life-affirming, responsible, a philosphy of positive (not just liberal) freedom. It was philosophy in the form of science though, and that'swhat makes it look so cold und unemotional.
Kant's morality is not only ultimately slave morality, but it sets you up to be a hypocrite and a coward(that guy with the axe won't stop knocking any time soon). Also his categorical imperative can be used to justify just about anything. I would definately will it that killing/punishing criminals becomes a universal law but that says nothing aboutobjective morality.
@@dreyri2736 There are more versions of the categorical imperative. "Allways treat humanity in every person also as an end of itself and never only as means to other ends" would be an expression that can not so easily be misunderstood and reduced to a mere logical form. About the guy with the ax... utilitarians pretend to know the future. Kant allready showed how riddiculus that is. You have not just the option of "lie and safe a life" or "tell the truth and condemn them to death", but you could: Not say anything at all, or try to convince the guy with the ax to step down, or defend your door against him. It could be that, while you discuss with that guy, the person hiding inside your house leaves through a window. Or maybe, when a fight ensues, the hiding one will intervene and now its two against one. When you lie, the murderer might not believe you and still enter and murder the victim. Or maybe he does go away, but since the person hiding might already have slipped through a window, the two will meet in the streets and the murder will occur anyway. In other words: The scenario is completely nonsensical. Typical for utilitarian "thought experiments", which are just completely alien to life and feable attempts at rationalizing immoral stuff. It is, by the way, VERY wrong to try to refer to Nietzsche if you want to defend any kind of utilitarianism. Nietzsche and Kant are much more compatible with one another than most people (including Nietzsche himself) would expect. Nietzsche at one point writes about utilitarianism: "Man does not want to be happy. Only the Englishman wants that." And also: Kant does go beyond mere slave morality. (And where it is not sufficiently clear and explicit in Kants writings alone, Fichte completes the work.)
@@garnauklaufen6704 i'm not defending Utilitarianism. I'm saying that you don't have to pretend that intentions don't exist or autistically enslave yourself to some golden rule in order to satisfy your own ego, which is all it is, even if you claim to get no joy from it. All ethics in its essence is the attempted domination of the universe. And most are very poor at fulfilling that purpose, but that is still their function.
@@dreyri2736 Yes, dominating the universe throug reason, that is: Making things reasonable. That's kantian ethics, and that's why it's not slave morality, which indeed pretends to be passive (but is actually nihilistic). I'm also not saying that you should not enjoy being ethical. I'm only saying that if you are acting morally, that joy is not the drive for your morality, but reason and morality are completely spontaneous.
As I understand the issue, Kant distinguished appearance, and therefore perception and representation, from the thing-in- itself. That is, sensibility was determined by the apriori forms and categories as found within the understanding to the exercise of practical reason via the categorical imperative, to aesthetic judgments; the objectivity of things is distinct from our perception and apperception. It was this positing of the thing-in-itself which brought the critics howling from Schopenhauer to Nietzsche to Bergson, but all of this perked up Freud! Schopenhauer called the thing-in-itself "unconscious will." Nietzsche called it Dionysian impulse or the 'will to power.' Bergson called it a vital force. Kant focused on the spontaneity of consciousness as the independence of life from transcendental factors. Recall that by the early 20th century, God was defined as 'life,' but not after WWI.
Perhaps, Kant for all his detailed analysis of the mind faculties could not handle the prospect of looking into the driving force of the mind itself, the most profound of world changing paradigm shifts found in Nietzsche's will to power analysis. Trying to look directly into the the world changing implications of will to power by exposing the shallow facade of traditional ethics to maintain the "power structure" of the Roman elite of the day and previous empires before Rome would be akin to looking into the bright sun at noon for a conformist in the Kantian ethics worldview. Nietzsche exposed Kant as a conformist shill of the establishment, brilliant perhaps in his Kantian meticulous mental categories yet hiding in his dense verbage from the bright sun truth he did not want to face, the drives, the intuitive pulsating, driving force of the will to power behind the "machinery of the mind." Nietzsche unshackled mankind from the establishment shills placing chains on man under the guise of complicated, bewildering philosophical technical language while denying the obvious will to power hiding in plain sight that could take philosophy to the leading edge of luminosity. Nietzsche showed man the way forward to a no limit possibility overflowing with intuitive Emersonian self reliance insight, and filled ultimatwly with empathy for man's will to power instincts and "love of the game" in all full spectrum facets and dimensions. In doing so, Nietzsche took philosophy to the Mt. Everest of paradigm shifts and next level, leading edge horizon views for philosophy for the next thousand years. As Nietzsche intutively foresaw in his grandest moment of philosophical satori in the will to power, he would now be forever the "philosopher for the day after tomorrow." 1
@@spencerwinston4334 Thanks for the Nietzschean paean. Can you evade the problem of irrationality that Nietzsche stands for? What exactly is power for Nietzsche? Why lack a rational, that is, reasonable, explanation of the mind? The poetry sounds good but it is neither pragmatic nor instrumental, it neither describes nor prescribes. The mind is something that people "use" all the time, it is like consciousness or perception but not exactly. Kant defended a unity of consciousness not a duality as was common before with the Cartesians and then again afterwards by the critics, like Nietzsche. Kant did run up against the hard problems of consciousness, but does Nietzsche improve this situation? It's important to understand what is at stake. There is a part of consciousness which Kant called the thing-in-itself, later called being-in-itself, which did not abide by the transcendental conditions of knowledge, that is, did not seem to arrive at consciousness through the sensibility, but was instead immediate experience, not mediated by concepts or the categories of the understanding. The implication is significant that something else affects us which is not perceived. Schopenhauer called this unconscious will and Nietzsche power. However, they did not improve our understanding, but perhaps woke us.
@@fredwelf8650 TY for the feedback Fred. Your reply is so compelling and thought provoking I need some time this weekend to contemplate what you wrote, and see if I can "read between" the lines as an admitted Nietzsche afficianadio. Appreciate the response, as we all aim for philosophical "satori" and awareness. Fascinating discussion, and offer you a Pacifico beer cheer for a relaxing weekend. Cheers.
@@fredwelf8650 "When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." R. Buckminster Fuller,architect, systems designer ... "We lie in the lap of immense intelligence, which makes us receivers of its truth and organ of its activity." Ralph Waldo Emerson "There is nothing in the Universe but mathematical points of force" - Faraday Nietzsche, with his intense Navy Seal front sight focus on the will to power, might have inadvertently discovered, real philosophical alchemy. The highly prized alchemy of exotic cerebral planes at the heart of all intellectual disciplines vectored into the will to power. Nietzsche's spotlight on power in all its forms, dimensions, and societal masks is the philosophical equivalent of discovering the exotic colored Mercury for applied materialist scientists in research labs. Nietzsche's power paradigm concept of thought effectively combines philosophy, engineering first principles, the laws of thermodynamics, Shannon's information theory, and the archetypes of Jungian psychology all tied and wrapped up into a tortian field of thought power. As Schopenhauer observed, in their quest to turn lead into gold, the alchemists failed on one level, but on another level, the experiments of the alchemists bought us the fields of chemistry and advanced mathematics. Much the same for Nietzsche, he went on a relentless beagle hunt rabbit hole search for the power rabbit, and in doing so revealed the ties that connect all advanced intellectual disciplines. Future philosophers involved in the contemplative craft will now stand on monolithic structures of support from Nietzsche's meticulous scholarship and resulting grand satori discovery of the ages.
@@spencerwinston4334 Nietzsche posited the will to power of the subject as the determining factor of reality but this will to power is unconscious, that is, determines consciousness unconsciously. As we know, autocrats who work with a will to power have lost, significantly lost, because the will, and especially the will to power is hubris, error, irrationality. No one likes someone on a power trip! It is nothing but an attitude! And it is wrong. Instead, the collective will, the collective unconscious must be collected and described as intention and put to the test of discussion where all voices are considered. One way we do this is through campaigns and voting where the journalist media provide venues for discussion: lectures, interviews and debates so that the people can determine how to decide. Nietzsche and the bevy of autocrats and oligarchs since then manipulate democratic processes and undermine this collective intention. Nietzsche is ‘very interesting’ but must be evaluated and not embraced!
Nietzsche and Kant might be the two most different philosophers out there. Kant was pure logic and intellectual discipline. Nietzsche was a poet who thought rather intuitively.
pure logic and intellectual discipline but still ended up a christian, the obviously wrong, unintellectual, illogical worldview. nietzsche was right here
Scientific evidence of time and space as a form of perception: Damage or disruptions in the processing of the visual cortex can lead to temporal distortions, such as difficulties perceiving the timing of events or changes in the temporal order of visual stimuli. Damage to certain regions of the visual cortex can lead to perceptual distortions in which objects may appear smaller (micropsia) or larger (macropsia) than they actually are. These spatial distortions can affect the individual's perception of the size and distance of objects.
How is reliable cognition possible? Because it involves the activation and application of logical and mathematical relations whose nature is knowable apriori (ie transcendentally grounded). This seems a reasonable general answer by Kant. There is no experience of external objects possible independent of these transcendental (logical and mathematical) properties. Therefore the cognition may be considered well grounded.
That leaves out a lot of how cognition works, based on research that did not exist in Kant and Nietzsche's day. Reliability is also based on many levels of educated guesswork at the low biological level that is informed by survival and prospering as an organism. That part is generally in line with Nietzsche's point of view. That being said, Kant's argument is not totally negated by our current scientific paradigm it's just complicated by it.
Thank god for this video. I have lain awake at night for years, wondering why Nietzsche hated Kant. Thank you for bringing an end to my torment. Now I'm wondering how the leopard got its spots. Can you help?
@@fideletamo4292 Pardon…? What I meant was that the categorical imperative doesn’t provide an individual with any real moral guidelines for making decisions and hence they must refer to some other ethical framework for what “ought” to become a universal law (consequentialism, simple compassion, etc.). I’m not sure how your takeaway from my comment was moral nihilism and that Hitler and Mother Teresa are the same…
@@rowanjohnson9892 there's moral guidance in the categorical imperative..treating people the way you want to be treated, acting like you will want everybody to ACT..are already solid, i don't want people to kill, steal, rape, hit, have sex with someone else partner etc..compassion or consequentialism are not the point here, consequentialism is not moral it's calculation, compassion is not moral either it's just feelings but it Can help.
There isn’t really a moral standard for deciding what is to be a universal law for Kant, he views the decision on what can or can’t be a universal law based on the logic of the action. If an action would inherently contradict itself if applied universally, say the action of breaking a promise, then it can’t be made into a universal law by the nature of the act itself. There’s no real notion that something “ought” to become a universal law, rather it’s something more akin to “can it become a universal law?” And if it can’t, then it’s inherently and always immoral.
Selflessless isnt in single action. Selflessness only inhabits bodies of behaviors. It's in the action that accurue around a committment to something "greater" than oneself. Its the notion of elimating ego in the steps you take toward a goal you consider to be more important than "self."
"...a decidedly inhuman way of looking at reality." Basically my whole problem with responsibility as it is thrust on people. People should be responsible because they see the merit of it and want to do it. Not because they are guilted into it by someone wagging the finger and passing judgements because he can't solve his own problems.
Does that imply that if they don't see that merit, they have an option given to them not to take responsibility, without negative consequences like bad judgment of their character?
İ think your lack of character maturation is sown more clearly here rather than any philosophical insight. Do not take responsibility from manuplation and learn to say no. That is your problem.
We must distinguish between objects and subjects. Subjects: Me/we and similar entities. More materially things around us which can communicate between each other using undescribable, complicated, possibly unfathomable , intricate and dynamic organic mechanism. For example: inter human relationships and sometimes for some or many times for some inter life communication. Object: Anything outside it. For example watching a television, reading a book, watching an architectural marvel. In short interaction with objects even if there could be cases when such interactions might appear real, lively (for example watching live incidents on television)
feels like Nietzsche is hard strawmanning him, and then fleeing into generalities like his principle of the hidden goal. Nietzsche is horribly polemic and through that shallow in his writing. The only thing that catches some interest is his non-conformity. Hegel has a much better point proclaiming that "substance is subject". It is obvious that morals cant be based on pure joy or other subjective, individualist emotions, since there are enough examples where the joy of one is destroying the lives and worlds of others. Nietzsche is like a restaurant critic... they cant cook as well as the chef, but aspire to sour every product with their opinion derived from pure entitlement.
Your food/restaurant critic metaphor of Nietzsche is fascinating and thought provoking though perhaps, imo, slightly off label. Perhaps, Nietzsche could better be understood as a food engineer. He knows the chemical composition of the food and the ingredients on a more full spectrum level than the chefs. Nietzsche knows all the tricks of the trade of the restaurant business, kitchen confidential at its core in an awareness of the actual crucial ingredients, the msg, and the deceptive fat content that might add to the superficial taste and "appeal", but is actually long term dangerous for the restaurant guest and consumer of the " advanced high end" cooking recipie. If you know how the food is made and it's chemistry of ingredients, you have a real X-Ray view into the subterfuge of kitchen confidential that the public is woefully ignorant. Human cattle consuming food designed for cattle, but of course " tastes delicious." Kant then is an aspiring chef representing a complicated haute cuisine dish filled with the most detailed ingredients, the wildest combinations of mixtures to impress the public in his signature Kantian ethics dish recipie. Nietzsche sits back in his chair, scratches his mustache and then in a New York minute gives Kant the Roman emperor hallmark thumbs down on Kant's signature dish. The complicated dish fails for Nietzsche in a metaphoric way for visual dense obtuse presentation, overly complex food terminology, and above all for using ingredients foreign to the authentic needs and health of the restaurant consumer. Above all Nietzsche helps the food consumer to avoid harm, to consume only healthy, organic natural ingredients that fuel the will to power and keep the consumer from acid reflux or a trip to pick up Rolaids late at night after sampling Kant's dish. TY for your comment, and though we may agree to disagree on Nietzsche's role as a food engineer for the benefit of humanity, its illuminating imo to reflect on Nietzsche's daring bold critique of the world renowned Kant, sacred seemingly in academia and late night food shows praising flash and complexity over authenticity, natural instinctual will, and spiritual health. Look forward to your response, and once again ty for providing your food critic thought provoking metaphor. Pacifico beer cheers for a relaxing weekend!!!!
@@spencerwinston4334 i appreciated to read ur answer way more than any text i was reading from Nietzsche. Since he takes the victims he criticizes out of context or even counters with rhetoric that has not much to do with actual content, im missing the part where he testifies to his full knowledge of the matter. He might have been reading the Critique of pure Reason, but im not certain if he understood it fully. Kant set out to establish the question if there is synthetic a priori knowledge and gave good arguments why this question can be answered with a yes. One example of evidence Kant is presenting is pure mathematics.
@@spencerwinston4334 in a way Kant settles the ages-old debate between Rationalists and Empiricists that goes back at least to Aristotle and Plato, all while redefining the problem of universals, and to wipe it from the table into the Nietzschean garbage can by pointing out some alleged technical errors is sad and sickening at the same time.
@@ShinjiInui91 The tree you were sitting under at the park I presume when you wrote your Jean-Paul Satre-infused existential observation may have been planted 100 years ago. The person who planted the tree could not imagine all the stories and comfort shade the tree would provide, the act of planting at the time might have been considered absurd, and pointless, why make the effort. Instead, the far-sighted person looked out a hundred years and wondered at the possibilities, maybe the tree would provide shade for the next TS Eliot poem or Romeo and Juliet could have a romantic courtship etc. Though I can understand the pessimistic Ecclesiastes stance, instinct, drive, and the relentless pursuit of growth trump pessimism. Have we solved the mystery guest behind the curtain yet, guessed her intentions of why, solved the Rubix Cube mystery of the eternal why yet. Not yet, but pioneer savants like Niextsche are the tip of the spear to finally cut through the dark matrix of traditional religion that has shackled mankind for thousands of years. Using Navy Seal like front sight focus, Nietzsche has shown humanity how to tap into the eternal spring of creativity, power, and growth that is the hallmark of nature's mystery clues. The accomplishments of this German savant are just extraordinary and speed up the time when infinite intelligence finally knows itself in the representative world, and all things happen at once as infinite intelligence is satisfied, quenched with eternal delight and complete self-knowledge. This striving on the part of nature is a higher reflection of the rallying cry of all Olympian philosophers, the rallying cry of Plato "to know thyself." Plato went as far as to say that the "unexamined life is not worth living." Nietzsche certainly lived the examined life to the highest of a no-limit high-stakes spiritual philosophical poker game. He pushed the ball forward and showed the young beagle pup philosophers where and how to hunt for the big game hiding in the power rabbit hole. Nietzsche lived the ideal scholar's life, all the solitude and sickness only made him stronger and more profound so that we all benefited from his years of a monk-like dedication. Somehow, someway, Nietzsche's efforts are not wasted as you suggest. Nature does not work that way based on the first principles of engineering. Or as Jim Rohn, the practical business philosopher noted, "behind every disciplined effort is a multiple reward." What that reward is still a mystery, but a Vegas gambler would say bet on a reward for one total dedication to your labor of love. There is still time for you to live "the examined life" instead of ruing Sarte like under that tree in the park. Unshackle yourself free and escape like a Jack Russell terrier in the field running free and following his instincts in his labor of love. Live the examined life, we can all benefit and sit in the shade of your disciplined quest somehow someway, because nature adheres to the great formula y=f(x). cause and effect above all to win the prize and solve the mystery. As Nietzsche said, "is life not a thousand times too short to be intellectually bored and listless, depressingly chain-smoking cigarettes like Sartre in a Paris bistro. near a city-designed artificial tree."
Kant's application of 'Duty' as the font of morality is only correct when Ideology is the central premise of the individual experience. It's not so much a 'mistake' in observation as it is an ironic error of categorization. This is an excellent point from which to begin an understanding of the divide between the ideologically possessed and the 'free-thinker'.
IMO Both, morality and duty are the same. Morality are the cultural laws that rule the individual (not the usages, usages rule daily live [how to], moral rules rule over those rules [why and why not do X or Z]; eg eating human meat, regicide or "controversial" things), meaning the laws of the religion (cult) of the individual [eg the refuse to violence of christianity vs the complacience of buddism] "and his society", duty are the laws that rule the individual under the materialistic world (religous, political, societal laws, etc), meaning the laws of his State/overlord, even when he is himself the State. ("L'estat c'est moi vs real politik) All four are spooks, there's only the feasible and what's not; morals and duty are just strains and brakes, ideologies and cults are the engines of those chains draging us down, they're just the box. "Free thinkers" vs "possesed" doesn't exist because ideology and cults come from thinking, both are judgemnts and believes that are mand made with his "thinking", free thinkers also possesed by themselves and society. I would say natural "law" followers rather than "free-thinkers", unless you mean free of thinking.
@@maxstirner6143 Semantics. It's not important what labels I used, what's of import is the juxtaposition between them which is the point of differentiation. Call whatever, whatever you will.
I would agree to some extent. Duty as in deontological duty can je ideological. But the element of duty that we call obligation is central to morality. Morality is about what we ought to do. That goes for any moral theory. Or doesn’t it? And Kant boils down this notion of obligation to its purest form which is the categorical imperative. Kant‘s argumentative structure in the Groundwork can be boiled down to the following: 1. He starts with the assumption that moral realism is true and that he wants to provide the supreme principle of morality. 2. He wants to provide a principle, every moral theory has some sort of principle, may it be utility, virtue or selfinterest or whatever. So the question boils down to: What principle, i.e. what law is the moral law? 3. The key thing a law has is universality, which is why the notion of law exclude all kinds of particular content, because such content can only be provided empirically, but can therefore not be universal. 4. So the law must be formally a law and nothing else, therefore the moral law must simply be conforming to law-ness as such. And this is the categorical imperative: the notion of obligation boiled down to its rational core.
@@maxstirner6143 We forget that the "free thinkers" mostly are possessed by their bodies in their everyday choices. Selecting a slave master i.e. duty or virtue or religious laws to possess you in most of your life choices is more free than being controlled by a fickle minded slave master or masters that is your body o.Because you have partly played a role in your choices before hand when choosing a consistent slave master to possess you beforehand.Thus you are partly involved in your life choices guided by your duty or virtue or religious laws.
This moustache man was more of a poet than a philosopher - he expressed very eloquently his perceptions and feelings about ethics and esthetics, and reformulated some arguments made by second rate greek philosophers, but that's it. Not in the same category of a Kant or even a Hegel - let alone Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz...
What Nietzsche missed in his blockheadedness is that one cannot philosophize accurately if you omit to take into account your own phenomenological being and intent to philosophize. To try to come to truth or life or ecstasy by totally ignoring or devaluing the experiencer of life is idiotic. N was put off by the inherent mysticism in Kant's outlook where all is dependent on the Thing -in Itself, which is behind everything , experiences everything and measures everything and hence cannot be defined using the realm of things.
Bruh, you gotta kill who you were to become who you want to be. If you want to become moral, you must become less immoral. Factoring in ego at this level is a waste of time and an active impediment to progress.
@@baronvonbeandip What are you saying? Are you claiming that Kant is factoring in ego? As I see it Kant was saying that behind the ego is the real self which is connected to the transcendental universal subjectivity, not ego. Nietzsche was coming from a place of ego and denying the existence of the transcendental Self.
@@ideologybot4592 No, what Nietzsche missed. He is the one insisting that all we know is what science and our senses reveal while he ignores the transcendental mind or experiencer with all the apriori qualities necessary to organize and perceive something intelligible from the vast chaos of sensory input we receive all the time.
@@thenowchurch6419 Nietzsche didn't miss it, he assumed our perception is subjective, and he's clearly right. Descartes and his cogito ergo sum statement of being didn't even begin to scratch the surface of how different interpretations can skewer anyone's perception of reality. If you consider your view on reality "transcendental", then it could be religious insanity, or it could be megalomania. You're welcome to it either way, but you won't convince me that it's more than opinion.
I love Nietzsche somehow even more after hearing those Kant jabs, especially the "it's a the duty to an idea..." bar🤣, thanks for sharing, good video man. I remember when you had 100's of subscribers and look at you now. congrats man, its inspirational to see, & well earned 🙌👍👌
Nietzsche, quite frankly, sucks. I prefer Hume when it comes to those that disrupt the philosophical norm, and although he had a hard on for chasing after Kant, (I love Kant, though I will admit, he tried too hard to apply the scientific method to the role of ethics), and although Nietzsche has a part to play in the conversation in pointing out the flaws in the various systems, he was still a small, ineffectual man who through in terms of power being the sole determiner of the world because that is what he saw the world as having over him and what he most wanted. It's like a Napoleon complex. Kant's ethics, although flawed, are actually pretty damned good in the sense of creating laws for a society to uphold in a meta-ethics sort of way. If one wants a personal code of ethics, I'd rather point them towards Hume or Kierkegaard than Nietzsche any day.
I actually attempted to follow the Kantian imperative for a while when I was 17. It took me about two days to realize how absolutely idiotic it was as a mode of conducting one's life. Great video.
@@RickJaeger It's simply an absurd and totally impractical way to live. The idea of willing that ever action that you take become a general rule is simply nonsensical. There are things I would do that my friends and brother would never do and vice-versa. There are no universally judgements or applicable situations or actions as an individuals temperament and personality structure differ so widely. Risk tolerance for example - we need a certain number of people in society with a high level of risk tolerance - but if everyone had that level of risk tolerance society would not function. We actually need different personality styles that would choose completely differently in the same situation and neither would become a universal rule. That's how things work in the real world for good reason.
@@JoBlakeLisbon It's true that everyone has different personalities, physiques, histories, educational levels, etc. However, I believe Kant's phrasing is only act according to those maxims which you _can_ will to be a universal rule, not according to those maxims that you _must_ will to be a universal rule. Even if that were a sticking point because of the versimilitude of humanity, would you not just rephrase the maxim into something more clearly worthy of universality? If I happen to have the habit of baking bread at 4am to feed myself, that doesn't mean I therefore will the maxim "All must bake bread at 4am." Rather, it would be "It is permissible to make one's own food," or something equally practicable.
@@JoBlakeLisbon You fail to understand the protestant psyche, and that of north German discipline. The fact that people are very different is exactly the reason why Kant chooses to propose that they control themselves and abide by the same rule. Peoples faults, their shortcomings and personalities, is not very interesting in sense of the argument that there are things that if all did them, would not be possible. So if so, do not do it. It does not care about who you are or preference. Just what will make a rule to abide by. It does not become a general rule because you do it, you test whether you should do it, by testing the thought of it as a general rule. Simpler put, you ask yourself if you would like to live in a world where all did as such. So if you want to pound your neighbors,wifes poon, ask yourself, do i want to live in a world where everybody pounds their neighbours wifes hot poon. You will say no, if you are protestant north german, and set aside your urges to do it regardless. And therefore abstaining from poon. If you are south Italian, you will say no, but do it anyway, since you can't control your urges.
@@JoBlakeLisbon The irony of the 17 year old you thinking Kants imperative was idiotic. The Imperative does not mean if you eat only chocolate ice cream, everyone should as well. It is about morality, the golden rule. Your brothers and you being special snowflakes has nothing to do with it. Its about doing whats right when no one is looking because you placed yourself on a high standard.
IMO to put it shortly, Kant and those like him are so focused on being "logical" that they strip life away from all meaning and it's why many people who were inspired by Kant all turned out to be various forms of ends justify the means evil tyrants. Thomas Carlyle also writes about this world view in Heroes and Hero-Worship
Very true. He can be a clever rebel at times, but mostly he’s just…punchable. He criticizes some things so needlessly, seems like he just wants to criticize
@@ahmadaam12 Schopenhauer critics of Hegel were valid..the bullcrap about the History being logical is just dumb...specially when WE Know Germany had Hitler and there was 2 World Wars..Hegel made no sense like Nietzsche..
In order to philosophize, you need to make "guesses" and test them, to see if they hold up. These guesses have an intrincic subjectivity to them that will always reflect the personality of the one guessing. To hold that as critique is like saying water is wet. How objective does one treat ones subjective ideas, tries, probes and guesses? And ideas need others to be attacked, which lessons the suspiciousness of an idea. Schopenhauer: the source of morality is compassion. But there are many Asperges and Autistic people and even psychopaths, who have very little to no sympathy for others and barely fear repercussions of unjust behavior, yet live positive, non violent, exemplary lives. Th
He’s right . The greatest philosophers of antiquity admitted that virtue necessarily consisted in happiness . Any ethical system that adheres to a mere external idea of duty rather than something internal is a seriously inhumane notion. And ethics is about practical reason … about what makes a good human being in actuality…. And that requires prudence . Ethics deals with human action which deals with particulars … not universals , therefore the categorical imperative cannot be source of human virtue because it deals with universals . Good human actions requires experience and time and is not something that we can calculate like mathematics . It is the mark of an uneducated man to expect the same exactness found in the theoretical sciences on the practical level
youre right. Kant seemed to look for this exactness u can find in math or even natural science but in ethics. He wanted morality to be calculated but he missed the human part.
What an odd critique. He was not utilitarian; he was not attempting to calculate or quantify ethics. It's precisely because one cannot calculate the good of an action that he proposed deontology.
I do agree that Kant missed some more practical concerns (I'm thinking of relationality and development, categories that include compassion, education and growth, and cannot be reduced to a sovereign intellectual subject giving itself its own law based on abstract reason). However, Kant's duty was not at all conceived as external or quantifiable. It was an inner principle (not given by others) based on consistency (a logical quality). He opposed subjection to external moral dogmas as a state of unreasoning "minority" and would see his commitment to moral consistency as a matter of (emotional) respect. He also granted that perfect goodness should also be accompanied by perfect happiness, although this is not always possible in an imperfect world. Happiness to him should just not be the /reason/ why you do what is good, because otherwise it diminishes its value, but it remains both desirable and an essential part of complete goodness. To Kant, perfect goodness is just admirable for its own sake, just like the knowledge of the universe is admirable in itself and not because it makes my GPS work. 🤣 I think when he wrote about "the starry sky above me and the moral law within me" he meant this, and was probably feeling genuine happiness about it.
When I was first introduced to Kant in high school I didn't think much about him. When I read Kant for my degree I thought even less. It's amazing to me how Nietzsche's critiques are nearly identical to my initial reaction to Kant. I find Kant's conclusions to be entirely too convenient for my taste.
"Nietzsche's critiques are nearly identical to my initial reaction to Kant" is impossible to verify without us having to TRUST you. Enough of the thinly veiled self-adulation.
@@MyOneFiftiethOfADollarTrue, but why must you verify that statement? Sure, this particular person might be lying. But what does that matter to you? Regardless of whether or not he is lying, you're in no position to say that *nobody's* initial reactions to kant could be similar to the critiques nietzsche had of him. And at that point, who are you to say that the commenter *couldn't* have had that same reaction, since such a reaction is a legitimate possibility?
One even cursory look at our political debates, and you can see that Nietzsche nailed it. Philosopher or political scientist, take your choice, always start with a conclusion first.
Nietzsche (like all philosophers) excludes himself from the same criticism. Of course he must attack every other philosophy/philosopher if he is to build himself up as the reformer/savior of all philosophy. What a narcissist.
The doctrine of eternal recurrence is a speculative invitation to contemplate what the categorical imperative might mean in practice. Nietzsche and Kant are not just twins, but siamese twins.
Perhaps, Kant for all his detailed analysis of the mind faculties could not handle the prospect of looking into the driving force of the mind itself, the most profound of world-changing paradigm shifts found in Nietzsche's will-to-power analysis. Trying to look directly into the world-changing implications of will to power by exposing the shallow facade of traditional ethics to maintain the "power structure" of the Roman elite of the day and previous empires before Rome would be akin to looking into the bright sun at noon for a conformist in the Kantian ethics worldview. Nietzsche exposed Kant as a conformist shill of the establishment, brilliant perhaps in his Kantian meticulous mental categories yet hiding in his dense verbiage from the bright sun truth he did not want to face, the drives, the intuitive pulsating, driving force of the will to power behind the "machinery of the mind." Nietzsche unshackled mankind from the establishment shills placing chains on man under the guise of complicated, bewildering philosophical technical language while denying the obvious will to power hiding in plain sight that could take philosophy to the leading edge of luminosity. Nietzsche showed man the way forward to a no-limit possibility overflowing with intuitive Emersonian self-reliance insight, and filled ultimately with empathy for man's will to power instincts and "love of the game" in all full spectrum facets and dimensions. In doing so, Nietzsche took philosophy to the Mt. Everest of paradigm shifts and next level, leading-edge horizon views for philosophy for the next thousand years. As Nietzsche intuitively foresaw in his grandest moment of philosophical satori in the will to power, he would now be forever the "philosopher for the day after tomorrow." 1
You're being unfair on Kant. His hands were tied by the power of religion. He couldn't afford to be a heretic, his work was too important. Look what happened to Spinoza, in liberal Amsterdam. The Will to Power in any case haunts Critique of Pure Reason, you just have to read between the lines, as Schopenhauer knew. And why didn't Nietzsche build his own System? I'll bet it would've been spectacular. Unless his work was only to pave-the-way - perhaps for a Sky-God-killing First Philosophy?
Calling Kant a shill completely disqualifies your critique, however possible there may be value in parts of it. Nietzsche is inconceivable without Schopenhauer, just as Nietzsche’s aesthetics is impossible without Wagner. Of course, Nietzsche’s own self-recognized failure caused him to eventually disrespect Schopenhauer and Kant, as he had done earlier with Spinoza.
@@sciagurrato1831 TY for the feedback, even if we may have to agree to disagree. After watching this video, something clicked for me after fully grasping Nietzsche's Navy Seal like guerilla warfare critique against Kant. To critique the world renowned philosopher Kant with such precise, brief yet artillery shell forceful impact was a mark of Nietzsche's savant genius. Apart from the noted Kantian contribution in describing the categories in the "machine of the mind", Kant tried to expand his mind analysis and categories into ethics and individual "virtue." The Kantian ethics are a reflection though of a real "company man," a cog in a machine, order and virtue to the state above all as influences and shades in his ethical theory. Kant was like Spock in Star Trek, prizing logic over the the other drives in the human experience. Kant could not handle the implications to his "company man mediocre" ideal if Nietzsche's later paradigm changing will to power was the tip of the spear in the mind's end game strategy. Kant's legendary habitual Spock like daily routine then was infused into the Kantian goal of order, logic, and robot like "virtue" which was the hallmark of Kant's life. Nietzsche, instead, unshackles man from these Kantian chains, also used in religion, to keep the mundane power structure intact. Nietzsche allows man to fly high like an eagle up in the mountain air unchained and released from the mundane, flying high in self exploration with the will to power and Emersonian self reliance. Nietzsche gives man then the freedom to trust instinct as a guide and beacon to self and universal satori undertaken with relentless Navy Seal like dedication and precision on life's battlefield of the mind. Appreciate any additional feedback, and look forward to seeing your response in support of Kantian ethics. Regards.
I think Kant's "universal law" was trying to reach the "moral simplicity" of "having what you think, where you are, what you're doing, and what you're saying all be the same". The latter concept was from a recent Christian sermon on the radio.
It's very unfortunate that in High School (German Gymnasium) we we're supposed to learn about Kant but never ever heard anything from Nietzsche. If I had learned about both of them back then, I would have certainly quite unphilosophically taken sides. More importantly, I would have been interested in philosophy. Kant always seemed so traditional and boring.
Nietzshe: All other philosophers reach the conclusions they started out wanting to prove. Nietzshe: True morality is that might is right and a Germanic warlord must come to power and asert this morality over other nations drawing his inspiration from noble pagan sources. Post-Nazi Western world: What have we learnt? We should try to annihilate Russia again, and this time not attack the Jews. What I've learnt: All philosophers including Nietzshe reach the conclusions they wanted to prove, and world leaders use ideological morality as a cover for deep depravity. I also see: There is no harmony between the justification for having power and the practice of morality, and where there is an attempt to harmonise both, the result is horrifically immoral and destructive to the human race. Furthermore, it seems to me: An Antichrist philosopher such as Nietzshe (or should one say a False Prophet) heralds the coming of an Antichrist world leader. Finally, I think: The concept of Antichrist means a justification for absolute power that is not based in justice and mercy but in power and authority to put to death, and a false morality (that might appear kindly or tolerant) that provides a cover or veneer for this crude power grab and exploitation of the weak.
We should remember that Nietzsche was struck down in late youth/early mid-life. Had he lived I think the bombast element would have seriously subsided.
It seems to me that Kant understood that many of the so-called leftists in the West may not necessarily be morally virtuous individuals. It's easy to echo a popular narrative and feel good about oneself, but true virtue is demonstrated when one stands up for something that is not easily defensible and generally accepted.
11:02 the universal law maxim is a great idea nietsche seems jealous or trifling. Morality does not come from compassion schopenhauer, because there is no limit to compassion (which Kant also saw). Anyhow I haven't thought about these ideas in a long time.
Weak arguments from Nietzsche... essentially straw manning Kant, with a bunch of word-plays, The arguments are... Kant uses the word "duty", Kant uses the words "moral edifices", Kant's thinking works with the Christian worldview (it doesn't really) therefore it's not scientific. The counter argument is we should ground our moral thinking in emotion and empathy... which is the opposite of rationality and scientific thought! Sad!
the laughing lady at approx 17:11 fitted so well i was like omg it makes me laugh at christianity and she was like displaying the same emotion as me in this moment - intended by the videomaker?
What a shallow thinker, for all his merits, Nietzsche turned out to be. His critique of Kant's clinging to Christianity is basically the emotional response of a disgruntled Christian at best, a childish response. He needed to engage Kant in his turf, that is, he was trying to make sense of the "obvious," of fact that "reality" is mediated to "us" through the senses. "Fact": all we have are sensations, and the "essence" (the being) of sensation is mental / illusion / spiritual / nothing.
No, he didn't have to engage Kant in Kant's theory. He doesn't need to defeat him with his own weapons, for that logic of "superation" of one's theory is based on the premisse that a theory really demonstrates the reality of things, and that if it doesn't then it must be shown through some flaw in the theory itself, and now it's lack of connection to reality. That's Nietzche PoV, in other words: He is a philosopher that defends life, in all it's vicissitudes, and despises exactly the idea of putting all of that apart due to a supposition that, in denying human nature, we'll reach some point of purity. That's why he puts Kant as christian in disguise, because religious dogma is known to ask us to act in penance in this life, due to our "sinful" nature of the flesh, if we want to reach the heavens. Kant explicitly tells us not act due to our interests, EVEN if they put us to act according to Duty, for that is not true Good Will. So, for Kant, deny yourself. For Nietzche, don't deny yourself. From those points on, each philosopher builds their ideas, so no point for any one of them to try and find flaws in their theories if they have such differences in their starting points.
For the Categorical Imperative, it isn't the why of what is right n wrong, but more rules for a though exercise. The Ego wants to tilt the scales in its own favor by nature. So we will often say its ok for us to do it, or for our preferred group(s) to do it. So then ask yourself, is it ok for everybody to do it, and how might that change the world. Will it make things better or worse overall. I think its brilliant. I see Nietzsche's critique as misrepresenting the concept, then arguing against this misrepresentation. Maybe I am biased as a fan of Kant, but I am also open to alternatives and value many other philosophers as well. Not sure if Nietzsche will make the cut, but I won't give up on him that easily.
The older I get, the clearer it becomes that Nietzsche was closer to a bitter poet who was mad that he couldn’t think with the same clarity of Kant. He’s got his points, but like Marx, Nietzsche falls victim to his own critique.
The more likely truth regarding your advancing age is your diminished capacity to reason clearly. Perhaps you are projecting the bitterness you possess over the hand life dealt you?
Nietzsche and other prescriptivists “there is no objective truth” …. Is that true? Meanwhile Nietzsche “noooooooo that’s life dying, society is sick” If there is no truth on what basis do you have to judge?
I don't need objective truth as basis to judge. I can just admit that since cognition comes from senses, I would not be able to get to know character of truth. Also, I find Nietzsche more as moral relativist than truth relativist.
@@dmytrodoncov5996 he said there's no objective truth..he said that..this shows how dumb he was, there are objective truth in moral and in fact..if you don't think that, you can't call yourself a philosopher, you just a troll.
@@dmytrodoncov5996 there can be no judging if there is no objective truth since to judge already in itself presupposes an objective truth as otherwise it would be incomprehensible
We don't use subjective perception to define an object. Most objects are objectified before we are born, whereas new objects, unless we are the first to see them, are identified by others. How do I perceive a flower? Because I see an object in my infancy that has petals, a stem etc and I hear it called a flower. I then to learn to define a flower from a weed, or a plant, or a bush. Such definitions are objective, like the language we learn. We didn't talk by ourselves, we didn't make up our own language, our own subjective labels, we simulated language from our parents and other adults. However, what is truly subjective is emotion. One can read and read about love, hate, jealousy, grief depression - until one experiences them personally, one can never truly understand them, And in a less dramatic way the emotional reaction to all stimuli is highly subjective, A flower to one person is romantic, to another a symbol of death, to another a simple product of nature without symbolic reference, to another a means of decoration, another a means of freshening the air - etc etc. In short, language is objective, emotion is subjective
Nietzsche also said “Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's blunders?” so that says it all. The man reasoned from the limited ego self not knowing about the illusion of separateness at least for some part of his Life before he woke up. He was trapped in his mind using way too many words for that which is so shockingly simple. Truth is One cannot understand the purpose of the universe through the lens of fragmentation. You can choose to live in Naraka, or, choose to live in Nirvana. Somehow I feel he lived in Naraka. Either way. The one and only meaning of Life is Companionship i.e. Love. It's that simple.
Yup. Most people who try to dunk on neetch are mad because he’s hitting deep into their own fallacious ways of thinking and they have to morally back up why not being reasonable is actually good.
The 'neetch ' is just another false prophet for the shallow (you) who think they are 'superman'. Today's 'neetches' being Jordan Peterson or ''the Hitch' (Christopher Hitchens) a man so 'brilliant' he NEVER admitted he was wrong about WMD's and Iraq as he lacked both the moral courage to admit he had been wrong and insight (supporting GW and 'Darth Cheney' and Tony BLIAR) Today we still are dealing with the fall out from these disastrous decisions. Doxxing 'the wrong people', silencing pacifists ('traitors'), comedians (Dave Chapelle, John Cleese etc), musicians (Roger Waters), historians, journalists (Assange) all to support the 'Hitche's' Imperial hegemon oligarchy. @@GhGh-gq8oo
I always felt that Kant was afflicted with the same attitude that I see everyone who thinks too deeply about life experience he has always been my favorite philosopher for that reason if your life's Pinnacle work is a critique on reason I'd say you have some issues but to me that's why he's relatable ❤️
@@idoabitoftrolling2172 yeah it's not real, when Nietzsche lost his mind he was a guest in someone's house, all this horse story is made up to downplay him.
It's quite obvious, Kant has created view that Morality is the substance of the view, and for Nietzsche it was one of the most dangerous lapse. Also, Nietzsche assumes that seneses tells us true, which of course contradicts with Kant view.
Visit brilliant.org/Weltgeist/ to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription.
Thank you for watching! You guys seem to enjoy this series of "Why Nietzsche Hated..." so hopefully this instalment doesn't disappoint. -Weltgeist
So did Nietzsche ever become a super man ???
Ayn Rand would hate Kant too.
Quran says: “Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.”
Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-one/indivisible/loving/self-sufficient perfection.
I like Nietzsche, but Kant is my guy. The Noumena, is the Tao of Lau Tzu, the Logos of Heraclitus, the Will of Schopenhauer, & inferred by quantum mechanics. The great mystery Nietzsche didn't appreciate.
Yeah, I want a whole series.
Why Nietzsche Hated Socrates
Why Nietzsche Hated Plato
Why Nietzsche Hated Aristotle
Why Nietzsche Hated Kant
Why Nietzsche Hated Hegel
Why Nietzsche Hated John Locke
Why Nietzsche Hated David Hume
Why Nietzsche Hated Berkeley
Why Nietzsche Didn't Hated Sartre, but would if he had known him
I'd watch it all.
Did you forget someone?
@@Azazello321 he probably hated himself too
"Everyone other than me is wrong" - A 7 billion-part series
And Spinoza?
@@casinhamagica6383 ha ha, doubtless!
Other philosophers: *exist*
Nietzsche: "Your Jordan's fake."
now we need Nietzsche in supremes edit
He is right, tho
whenever a philsopher or scientist hits a brick wall of their own making and declares that it implies some underlying complex truth of the universe, this is when I say 'they Kant understand it'.
What a glorious phrase XD
It’s how I feel about chomsky
Oh yeah in league of legends move here they just do it so they could start writing all these novels the critique was reworked 41000 times
but Kant didn't understood it either, he indeed became a clown, he's either voluntarly or involuntarly the biggest troll in philosophy
@@nixulescu9399either him or hegel
4:09 Didn't Epictetus say the same thing two thousand years ago "“We suffer not from the events in our lives but from our judgement about them.”
there is nothing new under the sun
He stole that thought from a peasant that Epictetus came across while he was traveling in the Macedonia.
"Kant therefore stands accused of putting Descartes before the horse"
bravo
I am therefore I have a chance to think, is not a bad idea to cherish.
I am still amazed.
Nietz: why have an Immanuel who KANT when you've Zarathustra who KAN!
omg i just KANT
*points to door* get out -_-
@@B-cuz-im-batman nice try, Socrates >:(
Zarathustra ist ein Ikonischen für den Illustrationszwecken
to presuppose a figurative character in parables is greater than a mistaken individual which many people look up to 🤔 .. seems a bit mal conceived for starters
"I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason). Kant himself says it! Nietzsche was spot on! Kant is a continuation of religious metaphysics (this world is unreal), epistemology (reason is limited), and ethics (obedience/duty).
Nice coverage of a complex topic! Thank you!
Thanks!
How much was Kant influenced by Hume, and even Swedenborg?
This isn’t what Kant meant when he said that in my opinion. It is actually quite the opposite of continuing the religious metaphysics of the early modern philosophers like Leibniz, who saw a rational basis for true knowledge of God. Kant was actually breaking from religious orthodoxy by making it clear that faith in God was just that; only faith. He was not speaking of faith in his metaphysics, and God was not included in those things he had proven to his satisfaction within the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant thought that by taking religion away from reason and giving it back to faith, reason could bear out a more fruitful path.
@@danesprague6866 Yah, isnt that like one of the major points in his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics? and CoPR? Its even in the names.
""I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason). Kant himself says it!"
And neitzsche lied about it. Nothing neitzsche ever said was objective. His whole body of work is subjective opinion. Neitzsche criticizing Kant for this is like a serial killer criticizing a mugger.
A great video. I agree with Nietzsche's criticism that Kant was far too circular. But I also get the impression that as part of his critique Nietzsche effectively argued that philosophy must lack any motivation, which is when I'd ask him; "So, lacking motivation, why would I do it?"
I suppose for the simple love of it, probably similar to what he said in the gay science
Kant's total lack of motivation to do philosophy is apparent. He's like a drunken lout on a ditch-digging job, sneaking swigs from his hip flask between half-shovel fulls of dirt, most of which don't make it to the pile before sliding back into the ditch.
The circular argument is innate to understanding the nature of human psychology
You can extend this logic to anything. I believe his answer would be that's the point. Why do it? That is up to YOU. Nihilism in and of itself wasn't the end of his philosophy. We are supposed to grow past it and create our own meaning and value in life. Everyone listens to the "nothing matters" part of his philosophy and never hears "thus we are meant to overcome this and in doing so become men greater than ourselves"
He wasn't trying to tell people how to live. He isn't trying to dig down to some ultimate truth above all others.
Kant did not ask the question, "How does the mind work?" That was not even in his sights. He asked, "How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?"
Be careful when you listen to other people's (Nietzsche's) opinions and, in the long run, rely on your own judgment.
Really great summation, not only of Nietzsche but also for Kant. I have read his Critique of Pure Reason book and it is not the easiest to fathom, but hearing commentary of this quality brings it all together. Would be also good to see some videos featuring Kant given his association with Schopenhauer. Thank you JZ (John)
I second your suggestion about the interaction between Kant and Schopenhauer's philosophy.
If that was "not the easiest to fathom"... please don't read Derrida!!! That guy is so convoluted that it seems like he is full of shit. Michael Foucault at least makes sense at some point. I read these philosophers when I start to think I might be full of it. LOL
Clear, interesting, well put together, and well explained - excellent video 👍
If Nietzsche hated Kant so much, he merely had to call him by his name
Haisenberg
How am I only finding your channel now? This is frickin' great.
Welcome!
@4:00 Kant did not really say that, he said we cannot rightly claim to _perceive_ a clear black & white distinction, which is not to say there is none. It is a near trivial statement. Also, fuzzy sets and algorithmic complexity (impossibility of real time knowledge from empiricism) were not understood back then, and an awful lot of Continental philosophy bickering boils down to not acknowledging in the other guy is really invoking fuzzy sets or algorithmic complexity.
@weltgeist i would like to see a video of Nietzsches critique on himself. This has been something I’ve became interested in recently
I do not think I agree with N. here, although I am often fascinated by him.
A priori reasonings that give us additional knowledge seem to exist - such as when we use maths to get new info about numbers or geometry or even predictions about the physical world.
The question how this is possible is important, and Kant's articulation of /different/ intellectual functions (not "by means of a means" but "by means of these different means") is valid and still significant.
EDIT: The important point here is that Kant establishes that the one faculty of knowledge works through the articulation of many, separate but unifiable faculties, that can bridge the gap between dispersed and disorganised sensory information and univocal and disrinct but arbitrary mental ideas.
Kant did not start from a prejudice, his desire to bridge Descartes and Hume. He started from the puzzling observation that modern science works, giving us objective knowledge through subjective faculties (reason and senses), and set out to analyse how by using D. and H. as intellectual tools.
About ethics, I do agree somewhat with N., as Kant is indeed too rationalistic and I do think there needs to be room for joy and empowerment in ethics.
But I still think that Kant's first aim was to make ethics compatible with his epistemology, namely to understand how it's possible to get universal, true knowledge beyond merely subjective faculties (including unproven subjective ideas about God).
In order to be rationally accepted, morality needs to appeal to something that we all share.
Kant should have just acknowledged that there are other faculties, beyond rationality, that can contribute to this, like Schopenhauer's compassion and Nietzsche's desire to be empowered and transcend one's limitations.
IMO Its a mistake to think of math as apriori knowledge. It's not, as is anyones actual experience in math class. It _all_ synthetic, a great pyramid of knowledge. Sure, humans built blocks, wheels and pyramids with math but even those shapes are things we defined because they were useful to the animal homo sapiens.
Math knowledge is not metaphysical at all. You can't divine it through mediation as anyone stuck on a math question on a test knows.
@@ludlowaloysius maths is logically based on axioms (the zfc system) that are true by definition. Thus athough these systems generate paradoxes they are still soundly based in apriori statements and are thus a reliable source of (constructive) knowledge.
Kants Moral system which he provides in Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten is indeed very rationalistic, but it has the great advantage, that its extreamly constistent
@@ludlowaloysius synthetic is not an antonym of a priori. Math is synthetic a priori; that's Kant's definition of it.
Nietzsche said Kant started with a conclusion (which is true) but forgot to mention (and weltgeist forgot to mention this too) that he started his philosophical journey with a conclusion as well, that life is worth living/life must be loved/life is beautiful/life must be enjoyed you know the rest
I disagree with this point as Nietzsche had been chronically ill for the vast majority of his life and had written letters to friends abt unbearable the pain was and how much he wanted to end it all.
No he didn’t. He loved Schopenhauer then changed his views later on.
Nietzsche is dumb as hell, he even stated he didn't believe in truth, facts or even scientifical truths..
@@elia8544 He's still believe about the majority of Schopenhauer philosophy, he just don't have the same view about the final conclusion or decide to create his own version.
feels like Nietzsche is hard strawmanning him, and then fleeing into generalities like his principle of the hidden goal. Nietzsche is horribly polemic and through that shallow in his writing. The only thing that catches some interest is his non-conformity. Hegel has a much better point proclaiming that "substance is subject".
It is obvious that morals cant be based on pure joy or other subjective, individualist emotions, since there are enough examples where the joy of one is destroying the lives and worlds of others. Nietzsche is like a restaurant critic... they cant cook as well as the chef, but aspire to sour every product with their opinion derived from pure entitlement.
Nietzsche calling Kant "the great spider of the age" is my personal favorite. I think it's in "How to Philosophize With the Hammer"
"Spider" for nietzsche its Spinoza, not Kant
true which is the alternative title to 'Twilight Of The Idols" or how to philosophise with a hammer
AKA "How to Philosophietzsche!"
AKA “How to Philosophize with the Ad Hominem.”
@@Mal1234567you don't know what ad hominems are
I do know that Nietzsche hated Kant, however I am currently reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It is his magnum opus, in my opinion. I think Nietzsche disagreed with Kant about ethics and morals. However, I do believe that Kant projected a philosophy that gave a pretty dynamic part of the subjective participant, which is us mankind, in shaping the world that we all live, that everything is a priori synthetically connected by our experience. He revolutionized philosophy in a really compelling way, I think that Schopenhauer gave his own misanthropic take on Kant's philosophy. Hegel takes Kant's synthetic thesis and converts to his dynamic "An sich," "being-in-itself, for itself." How a priori manifests posteriori, in my humble opinion Nietzsche has a really unique way of seeing philosophy. However, I think Kant and Hegel are the most layered and profound philosophers that systemized mental thought process. Of course that Nietzsche is not satisfied with mental faculties and all of that. However, Kant had a way of looking things much spiritually and mystically as well Hegel. Nietzsche, in contrast, was a Christian and then became atheist. Nietzsche's attacks against religion are well-grounded by far the best I have seen and read. By the way, great and insightful video Weltgeist!
@@Sam-_- Ok? It is not paragraphs, it is a paragraph (singular). If you think I said absolutely nothing, that is on you; not me. You are supposed to know better right? Why bother commenting to me, if I am saying absolutely nothing? Peace out
@Boulanger Really? 🤨😂🤣 That comment was 5 hours ago 😂. Well I guess that is the point of being a troll 🧌. Peace out ✌🏻
The thing I noticed is that nietzche notion of the 'will to power' is underpinned by the same logic he used in hos criticism against kant. Namely that he is answering a means with a means. 'Will to power' can be understood as nietzche categorizing an inherent faculty within humans. And since the phrase itself is very vague, it cant be considered an original philosophical discovery. 'Power' can refer to anything. Any human endeavor can be classified as being resulted through the manifestation of one's will of power. It becomes a circular reasoning of sort. It can be argued that a businessman endeavors to be rich in order to manifest their will of power as well as the will of power within the businessman works to manifest itself into the business desire to be rich. To put it in crude terms, nietzche arguments is basically saying that the businessman endeavors to be rich because the businessman wants to. This isn't really a take at all. There's no attempt to answer anything. To believe that the will of power is some inherent faculty that drives the action of humans, a faculty that one is subjected to rather than it being a choice, is basically justifying a depersonalized attitude towards ethics as one's volition and consideration does not impact the existence of the 'will to power'. To state that human actions is predicated on a vague notion of achieving power and control isnt an original point at all. Nietzche argues that Kant does not employ a critical attitude in deriving a teleogical justification in ethics and seeks to only justify his own conclusions of 'how' ethics comes to be rather than 'why'. But the same criticism can be directed at nietzche. His notion of the 'will to power' only serves to explain 'how' human actions come to exist rather than 'why'. I supposed one can argue that nietzche's notion of 'will to power' points to human behaviour and ethics being engendered by an 'active agent'; an end in of itself but I find this contradictory. Nietzche argument of the 'will of power' being the basis of human motivation for action is utilizing the same, underpinning logic that Kant's argument of 'categorical imperative', being a basis of human motivation for action. Both of these notions justifies its conclusions by holding its ends to be the same as its means; that the means and the ends are indistinguishable. Kant believes that human behaviour and morality is an expression of reason in of it self and that the tools used to discern proper ethics is justified, not by its ends but the tool in of itself. Likewise for nietzche, he determines the best course of action for human behaviour to be of one that best exemplifies one's will to power. Neither of these thinkers bother to expound on the means they employed, of which they both used to formulated their perspective of human behaviour and instead, uncritically and dogmatically held these 'means' as true.
The way I see it, Kant systematically justifies the existence of the element of 'negative freedom' in human ethics while nietzche justified the existence of the element of 'positive freedom' in human ethics. Neither of them were able to deconstruct the notion of ethics and instead, reaffirmed the dogmatic assumptions regarding human motivations, actions, morality and ethics.
I just took an introductory class of Philosophy in college and my professor would just lecture and ramble. I don't remember one thing that I can say wow I learned that in that class. But literally in 20 seconds from 2:58 I've learned more than a whole semester worth.
Just saw this comment randomly, thank you!
Ah my favorite content from you, anything Neitzsche. I think you'd cover Machiavelli well also
@@martiendejong8857 what? xD
@@martiendejong8857 similarities?
🫣
Lolllll I guess you’re sort of right. Political realists who don’t believe in magical enlightenment priors are usually fascists these days.
@@martiendejong8857 no
@@martiendejong8857 maybe know at least one thing about machiavelli before coming to a comment section full of philosophy nerds 🤣 machiavelli's writings were... Brutal but effective advice for Princes and Kings to hold their nations. It was banned in many Christian nations. The comparison to fascism is moot as this came at a time of monarchy.
Good video! My only gripe is that the explanation given for why Kant would think that murder was wrong was a consequentialist explanation, and not really a deontological one. Murder is wrong (at least with regard to the first interpretation of the Categorical Imperative) because the hypothetical execution of such a maxim ultimately leads to a contradiction within itself.
It’s not a question of morality but of rights. So it is a matter of which answer is the most just. In his answer, Kant stated that justice is best served, whatever the outcome of the scenario, when the innkeeper tells the truth.
As usual a thorough review of the topic thank you very much Brodhisattva 🙏
This was brilliant. I wish we knew more about the narrator. Thank you.
I kind of agree with what Kant is saying because our perception does color or filter reality. but that color or filter is also a part of reality.
And everything is a physical process lolllll
Weltgeist I love your videos. Thank you very much for your many interesting uploads. Please keep up the great work you've been doing for our viewing pleasure 💪
Glad you like them!
@@WeltgeistYT You quoted a book called "Process and Reality" by A.N. Whitehead in one of your videos iirc. Any plans on making a video about it for us modern adhd viewers? Also maybe you've heard of it there's a website called Project Gutenberg a free online library. Maybe you could link it for your audience to read the books themselves it's great I use it all the time
In your previous video, you also mentioned Kant's moral philosophy about doing good for its own sake, and it's something I've been thinking about for a long time since I heard the question posed as "Is it actually possible to do a _selfless_ act of charity, seeing as how you gain a feeling of self-satisfaction from having done so? I think it's an interesting question when put that way.
I agree with Kant that someone who "does good works" in the hope of getting into heaven as a reward is not a moral person but a self-interested person. If someone donates to charity from their salary so that they can claim a tax writeoff for the year, this is a calculating and opportunistic person, not a selfless person.
I also think that two people doing the same action resulting in the same outcome could be polar opposites in terms of morality. Think of a man who pushes an old woman into the street. In one case, the man could be desperately trying to push her out of harm's way of a falling piano from a third story building directly above her. Another man could simply be trying to push her into traffic out of malice. Both scenarios look the same to the bystander, but what makes the crucial difference is motivation and intent!
@@XanderDDS, apart from the fact that "good" and "bad" are RELATIVE (and some poor vocabulary choices). ;)
I'm by no means defending Kant's morality (I actually don't get how the categorical imperative actually says anything - you can always define your rule to be more complex and nuanced to the point of universalization becoming meaningless), and I can't do more than defer to personal experience, but you absolutely can do an act of "charity" without neither feeling good nor regretting it.
Sometimes you just do what you think you should do. One reason can be a sense of duty, but it could also be down to a sense of righteousness, training, instinct, and a million other factors - that's before taking into account that a single action can have many different and often contradictory effects on you or that "self-satisfaction" is not really a single, well defined thing.
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p in Kantian terms, there is but ONE categorical imperative (to avoid harm), plus a multitude of hypothetical imperatives (that is to say, to understand under what circumstances harm may be justified, such as the killing of an unborn human child, in the case of abortion).
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p I understand what you say and I think it is valid, that there can be acting in accordance with duty or what our gut tells us is the right thing to do. Sometimes you hear people say phrases like "Even though it pains me, I must do 'X'", or "Although it goes against my better judgement, I will give that person the benefit of the doubt.", for example, but then doesn't this give the person who is acting according to this "higher moral code" against his own baser instincts to the contrary, a feeling of righteousness at having "done the right thing?" Even if we're feeling somewhat conflicted with the decision to "be the better person", doesn't that still give us a sense that we're the kind of person who "acts for the good of others" or "for the greater good"? Despite any simultaneous feelings of bitterness, haven't we still gained a sense of pride in ourselves about having some kind of ability to defer self- interest and archive a higher moral character?
I think you might be referrimg to the law of intended consequences at the end there, and yes this can really throw a spanner in the works as far as morality and the avoidance of harm, which is why I think objective judgement of these things must examine motivations and intentions.
Someone who do good because he Hope to go to heaven is still moral, if there's no heaven doing good won't even make sense...as the great dostoeyvsky said, if there's no god everything is permitted
i’m just here to applaud the subtle use of ‘putting descartes before the horse’ at 8:43
Clearly Nietzsche is driven by ego. BTW, I completely lack context because I've never read his work but I also find his supposedly critiques of Kant to be out of context. And as far as the difficulty in understanding Kant's tough language goes, I always wonder, did he personally do that or the people around him did it in order to obscure his philosophy? I've seen a similar practice in today's textbooks where a simple concept is purposely made so convoluted to discourage certain pple.
@@thelastpillar4973 Yes, it's best to read Kant too because this portrayal of Kant in this video is also out of context.
Stopped reading after you said “never read his work.” 99% of anti Nietzscheans are just 105 iq Christians or somebody who grew up with slave morality complaining about him being mean.
@@GhGh-gq8oo On the other hand, I'm familiar with Kant and I find those critiques to be half-baked. I don’t need to read Nietzsche to figure that out.
I wish I had had access to stuff like this back when I was in college in the 90s.
I swear I was just thinking this, and if you lived in a small town/college, your local/ school library wasn’t stocked with anything considered controversial, especially in the Bible Belt. Most locals hadn’t actually read any of these works, but “ heard” that they were “ bad.”
@@kcflygirl29They are all bad, but Nietzsche tells us why 😅
The wisest man doesn't hold any real answers, but rather - one who asks the right questions. Like most of us, he should've walked away from the table when he was ahead. But he let his own hubris take over and instead doubles down
Kant? I wish he never wrote a single page of anything.
Relativist are the most wise , and possibly are...
I like how the way the ‘Dualist Christian Worldview’ is reached again, means that the material is what is beyond us, and in a way we are the spiritual.
Nietzsche: “I Kant stand him!!”
Nietzsche: "what a kant!"
Flawless video. Very good work. Keep it up!
Great stuff Weltgeist, excellent presentation and narration. You've earned a comment, a like and a sub. Nietzsche also called Kant "The Great Chinaman of Konigsberg". Not sure what he meant by it?
He used the Chinese to exemplify an industrious, materialistic type without regard for higher culture, he thought Chinese society was very herdlike and based on obedience. He saw the same thing in a Kantian framework. Thank you for the kind words!
he probably saw Kant's philosophy as some kind of European Confucianism (duty-based moral system); like he explicitly saw Schopenhauer's philosophy as 'a European Buddhism' (neither were meant as a compliment)
He meant that he (Nietzsche, not Kant) was unutterably based, and had huge bloated balls
Great -- This is the most profound sort of philosophical education.
I suggest that any young person who wants to learn about philosophy ought to listen to this lecture once per day -- or even once per week for 3 months.
Uberboyo conceptualizes Nietzsche's attempt to psychoanalyze people he wishes to critique as an ad homenim attack. This is completely in error and not the right way of looking at it at all.
Nietzshe is simply using the character of a person behind an argument to better understand the argument itself as he correctly points out that the two are inseparable: once you understand that Peterson is conflict avoidant in his personality, you understand why he is infatuated with conflict, specifically the dragon fight.
Ignoring these things entirely is not fair play -- it's tying one hand behind your back and avoiding the obvious for no reason.
Yes it is a common mistake in intellectual history to ignore important context. Ultimately it is a life hating perspective because it asks you to eliminate people from your understanding of the world and focus only on ideas.
Very nicely put together and expressed.
I really appreciate your work and enjoy your content. It's knowledgeable, and your explanation is simple.
As a viewer, i request you to please start a series in the Sartre's Existentialism.
Thank you
Regards.
Nietzsche hated Kant, because he never properly read Kant, but was only familiar with Kantianism, that is with how his contemporary Philosophers understood Kant. And that understanding of Kant was heavily informed by the perceived necessities of academic practise: Kant uses terminology. You can easily learn Kants terms and phrases. You can easily test knowledge of those terms and phrases. In other words: You can easily rip Kants philosophy of its essence and reduce it to a dead hulk managable at university courses. That is what Johann Gottlieb Fichte (the direct successor to Kant who further developped transcendental idealism and went beyond Kant) critizied not about Kant, but Kantians. You could easily read Kant and misunderstand him. Fichte himelf avoided this by refusing to create any strict terminology, reading Fichte and understanding him requires actual thinking, you must take his philosophy as a sort of a living thing. That you can misunderstand Kant and view his philosophy as a dead edifice does not mean that this reading is correct, though.
In general: Fichte understood Kant much better than Nietzsche and he understood philosophy itself much better. Yes, you cannot be entirely impartial in philosophical inquiry. Because truth itself is not impartial. Furthermore: Philosophy is reflection upon life. It is not creating life. So of course, since philosophy reflects upon life, it's direction is predetermined. And of course, since life is consciousness, we have some awareness of where philosophical inquiry must lead towards. Philosophy does not so much generate new knowledge as it merely makes it explicit. (It makes explicit all that the thought "I" implies, a thought the first cave dwelling humans allready had, but not fully understood. Developping this understanding is what philosophy does.)
So yes: At the beginning of every philosophical inquiry lies a belief. And the philosophical question is: What is that belief and why do we have to belief it? That is exactly what Kant explores.
If Nietzsche had known actually Kant, then he would have seen how Kants philosophy was an attempt of a sollution of many problems Nietzsche had with his time. Nietzsche hated not Kant, but an understand of Kant that would read Kant as an example of slave morality and negative enlightenment, that is: The reduction of reason to a tool of avoiding prejudice and an understanding of morality as negative, as mere avoidance of evil. Fichte understood, that Kants philosophy does not end at lower morality (Fichtes name for Nietzsches "slave morality"), but to a higher, positive morality (and he himself developped that much beyond Kant): Humanity guiding itself through reason, being guided by positive ideas and shaping life and the world according to these ideas. That higher morality is at the core of transcendental idealism, and Fichte shows how it is the condition for any belief at all.
Kant himself wanted to explain, why 1. science is possible and 2. universal morality is possible. He explained 1 by pointing out, that science (which is not understood as the collection of facts, but understanding of laws) does only find the laws of our own mind. Since we contruct the world with our mind, the laws of our mind must apply, so science must be possible. This solves Humes problem, when he sees, that empiricism does not allow to find universal laws, like causal laws. And the second questions is answered by that morality is not about the phenomenal world, but the noumenal one, and therefor falls into an entirely different category. Morality is a thing, because we can use reason practically. There is no possible correspondent of practical laws in experience. Therefore practical laws can neither appear (and be validated), nor be proven wrong by any experience and remain purely practical: We must act as though we were free to act guiding ourself by reason.
Kant himself leaves practical and theoretical (speculative) reason next to one another, even though he already saw the practical as the more central thing. Fichte then showed, that actually we have th theoretical because, because we are practical beings: We don't act because we understand, but we must understand in order to act. (His example: I'm not hungry because I recognize something as food, but I recognize something as food, because I'm hungry.) That is the primate of the practical ("Primat des Praktischen"), which, I think, is something Nietzsche himself would very much agree to. So, all our knowledge and the world and it's object etc. MUST be constructed by our mind, because otherwise we would have nothing to act with.
By the way: If philosophy was supposed to "invent" morality, than what that means is that it would require philosophical education and knowledge to be a moral human being. Kant knew that this could not be the case. Moral philosophy does not create morality, just as physical science does not create the laws of mechanics. It's about making these things explicit. So the demand that philosophy could lead anywhere is actually quite ridiculous.
Edit:
What I answered to some post here, but seems also relevant for this one:
Happiness is external, reason is not. I use reason autonomously, but I can't autonosmly determine what I find agreeable: If I dont like coffee, than I don't like it. If I'm into guys rather then womend, than what am I supposed to do about it? But I can determine that I want to treat everybody with dignity, as end of themselves and not only as means.
How to apply this is of course a matter of judgement. So yes: There is a universal law. But that law must be apllied in every situation in a specific way, and how to do this is a matter of judgement, which also includes experience. That's why Kant had 3 critiques, not only one or two.
(This, by the way, is why modern political correctness is wrong: It attemps ro regulate moral behaviour through general rules which are to be adhered to at every occasion. That will lead to a life-negating practise, to what Nietzsche would call Nihilism. Kant himself would say: Don't try to just use certain pronouns or avoid certain words etc., but allways act with respect and attention to everybodies humanity. Treat them with dignity! Doing so needs to judge evey particular situation and every particular person. You cannot say, for example: "Never touch your (female) coworker" (in order to avoid sexual harrasment or some other offense), because if said coworker might have lost a close person and needs a hug, then hugging them is the best thing to do. You must pay attention, not invent a rule and then blindly follow that rule. Kants universal kategorical imperative is a thing of alignment, general attitide, not a general rule of "do x under any circumstance" with x being some specific thing. (In the end it is, but what that specific thing, that satisfies the moral law, is in this particular situation, depends on your judgement.)
This is why Kants philosphy is not life-negating as Nietzsche thought. Kant wanted for people to take responcibility and to bravely make judgements on their own accord and boldly use their reason to positively shape their lives and actions, not to cowardly hide behind dead, negative rules of mere decency and the concept of relativism, that is: "I'm not shure, so I don't believe anything, I'm not shure, so I better just do as they tell me and avoid tripping on anybodies toes") Nietzsche hated cowardly avoiding responcibility. Kants philosophy is the opposite of that, it's ultimately life-affirming, responsible, a philosphy of positive (not just liberal) freedom. It was philosophy in the form of science though, and that'swhat makes it look so cold und unemotional.
Kant's morality is not only ultimately slave morality, but it sets you up to be a hypocrite and a coward(that guy with the axe won't stop knocking any time soon). Also his categorical imperative can be used to justify just about anything. I would definately will it that killing/punishing criminals becomes a universal law but that says nothing aboutobjective morality.
@@dreyri2736 There are more versions of the categorical imperative. "Allways treat humanity in every person also as an end of itself and never only as means to other ends" would be an expression that can not so easily be misunderstood and reduced to a mere logical form.
About the guy with the ax... utilitarians pretend to know the future. Kant allready showed how riddiculus that is. You have not just the option of "lie and safe a life" or "tell the truth and condemn them to death", but you could: Not say anything at all, or try to convince the guy with the ax to step down, or defend your door against him. It could be that, while you discuss with that guy, the person hiding inside your house leaves through a window. Or maybe, when a fight ensues, the hiding one will intervene and now its two against one. When you lie, the murderer might not believe you and still enter and murder the victim. Or maybe he does go away, but since the person hiding might already have slipped through a window, the two will meet in the streets and the murder will occur anyway. In other words: The scenario is completely nonsensical. Typical for utilitarian "thought experiments", which are just completely alien to life and feable attempts at rationalizing immoral stuff.
It is, by the way, VERY wrong to try to refer to Nietzsche if you want to defend any kind of utilitarianism. Nietzsche and Kant are much more compatible with one another than most people (including Nietzsche himself) would expect. Nietzsche at one point writes about utilitarianism: "Man does not want to be happy. Only the Englishman wants that." And also: Kant does go beyond mere slave morality. (And where it is not sufficiently clear and explicit in Kants writings alone, Fichte completes the work.)
@@garnauklaufen6704 i'm not defending Utilitarianism. I'm saying that you don't have to pretend that intentions don't exist or autistically enslave yourself to some golden rule in order to satisfy your own ego, which is all it is, even if you claim to get no joy from it.
All ethics in its essence is the attempted domination of the universe. And most are very poor at fulfilling that purpose, but that is still their function.
@@dreyri2736 Yes, dominating the universe throug reason, that is: Making things reasonable. That's kantian ethics, and that's why it's not slave morality, which indeed pretends to be passive (but is actually nihilistic).
I'm also not saying that you should not enjoy being ethical. I'm only saying that if you are acting morally, that joy is not the drive for your morality, but reason and morality are completely spontaneous.
Counterpoint: you’re coping.
To be fair, I hate philosophers too.
fantastic video! (as always)
As I understand the issue, Kant distinguished appearance, and therefore perception and representation, from the thing-in- itself. That is, sensibility was determined by the apriori forms and categories as found within the understanding to the exercise of practical reason via the categorical imperative, to aesthetic judgments; the objectivity of things is distinct from our perception and apperception. It was this positing of the thing-in-itself which brought the critics howling from Schopenhauer to Nietzsche to Bergson, but all of this perked up Freud! Schopenhauer called the thing-in-itself "unconscious will." Nietzsche called it Dionysian impulse or the 'will to power.' Bergson called it a vital force. Kant focused on the spontaneity of consciousness as the independence of life from transcendental factors. Recall that by the early 20th century, God was defined as 'life,' but not after WWI.
Perhaps, Kant for all his detailed analysis of the mind faculties could not handle the prospect of looking into the driving force of the mind itself, the most profound of world changing paradigm shifts found in Nietzsche's will to power analysis. Trying to look directly into the the world changing implications of will to power by exposing the shallow facade of traditional ethics to maintain the "power structure" of the Roman elite of the day and previous empires before Rome would be akin to looking into the bright sun at noon for a conformist in the Kantian ethics worldview. Nietzsche exposed Kant as a conformist shill of the establishment, brilliant perhaps in his Kantian meticulous mental categories yet hiding in his dense verbage from the bright sun truth he did not want to face, the drives, the intuitive pulsating, driving force of the will to power behind the "machinery of the mind." Nietzsche unshackled mankind from the establishment shills placing chains on man under the guise of complicated, bewildering philosophical technical language while denying the obvious will to power hiding in plain sight that could take philosophy to the leading edge of luminosity. Nietzsche showed man the way forward to a no limit possibility overflowing with intuitive Emersonian self reliance insight, and filled ultimatwly with empathy for man's will to power instincts and "love of the game" in all full spectrum facets and dimensions. In doing so, Nietzsche took philosophy to the Mt. Everest of paradigm shifts and next level, leading edge horizon views for philosophy for the next thousand years. As Nietzsche intutively foresaw in his grandest moment of philosophical satori in the will to power, he would now be forever the "philosopher for the day after tomorrow."
1
@@spencerwinston4334 Thanks for the Nietzschean paean. Can you evade the problem of irrationality that Nietzsche stands for? What exactly is power for Nietzsche? Why lack a rational, that is, reasonable, explanation of the mind? The poetry sounds good but it is neither pragmatic nor instrumental, it neither describes nor prescribes. The mind is something that people "use" all the time, it is like consciousness or perception but not exactly. Kant defended a unity of consciousness not a duality as was common before with the Cartesians and then again afterwards by the critics, like Nietzsche. Kant did run up against the hard problems of consciousness, but does Nietzsche improve this situation?
It's important to understand what is at stake. There is a part of consciousness which Kant called the thing-in-itself, later called being-in-itself, which did not abide by the transcendental conditions of knowledge, that is, did not seem to arrive at consciousness through the sensibility, but was instead immediate experience, not mediated by concepts or the categories of the understanding. The implication is significant that something else affects us which is not perceived. Schopenhauer called this unconscious will and Nietzsche power. However, they did not improve our understanding, but perhaps woke us.
@@fredwelf8650 TY for the feedback Fred. Your reply is so compelling and thought provoking I need some time this weekend to contemplate what you wrote, and see if I can "read between" the lines as an admitted Nietzsche afficianadio. Appreciate the response, as we all aim for philosophical "satori" and awareness. Fascinating discussion, and offer you a Pacifico beer cheer for a relaxing weekend. Cheers.
@@fredwelf8650 "When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."
R. Buckminster Fuller,architect, systems designer ...
"We lie in the lap of immense intelligence, which makes us receivers of its truth and organ of its activity." Ralph Waldo Emerson
"There is nothing in the Universe but mathematical points of force" - Faraday
Nietzsche, with his intense Navy Seal front sight focus on the will to power, might have inadvertently discovered, real philosophical alchemy. The highly prized alchemy of exotic cerebral planes at the heart of all intellectual disciplines vectored into the will to power. Nietzsche's spotlight on power in all its forms, dimensions, and societal masks is the philosophical equivalent of discovering the exotic colored Mercury for applied materialist scientists in research labs.
Nietzsche's power paradigm concept of thought effectively combines philosophy, engineering first principles, the laws of thermodynamics, Shannon's information theory, and the archetypes of Jungian psychology all tied and wrapped up into a tortian field of thought power. As Schopenhauer observed, in their quest to turn lead into gold, the alchemists failed on one level, but on another level, the experiments of the alchemists bought us the fields of chemistry and advanced mathematics. Much the same for Nietzsche, he went on a relentless beagle hunt rabbit hole search for the power rabbit, and in doing so revealed the ties that connect all advanced intellectual disciplines. Future philosophers involved in the contemplative craft will now stand on monolithic structures of support from Nietzsche's meticulous scholarship and resulting grand satori discovery of the ages.
@@spencerwinston4334 Nietzsche posited the will to power of the subject as the determining factor of reality but this will to power is unconscious, that is, determines consciousness unconsciously. As we know, autocrats who work with a will to power have lost, significantly lost, because the will, and especially the will to power is hubris, error, irrationality. No one likes someone on a power trip! It is nothing but an attitude! And it is wrong. Instead, the collective will, the collective unconscious must be collected and described as intention and put to the test of discussion where all voices are considered. One way we do this is through campaigns and voting where the journalist media provide venues for discussion: lectures, interviews and debates so that the people can determine how to decide. Nietzsche and the bevy of autocrats and oligarchs since then manipulate democratic processes and undermine this collective intention. Nietzsche is ‘very interesting’ but must be evaluated and not embraced!
Great video once again! Any chance you will release videos on Hegel or Nietzsche's view of Hegel?
Nietzsche and Kant might be the two most different philosophers out there. Kant was pure logic and intellectual discipline. Nietzsche was a poet who thought rather intuitively.
pure logic and intellectual discipline but still ended up a christian, the obviously wrong, unintellectual, illogical worldview. nietzsche was right here
@@WonderfulDeathHear, hear. God is dead, and no amount of clenched fist seething or symbolic manipulation is going to bring him to life.
@@WonderfulDeathlol
@@DukeoftheAges what's so funny?
@@WonderfulDeath An emotional rejection of a logical thinker in the name of logic and reason.
Scientific evidence of time and space as a form of perception: Damage or disruptions in the processing of the visual cortex can lead to temporal distortions, such as difficulties perceiving the timing of events or changes in the temporal order of visual stimuli.
Damage to certain regions of the visual cortex can lead to perceptual distortions in which objects may appear smaller (micropsia) or larger (macropsia) than they actually are. These spatial distortions can affect the individual's perception of the size and distance of objects.
How is reliable cognition possible? Because it involves the activation and application of logical and mathematical relations whose nature is knowable apriori (ie transcendentally grounded). This seems a reasonable general answer by Kant. There is no experience of external objects possible independent of these transcendental (logical and mathematical) properties. Therefore the cognition may be considered well grounded.
Yeah that seems pretty reasonable. Nietzsche’s critique in BG&E is facile.
That leaves out a lot of how cognition works, based on research that did not exist in Kant and Nietzsche's day. Reliability is also based on many levels of educated guesswork at the low biological level that is informed by survival and prospering as an organism. That part is generally in line with Nietzsche's point of view. That being said, Kant's argument is not totally negated by our current scientific paradigm it's just complicated by it.
cognition existed before logic
Thank god for this video. I have lain awake at night for years, wondering why Nietzsche hated Kant. Thank you for bringing an end to my torment. Now I'm wondering how the leopard got its spots. Can you help?
Love the video! Incisive and intriguing as always
If something is a UNIVERSAL law, it is intrinsically so.
So by your Logic, there's no standard to judge men's actions? Hitler and mother Teresa are the same thing to you?
@@fideletamo4292 Pardon…? What I meant was that the categorical imperative doesn’t provide an individual with any real moral guidelines for making decisions and hence they must refer to some other ethical framework for what “ought” to become a universal law (consequentialism, simple compassion, etc.). I’m not sure how your takeaway from my comment was moral nihilism and that Hitler and Mother Teresa are the same…
@@rowanjohnson9892 there's moral guidance in the categorical imperative..treating people the way you want to be treated, acting like you will want everybody to ACT..are already solid, i don't want people to kill, steal, rape, hit, have sex with someone else partner etc..compassion or consequentialism are not the point here, consequentialism is not moral it's calculation, compassion is not moral either it's just feelings but it Can help.
There isn’t really a moral standard for deciding what is to be a universal law for Kant, he views the decision on what can or can’t be a universal law based on the logic of the action. If an action would inherently contradict itself if applied universally, say the action of breaking a promise, then it can’t be made into a universal law by the nature of the act itself. There’s no real notion that something “ought” to become a universal law, rather it’s something more akin to “can it become a universal law?” And if it can’t, then it’s inherently and always immoral.
You are the first English Speaker who I witness to use "NOR" regularly besides myself.
What would I give to observe a meeting between Nietzsche and Diogenes?
Diogenes is the steel man of nihilism haha.
Selflessless isnt in single action. Selflessness only inhabits bodies of behaviors. It's in the action that accurue around a committment to something "greater" than oneself. Its the notion of elimating ego in the steps you take toward a goal you consider to be more important than "self."
"...a decidedly inhuman way of looking at reality."
Basically my whole problem with responsibility as it is thrust on people.
People should be responsible because they see the merit of it and want to do it. Not because they are guilted into it by someone wagging the finger and passing judgements because he can't solve his own problems.
Does that imply that if they don't see that merit, they have an option given to them not to take responsibility, without negative consequences like bad judgment of their character?
@@ideologybot4592 I'd yes responsibility, and how one's character is judged shouldn't always correlate.
İ think your lack of character maturation is sown more clearly here rather than any philosophical insight.
Do not take responsibility from manuplation and learn to say no.
That is your problem.
We must distinguish between objects and subjects.
Subjects: Me/we and similar entities. More materially things around us which can communicate between each other using undescribable, complicated, possibly unfathomable , intricate and dynamic organic mechanism.
For example: inter human relationships and sometimes for some or many times for some inter life communication.
Object: Anything outside it. For example watching a television, reading a book, watching an architectural marvel. In short interaction with objects even if there could be cases when such interactions might appear real, lively (for example watching live incidents on television)
feels like Nietzsche is hard strawmanning him, and then fleeing into generalities like his principle of the hidden goal. Nietzsche is horribly polemic and through that shallow in his writing. The only thing that catches some interest is his non-conformity. Hegel has a much better point proclaiming that "substance is subject".
It is obvious that morals cant be based on pure joy or other subjective, individualist emotions, since there are enough examples where the joy of one is destroying the lives and worlds of others. Nietzsche is like a restaurant critic... they cant cook as well as the chef, but aspire to sour every product with their opinion derived from pure entitlement.
Your food/restaurant critic metaphor of Nietzsche is fascinating and thought provoking though perhaps, imo, slightly off label. Perhaps, Nietzsche could better be understood as a food engineer. He knows the chemical composition of the food and the ingredients on a more full spectrum level than the chefs. Nietzsche knows all the tricks of the trade of the restaurant business, kitchen confidential at its core in an awareness of the actual crucial ingredients, the msg, and the deceptive fat content that might add to the superficial taste and "appeal", but is actually long term dangerous for the restaurant guest and consumer of the " advanced high end" cooking recipie. If you know how the food is made and it's chemistry of ingredients, you have a real X-Ray view into the subterfuge of kitchen confidential that the public is woefully ignorant. Human cattle consuming food designed for cattle, but of course " tastes delicious." Kant then is an aspiring chef representing a complicated haute cuisine dish filled with the most detailed ingredients, the wildest combinations of mixtures to impress the public in his signature Kantian ethics dish recipie. Nietzsche sits back in his chair, scratches his mustache and then in a New York minute gives Kant the Roman emperor hallmark thumbs down on Kant's signature dish. The complicated dish fails for Nietzsche in a metaphoric way for visual dense obtuse presentation, overly complex food terminology, and above all for using ingredients foreign to the authentic needs and health of the restaurant consumer. Above all Nietzsche helps the food consumer to avoid harm, to consume only healthy, organic natural ingredients that fuel the will to power and keep the consumer from acid reflux or a trip to pick up Rolaids late at night after sampling Kant's dish. TY for your comment, and though we may agree to disagree on Nietzsche's role as a food engineer for the benefit of humanity, its illuminating imo to reflect on Nietzsche's daring bold critique of the world renowned Kant, sacred seemingly in academia and late night food shows praising flash and complexity over authenticity, natural instinctual will, and spiritual health. Look forward to your response, and once again ty for providing your food critic thought provoking metaphor. Pacifico beer cheers for a relaxing weekend!!!!
@@spencerwinston4334 i appreciated to read ur answer way more than any text i was reading from Nietzsche.
Since he takes the victims he criticizes out of context or even counters with rhetoric that has not much to do with actual content, im missing the part where he testifies to his full knowledge of the matter. He might have been reading the Critique of pure Reason, but im not certain if he understood it fully. Kant set out to establish the question if there is synthetic a priori knowledge and gave good arguments why this question can be answered with a yes. One example of evidence Kant is presenting is pure mathematics.
@@spencerwinston4334 in a way Kant settles the ages-old debate between Rationalists and Empiricists that goes back at least to Aristotle and Plato, all while redefining the problem of universals, and to wipe it from the table into the Nietzschean garbage can by pointing out some alleged technical errors is sad and sickening at the same time.
@@ShinjiInui91 The tree you were sitting under at the park I presume when you wrote your Jean-Paul Satre-infused existential observation may have been planted 100 years ago. The person who planted the tree could not imagine all the stories and comfort shade the tree would provide, the act of planting at the time might have been considered absurd, and pointless, why make the effort. Instead, the far-sighted person looked out a hundred years and wondered at the possibilities, maybe the tree would provide shade for the next TS Eliot poem or Romeo and Juliet could have a romantic courtship etc. Though I can understand the pessimistic Ecclesiastes stance, instinct, drive, and the relentless pursuit of growth trump pessimism. Have we solved the mystery guest behind the curtain yet, guessed her intentions of why, solved the Rubix Cube mystery of the eternal why yet. Not yet, but pioneer savants like Niextsche are the tip of the spear to finally cut through the dark matrix of traditional religion that has shackled mankind for thousands of years.
Using Navy Seal like front sight focus, Nietzsche has shown humanity how to tap into the eternal spring of creativity, power, and growth that is the hallmark of nature's mystery clues. The accomplishments of this German savant are just extraordinary and speed up the time when infinite intelligence finally knows itself in the representative world, and all things happen at once as infinite intelligence is satisfied, quenched with eternal delight and complete self-knowledge. This striving on the part of nature is a higher reflection of the rallying cry of all Olympian philosophers, the rallying cry of Plato "to know thyself." Plato went as far as to say that the "unexamined life is not worth living."
Nietzsche certainly lived the examined life to the highest of a no-limit high-stakes spiritual philosophical poker game. He pushed the ball forward and showed the young beagle pup philosophers where and how to hunt for the big game hiding in the power rabbit hole. Nietzsche lived the ideal scholar's life, all the solitude and sickness only made him stronger and more profound so that we all benefited from his years of a monk-like dedication. Somehow, someway, Nietzsche's efforts are not wasted as you suggest. Nature does not work that way based on the first principles of engineering. Or as Jim Rohn, the practical business philosopher noted, "behind every disciplined effort is a multiple reward." What that reward is still a mystery, but a Vegas gambler would say bet on a reward for one total dedication to your labor of love. There is still time for you to live "the examined life" instead of ruing Sarte like under that tree in the park. Unshackle yourself free and escape like a Jack Russell terrier in the field running free and following his instincts in his labor of love. Live the examined life, we can all benefit and sit in the shade of your disciplined quest somehow someway, because nature adheres to the great formula y=f(x). cause and effect above all to win the prize and solve the mystery. As Nietzsche said, "is life not a thousand times too short to be intellectually bored and listless, depressingly chain-smoking cigarettes like Sartre in a Paris bistro. near a city-designed artificial tree."
Nietzsche: Are you an Immanuel Kant or an Immanuel Kan?
Immanuel Kant: ...
Kant's application of 'Duty' as the font of morality is only correct when Ideology is the central premise of the individual experience. It's not so much a 'mistake' in observation as it is an ironic error of categorization. This is an excellent point from which to begin an understanding of the divide between the ideologically possessed and the 'free-thinker'.
IMO
Both, morality and duty are the same. Morality are the cultural laws that rule the individual (not the usages, usages rule daily live [how to], moral rules rule over those rules [why and why not do X or Z]; eg eating human meat, regicide or "controversial" things), meaning the laws of the religion (cult) of the individual [eg the refuse to violence of christianity vs the complacience of buddism] "and his society", duty are the laws that rule the individual under the materialistic world (religous, political, societal laws, etc), meaning the laws of his State/overlord, even when he is himself the State. ("L'estat c'est moi vs real politik)
All four are spooks, there's only the feasible and what's not; morals and duty are just strains and brakes, ideologies and cults are the engines of those chains draging us down, they're just the box.
"Free thinkers" vs "possesed" doesn't exist because ideology and cults come from thinking, both are judgemnts and believes that are mand made with his "thinking", free thinkers also possesed by themselves and society.
I would say natural "law" followers rather than "free-thinkers", unless you mean free of thinking.
@@maxstirner6143 Windbag
@@maxstirner6143 Semantics. It's not important what labels I used, what's of import is the juxtaposition between them which is the point of differentiation. Call whatever, whatever you will.
I would agree to some extent. Duty as in deontological duty can je ideological. But the element of duty that we call obligation is central to morality. Morality is about what we ought to do. That goes for any moral theory. Or doesn’t it? And Kant boils down this notion of obligation to its purest form which is the categorical imperative.
Kant‘s argumentative structure in the Groundwork can be boiled down to the following:
1. He starts with the assumption that moral realism is true and that he wants to provide the supreme principle of morality.
2. He wants to provide a principle, every moral theory has some sort of principle, may it be utility, virtue or selfinterest or whatever. So the question boils down to: What principle, i.e. what law is the moral law?
3. The key thing a law has is universality, which is why the notion of law exclude all kinds of particular content, because such content can only be provided empirically, but can therefore not be universal.
4. So the law must be formally a law and nothing else, therefore the moral law must simply be conforming to law-ness as such. And this is the categorical imperative: the notion of obligation boiled down to its rational core.
@@maxstirner6143
We forget that the "free thinkers" mostly are possessed by their bodies in their everyday choices.
Selecting a slave master i.e. duty or virtue or religious laws to possess you in most of your life choices is more free than being controlled by a fickle minded slave master or masters that is your body o.Because you have partly played a role in your choices before hand when choosing a consistent slave master to possess you beforehand.Thus you are partly involved in your life choices guided by your duty or virtue or religious laws.
This moustache man was more of a poet than a philosopher - he expressed very eloquently his perceptions and feelings about ethics and esthetics, and reformulated some arguments made by second rate greek philosophers, but that's it.
Not in the same category of a Kant or even a Hegel - let alone Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz...
What Nietzsche missed in his blockheadedness is that one cannot philosophize accurately if you omit to take into account your own phenomenological being and intent to philosophize.
To try to come to truth or life or ecstasy by totally ignoring or devaluing the experiencer of life is idiotic.
N was put off by the inherent mysticism in Kant's outlook where all is dependent on the Thing -in Itself, which is behind everything , experiences everything and measures everything and hence cannot be defined using the realm of things.
Bruh, you gotta kill who you were to become who you want to be. If you want to become moral, you must become less immoral. Factoring in ego at this level is a waste of time and an active impediment to progress.
@@baronvonbeandip What are you saying?
Are you claiming that Kant is factoring in ego?
As I see it Kant was saying that behind the ego is the real self which is connected to the transcendental universal subjectivity, not ego.
Nietzsche was coming from a place of ego and denying the existence of the transcendental Self.
You mean, what Kant missed?
@@ideologybot4592 No, what Nietzsche missed.
He is the one insisting that all we know is what science and our senses reveal while he ignores the transcendental mind or experiencer with all the apriori qualities necessary to organize and perceive something intelligible from the vast chaos of sensory input we receive all the time.
@@thenowchurch6419 Nietzsche didn't miss it, he assumed our perception is subjective, and he's clearly right. Descartes and his cogito ergo sum statement of being didn't even begin to scratch the surface of how different interpretations can skewer anyone's perception of reality.
If you consider your view on reality "transcendental", then it could be religious insanity, or it could be megalomania. You're welcome to it either way, but you won't convince me that it's more than opinion.
At 08:14, the question is not "why should they be possible?", rather whats the reason behind questioning it in the first place.
I love Nietzsche somehow even more after hearing those Kant jabs, especially the "it's a the duty to an idea..." bar🤣, thanks for sharing, good video man. I remember when you had 100's of subscribers and look at you now. congrats man, its inspirational to see, & well earned 🙌👍👌
I remember your comment on a video back when I was starting out!
ua-cam.com/video/JPUiUvl1tMs/v-deo.html
Nietzsche, quite frankly, sucks. I prefer Hume when it comes to those that disrupt the philosophical norm, and although he had a hard on for chasing after Kant, (I love Kant, though I will admit, he tried too hard to apply the scientific method to the role of ethics), and although Nietzsche has a part to play in the conversation in pointing out the flaws in the various systems, he was still a small, ineffectual man who through in terms of power being the sole determiner of the world because that is what he saw the world as having over him and what he most wanted.
It's like a Napoleon complex.
Kant's ethics, although flawed, are actually pretty damned good in the sense of creating laws for a society to uphold in a meta-ethics sort of way.
If one wants a personal code of ethics, I'd rather point them towards Hume or Kierkegaard than Nietzsche any day.
im seeing two people in this comment thread talking about why different philosophers were bad and x philosopher was good and i am here for it
@@kehana2908 🤣👌
A beautiful summary.
At this point shouldn't you just make a vid about how Nietzsche hated almost everyone.
The origin of ethics for Kant is not duty, but reason, I would say. Duty is mainly prohibitive, the limits you should reasonably set to your actions.
I actually attempted to follow the Kantian imperative for a while when I was 17. It took me about two days to realize how absolutely idiotic it was as a mode of conducting one's life.
Great video.
What about its application convinced you of that conclusion?
@@RickJaeger It's simply an absurd and totally impractical way to live. The idea of willing that ever action that you take become a general rule is simply nonsensical. There are things I would do that my friends and brother would never do and vice-versa. There are no universally judgements or applicable situations or actions as an individuals temperament and personality structure differ so widely. Risk tolerance for example - we need a certain number of people in society with a high level of risk tolerance - but if everyone had that level of risk tolerance society would not function. We actually need different personality styles that would choose completely differently in the same situation and neither would become a universal rule. That's how things work in the real world for good reason.
@@JoBlakeLisbon It's true that everyone has different personalities, physiques, histories, educational levels, etc.
However, I believe Kant's phrasing is only act according to those maxims which you _can_ will to be a universal rule, not according to those maxims that you _must_ will to be a universal rule.
Even if that were a sticking point because of the versimilitude of humanity, would you not just rephrase the maxim into something more clearly worthy of universality?
If I happen to have the habit of baking bread at 4am to feed myself, that doesn't mean I therefore will the maxim "All must bake bread at 4am." Rather, it would be "It is permissible to make one's own food," or something equally practicable.
@@JoBlakeLisbon You fail to understand the protestant psyche, and that of north German discipline. The fact that people are very different is exactly the reason why Kant chooses to propose that they control themselves and abide by the same rule. Peoples faults, their shortcomings and personalities, is not very interesting in sense of the argument that there are things that if all did them, would not be possible. So if so, do not do it. It does not care about who you are or preference. Just what will make a rule to abide by.
It does not become a general rule because you do it, you test whether you should do it, by testing the thought of it as a general rule.
Simpler put, you ask yourself if you would like to live in a world where all did as such.
So if you want to pound your neighbors,wifes poon, ask yourself, do i want to live in a world where everybody pounds their neighbours wifes hot poon. You will say no, if you are protestant north german, and set aside your urges to do it regardless. And therefore abstaining from poon. If you are south Italian, you will say no, but do it anyway, since you can't control your urges.
@@JoBlakeLisbon The irony of the 17 year old you thinking Kants imperative was idiotic.
The Imperative does not mean if you eat only chocolate ice cream, everyone should as well.
It is about morality, the golden rule. Your brothers and you being special snowflakes has nothing to do with it.
Its about doing whats right when no one is looking because you placed yourself on a high standard.
IMO to put it shortly, Kant and those like him are so focused on being "logical" that they strip life away from all meaning and it's why many people who were inspired by Kant all turned out to be various forms of ends justify the means evil tyrants. Thomas Carlyle also writes about this world view in Heroes and Hero-Worship
Nietzsche was history first edgelord.
Very true. He can be a clever rebel at times, but mostly he’s just…punchable. He criticizes some things so needlessly, seems like he just wants to criticize
Hell yeah, an unbearable chad..
@@furiousape7717 just like how Schopenhauer impotently criticized Hegel. I think he took it from him.
@@ahmadaam12 Schopenhauer critics of Hegel were valid..the bullcrap about the History being logical is just dumb...specially when WE Know Germany had Hitler and there was 2 World Wars..Hegel made no sense like Nietzsche..
@@fideletamo4292don’t you mean chud?
This title and thumb nail cracks me up. It would be hilarious if Nietsche just left it at that “he became an idiot”.
Beautiful
In order to philosophize, you need to make "guesses" and test them, to see if they hold up. These guesses have an intrincic subjectivity to them that will always reflect the personality of the one guessing. To hold that as critique is like saying water is wet. How objective does one treat ones subjective ideas, tries, probes and guesses? And ideas need others to be attacked, which lessons the suspiciousness of an idea.
Schopenhauer: the source of morality is compassion. But there are many Asperges and Autistic people and even psychopaths, who have very little to no sympathy for others and barely fear repercussions of unjust behavior, yet live positive, non violent, exemplary lives. Th
He’s right . The greatest philosophers of antiquity admitted that virtue necessarily consisted in happiness . Any ethical system that adheres to a mere external idea of duty rather than something internal is a seriously inhumane notion. And ethics is about practical reason … about what makes a good human being in actuality…. And that requires prudence . Ethics deals with human action which deals with particulars … not universals , therefore the categorical imperative cannot be source of human virtue because it deals with universals . Good human actions requires experience and time and is not something that we can calculate like mathematics . It is the mark of an uneducated man to expect the same exactness found in the theoretical sciences on the practical level
Platonist btfo
youre right. Kant seemed to look for this exactness u can find in math or even natural science but in ethics. He wanted morality to be calculated but he missed the human part.
What an odd critique. He was not utilitarian; he was not attempting to calculate or quantify ethics. It's precisely because one cannot calculate the good of an action that he proposed deontology.
Literally everything you wrote here is one massive strawman
I do agree that Kant missed some more practical concerns (I'm thinking of relationality and development, categories that include compassion, education and growth, and cannot be reduced to a sovereign intellectual subject giving itself its own law based on abstract reason).
However, Kant's duty was not at all conceived as external or quantifiable. It was an inner principle (not given by others) based on consistency (a logical quality). He opposed subjection to external moral dogmas as a state of unreasoning "minority" and would see his commitment to moral consistency as a matter of (emotional) respect.
He also granted that perfect goodness should also be accompanied by perfect happiness, although this is not always possible in an imperfect world. Happiness to him should just not be the /reason/ why you do what is good, because otherwise it diminishes its value, but it remains both desirable and an essential part of complete goodness.
To Kant, perfect goodness is just admirable for its own sake, just like the knowledge of the universe is admirable in itself and not because it makes my GPS work. 🤣
I think when he wrote about "the starry sky above me and the moral law within me" he meant this, and was probably feeling genuine happiness about it.
Top-quality video. Well worth the watch.
Thank you!
When I was first introduced to Kant in high school I didn't think much about him. When I read Kant for my degree I thought even less. It's amazing to me how Nietzsche's critiques are nearly identical to my initial reaction to Kant. I find Kant's conclusions to be entirely too convenient for my taste.
then perhaps you should have tried harder to break out of your cage
"Nietzsche's critiques are nearly identical to my initial reaction to Kant" is impossible to verify without us having to TRUST you.
Enough of the thinly veiled self-adulation.
@@MyOneFiftiethOfADollarTrue, but why must you verify that statement? Sure, this particular person might be lying. But what does that matter to you? Regardless of whether or not he is lying, you're in no position to say that *nobody's* initial reactions to kant could be similar to the critiques nietzsche had of him. And at that point, who are you to say that the commenter *couldn't* have had that same reaction, since such a reaction is a legitimate possibility?
@@anonymouseovermouse1960 does the moon landing matter to me, not really. I may still demand adequate proof. Bozo
One even cursory look at our political debates, and you can see that Nietzsche nailed it.
Philosopher or political scientist, take your choice, always start with a conclusion first.
Nietzsche (like all philosophers) excludes himself from the same criticism. Of course he must attack every other philosophy/philosopher if he is to build himself up as the reformer/savior of all philosophy. What a narcissist.
The doctrine of eternal recurrence is a speculative invitation to contemplate what the categorical imperative might mean in practice. Nietzsche and Kant are not just twins, but siamese twins.
Perhaps, Kant for all his detailed analysis of the mind faculties could not handle the prospect of looking into the driving force of the mind itself, the most profound of world-changing paradigm shifts found in Nietzsche's will-to-power analysis. Trying to look directly into the world-changing implications of will to power by exposing the shallow facade of traditional ethics to maintain the "power structure" of the Roman elite of the day and previous empires before Rome would be akin to looking into the bright sun at noon for a conformist in the Kantian ethics worldview.
Nietzsche exposed Kant as a conformist shill of the establishment, brilliant perhaps in his Kantian meticulous mental categories yet hiding in his dense verbiage from the bright sun truth he did not want to face, the drives, the intuitive pulsating, driving force of the will to power behind the "machinery of the mind." Nietzsche unshackled mankind from the establishment shills placing chains on man under the guise of complicated, bewildering philosophical technical language while denying the obvious will to power hiding in plain sight that could take philosophy to the leading edge of luminosity.
Nietzsche showed man the way forward to a no-limit possibility overflowing with intuitive Emersonian self-reliance insight, and filled ultimately with empathy for man's will to power instincts and "love of the game" in all full spectrum facets and dimensions. In doing so, Nietzsche took philosophy to the Mt. Everest of paradigm shifts and next level, leading-edge horizon views for philosophy for the next thousand years. As Nietzsche intuitively foresaw in his grandest moment of philosophical satori in the will to power, he would now be forever the "philosopher for the day after tomorrow."
1
You're being unfair on Kant. His hands were tied by the power of religion. He couldn't afford to be a heretic, his work was too important. Look what happened to Spinoza, in liberal Amsterdam.
The Will to Power in any case haunts Critique of Pure Reason, you just have to read between the lines, as Schopenhauer knew.
And why didn't Nietzsche build his own System? I'll bet it would've been spectacular. Unless his work was only to pave-the-way - perhaps for a Sky-God-killing First Philosophy?
Calling Kant a shill completely disqualifies your critique, however possible there may be value in parts of it. Nietzsche is inconceivable without Schopenhauer, just as Nietzsche’s aesthetics is impossible without Wagner. Of course, Nietzsche’s own self-recognized failure caused him to eventually disrespect Schopenhauer and Kant, as he had done earlier with Spinoza.
@@sciagurrato1831 TY for the feedback, even if we may have to agree to disagree. After watching this video, something clicked for me after fully grasping Nietzsche's Navy Seal like guerilla warfare critique against Kant. To critique the world renowned philosopher Kant with such precise, brief yet artillery shell forceful impact was a mark of Nietzsche's savant genius. Apart from the noted Kantian contribution in describing the categories in the "machine of the mind", Kant tried to expand his mind analysis and categories into ethics and individual "virtue." The Kantian ethics are a reflection though of a real "company man," a cog in a machine, order and virtue to the state above all as influences and shades in his ethical theory. Kant was like Spock in Star Trek, prizing logic over the the other drives in the human experience. Kant could not handle the implications to his "company man mediocre" ideal if Nietzsche's later paradigm changing will to power was the tip of the spear in the mind's end game strategy. Kant's legendary habitual Spock like daily routine then was infused into the Kantian goal of order, logic, and robot like "virtue" which was the hallmark of Kant's life. Nietzsche, instead, unshackles man from these Kantian chains, also used in religion, to keep the mundane power structure intact. Nietzsche allows man to fly high like an eagle up in the mountain air unchained and released from the mundane, flying high in self exploration with the will to power and Emersonian self reliance. Nietzsche gives man then the freedom to trust instinct as a guide and beacon to self and universal satori undertaken with relentless Navy Seal like dedication and precision on life's battlefield of the mind. Appreciate any additional feedback, and look forward to seeing your response in support of Kantian ethics. Regards.
The mind and the physical brain are literally the same thing absolutely.
Excellent comment!
I think Kant's "universal law" was trying to reach the "moral simplicity" of "having what you think, where you are, what you're doing, and what you're saying all be the same". The latter concept was from a recent Christian sermon on the radio.
It's very unfortunate that in High School (German Gymnasium) we we're supposed to learn about Kant but never ever heard anything from Nietzsche. If I had learned about both of them back then, I would have certainly quite unphilosophically taken sides. More importantly, I would have been interested in philosophy. Kant always seemed so traditional and boring.
It doesnt help that Kant uses very complex German to the point where one just falls asleep mid lesson
The allies wanted to make sure that new German generations would find philosophy boring and wouldnt challenge the ideas that prop up Anglo hegemony
ua-cam.com/video/JPUiUvl1tMs/v-deo.html
You just vulgar.
I've long loved The Matrix and yet there Kant is lampooning us and me from within it. Good to have this guide that makes some sense of it though.
Nietzshe:
All other philosophers reach the conclusions they started out wanting to prove.
Nietzshe:
True morality is that might is right and a Germanic warlord must come to power and asert this morality over other nations drawing his inspiration from noble pagan sources.
Post-Nazi Western world:
What have we learnt? We should try to annihilate Russia again, and this time not attack the Jews.
What I've learnt:
All philosophers including Nietzshe reach the conclusions they wanted to prove, and world leaders use ideological morality as a cover for deep depravity.
I also see:
There is no harmony between the justification for having power and the practice of morality, and where there is an attempt to harmonise both, the result is horrifically immoral and destructive to the human race.
Furthermore, it seems to me:
An Antichrist philosopher such as Nietzshe (or should one say a False Prophet) heralds the coming of an Antichrist world leader.
Finally, I think:
The concept of Antichrist means a justification for absolute power that is not based in justice and mercy but in power and authority to put to death, and a false morality (that might appear kindly or tolerant) that provides a cover or veneer for this crude power grab and exploitation of the weak.
Lol are you jewish?
"Immanuel Kant? More like Immanuel K*nt amirite?"
- Friedrich Nietzsche, 1889
Some animals have ultraviolet sensitive eyes. Others have infrared sensitive eyes, so Kant was right..
Lol, and all eyes of every creature are made of matter which is a physical process. Sorry dude it’s not god or metaphysics.
We should remember that Nietzsche was struck down in late youth/early mid-life. Had he lived I think the bombast element would have seriously subsided.
It seems to me that Kant understood that many of the so-called leftists in the West may not necessarily be morally virtuous individuals. It's easy to echo a popular narrative and feel good about oneself, but true virtue is demonstrated when one stands up for something that is not easily defensible and generally accepted.
11:02 the universal law maxim is a great idea nietsche seems jealous or trifling. Morality does not come from compassion schopenhauer, because there is no limit to compassion (which Kant also saw).
Anyhow I haven't thought about these ideas in a long time.
Weak arguments from Nietzsche... essentially straw manning Kant, with a bunch of word-plays, The arguments are... Kant uses the word "duty", Kant uses the words "moral edifices", Kant's thinking works with the Christian worldview (it doesn't really) therefore it's not scientific. The counter argument is we should ground our moral thinking in emotion and empathy... which is the opposite of rationality and scientific thought! Sad!
Nietzche was a Illogical Philosopher even he Hated Logic and examination also he himself examined a lot Idea this show he was also a Hypocrite
the laughing lady at approx 17:11 fitted so well i was like omg it makes me laugh at christianity and she was like displaying the same emotion as me in this moment - intended by the videomaker?
What a shallow thinker, for all his merits, Nietzsche turned out to be. His critique of Kant's clinging to Christianity is basically the emotional response of a disgruntled Christian at best, a childish response. He needed to engage Kant in his turf, that is, he was trying to make sense of the "obvious," of fact that "reality" is mediated to "us" through the senses. "Fact": all we have are sensations, and the "essence" (the being) of sensation is mental / illusion / spiritual / nothing.
No, he didn't have to engage Kant in Kant's theory. He doesn't need to defeat him with his own weapons, for that logic of "superation" of one's theory is based on the premisse that a theory really demonstrates the reality of things, and that if it doesn't then it must be shown through some flaw in the theory itself, and now it's lack of connection to reality. That's Nietzche PoV, in other words: He is a philosopher that defends life, in all it's vicissitudes, and despises exactly the idea of putting all of that apart due to a supposition that, in denying human nature, we'll reach some point of purity. That's why he puts Kant as christian in disguise, because religious dogma is known to ask us to act in penance in this life, due to our "sinful" nature of the flesh, if we want to reach the heavens. Kant explicitly tells us not act due to our interests, EVEN if they put us to act according to Duty, for that is not true Good Will. So, for Kant, deny yourself. For Nietzche, don't deny yourself. From those points on, each philosopher builds their ideas, so no point for any one of them to try and find flaws in their theories if they have such differences in their starting points.
For the Categorical Imperative, it isn't the why of what is right n wrong, but more rules for a though exercise. The Ego wants to tilt the scales in its own favor by nature. So we will often say its ok for us to do it, or for our preferred group(s) to do it. So then ask yourself, is it ok for everybody to do it, and how might that change the world. Will it make things better or worse overall. I think its brilliant. I see Nietzsche's critique as misrepresenting the concept, then arguing against this misrepresentation. Maybe I am biased as a fan of Kant, but I am also open to alternatives and value many other philosophers as well. Not sure if Nietzsche will make the cut, but I won't give up on him that easily.
The older I get, the clearer it becomes that Nietzsche was closer to a bitter poet who was mad that he couldn’t think with the same clarity of Kant. He’s got his points, but like Marx, Nietzsche falls victim to his own critique.
The more likely truth regarding your advancing age is your diminished capacity to reason clearly.
Perhaps you are projecting the bitterness you possess over the hand life dealt you?
Congratulations on great Nietsche coverage
Nietzsche and other prescriptivists “there is no objective truth” ….
Is that true?
Meanwhile Nietzsche “noooooooo that’s life dying, society is sick”
If there is no truth on what basis do you have to judge?
Well said jimmylad, it is always nice to question everything 👍🏻
Thanks! Nietzsche is dumb as hell..how Can you take him seriously? There's no objective truth? Bro, and you supposed to be a philosopher? Beat it!
I don't need objective truth as basis to judge. I can just admit that since cognition comes from senses, I would not be able to get to know character of truth. Also, I find Nietzsche more as moral relativist than truth relativist.
@@dmytrodoncov5996 he said there's no objective truth..he said that..this shows how dumb he was, there are objective truth in moral and in fact..if you don't think that, you can't call yourself a philosopher, you just a troll.
@@dmytrodoncov5996 there can be no judging if there is no objective truth since to judge already in itself presupposes an objective truth as otherwise it would be incomprehensible
We don't use subjective perception to define an object. Most objects are objectified before we are born, whereas new objects, unless we are the first to see them, are identified by others.
How do I perceive a flower? Because I see an object in my infancy that has petals, a stem etc and I hear it called a flower. I then to learn to define a flower from a weed, or a plant, or a bush. Such definitions are objective, like the language we learn. We didn't talk by ourselves, we didn't make up our own language, our own subjective labels, we simulated language from our parents and other adults.
However, what is truly subjective is emotion. One can read and read about love, hate, jealousy, grief depression - until one experiences them personally, one can never truly understand them,
And in a less dramatic way the emotional reaction to all stimuli is highly subjective, A flower to one person is romantic, to another a symbol of death, to another a simple product of nature without symbolic reference, to another a means of decoration, another a means of freshening the air - etc etc.
In short, language is objective, emotion is subjective
Nietzsche also said “Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's blunders?” so that says it all.
The man reasoned from the limited ego self not knowing about the illusion of separateness at least for some part of his Life before he woke up. He was trapped in his mind using way too many words for that which is so shockingly simple. Truth is One cannot understand the purpose of the universe through the lens of fragmentation. You can choose to live in Naraka, or, choose to live in Nirvana. Somehow I feel he lived in Naraka. Either way. The one and only meaning of Life is Companionship i.e. Love. It's that simple.
Awesome content
Damn Nietzsche has no chills, his bullshit detection skills is just god tier level, I love him, thank you for the video it’s awesome!
Yup. Most people who try to dunk on neetch are mad because he’s hitting deep into their own fallacious ways of thinking and they have to morally back up why not being reasonable is actually good.
The 'neetch ' is just another false prophet for the shallow (you) who think they are 'superman'. Today's 'neetches' being Jordan Peterson or ''the Hitch' (Christopher Hitchens) a man so 'brilliant' he NEVER admitted he was wrong about WMD's and Iraq as he lacked both the moral courage to admit he had been wrong and insight (supporting GW and 'Darth Cheney' and Tony BLIAR) Today we still are dealing with the fall out from these disastrous decisions. Doxxing 'the wrong people', silencing pacifists ('traitors'), comedians (Dave Chapelle, John Cleese etc), musicians (Roger Waters), historians, journalists (Assange) all to support the 'Hitche's' Imperial hegemon oligarchy. @@GhGh-gq8oo
I always felt that Kant was afflicted with the same attitude that I see everyone who thinks too deeply about life experience he has always been my favorite philosopher for that reason if your life's Pinnacle work is a critique on reason I'd say you have some issues but to me that's why he's relatable ❤️
Sure, but that horse had the last laugh
It's a myth dude,this horse story is not real.
@@krysto7917 wait the horse story is not real 😯
@@idoabitoftrolling2172 yeah it's not real, when Nietzsche lost his mind he was a guest in someone's house, all this horse story is made up to downplay him.
@@krysto7917 Apocryphal horses are people too, man
And who's laughing now, eh? Not any dead Germans, that's for sure...
@@LordEriolTolkien well then tell me who's laughing now?
It's quite obvious, Kant has created view that Morality is the substance of the view, and for Nietzsche it was one of the most dangerous lapse. Also, Nietzsche assumes that seneses tells us true, which of course contradicts with Kant view.
And every human to ever exist acted as if their senses were true. Cope more solipsist.