Immanuel Kant Vs Nietzsche Essay

Kant and Mill both articulate thoughts that praise the use of reason as the ultimate good, that which leads to enlightenment (in Kant’s terms) and a general understanding and certainty, as Mill would put it. The two political philosophers, while both striving to reach the same goal, ultimately achieve their goals in a different sense, and even demonstrate a slight discrepancy in what they ultimately mean to attain. Mill’s path toward certainty and understanding is dependent on dissenting opinion, and is asymptotic to truth; one never achieves the complete enlightenment that Kant describes so vividly as the individual’s end on a linear path of reason.

Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche are two widely acclaimed philosophers due to the groundwork they made towards the philosophical principles of morality. However, even though they both have openly discussed their views, they have ended up contradicting each other. Kant implied that morality is not learned, but rather predestined, whereas Nietzsche alluded to a experience based morality, or one that is learned through actions and memories. Although these two men have accepted views of morality, the ideas of Nietzsche seem more applicable in relation to the present day; the world is constantly changing. There are two separate scenarios in which the issues of 'thou shalt not lie ' and 'thou shalt not steal, ' are morally assessed. The end results are supportive towards Nietzsche 's principles and detrimental towards Kant 's ideas. Overall, the moral concepts of Nietzsche will prevail as a result, illustrating the more probable use of his ideology.

Immanuel Kant is widely-regarded as one of the greatest thinkers and philosophers of all time, with his teachings having more influence on other contemporary thinkers than any other philosopher of the 18th century. Fighting against the governmental and monarchical constraints of the time, Kant began his work by maintaining that all humans are free beings, who out to think autonomously, free from the dictates of external authority (SEP, 2011, pp.1). Kant

Nietzsche's madman allegory represents the current moral situation of society during his time--a growing belief that God does not exist, a movement away from religious values. Nietzsche does not mean literally that God has been murdered, but because mankind created God, we also have the ability to kill God. In Nietzsche’s point of view, mankind created God by also creating a belief in God. By saying that mankind ‘murdered’ God, Nietzsche is proposing that we no longer believe in Him. With the grounding that religion provided in the past, Nietzsche fears that mankind will be left without purpose and virtues to lead them to do the correct thing. The ‘light,’ in Nietzsche’s allegory is belief in God; for this paper, light is a focus because of the implications that follow when there is none. With no light, everything previously known about moral beliefs and the world is overturned. Nietzsche proposes that instead of God guiding people (because people no longer believe in Him), people can follow their own virtues, such as courage, faith in oneself, and patience for the future.

In the critique of pure reason, Kant states, “All alternations occur in accordance with the law of the connection of cause and effect.”1 This statement is interpreted in two different ways: weak readings and strong readings. The weak readings basically suggest that Kant's statement only refer to “All events have a cause”; however, the strong readings suggest that “the Second Analogy is committed not just to causes, but to causal laws as well.”2 To understand the difference between the readings, it is helpful to notice Kant's distinction between empirical laws of nature and universal transcendental principles. Empirical laws have an empirical element that universal transcendental principles cannot imply. On the other hand, empirical experiences require necessity to become a law, accordingly, “the transcendental laws “ground” the empirical laws by supplying them with their necessity.”3In this paper, according to this distinction, I first, argue that the second analogy supports the weak reading, second, show how in Prolegomena he uses the concept of causation in a way that is compatible to the strong reading, and third, investigate whether this incongruity is solvable.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense represents a deconstruction of the modern epistemological project. Instead of seeking for truth, he suggests that the ultimate truth is that we have to live without such truth, and without a sense of longing for that truth. This revolutionary work of his is divided into two main sections. The first part deals with the question on what is truth? Here he discusses the implication of language to our acquisition of knowledge. The second part deals with the dual nature of man, i.e. the rational and the intuitive. He establishes that neither rational nor intuitive man is ever successful in their pursuit of knowledge due

In 1724, in the Prussian city of Konigsberg Immanuel Kant was born and spent most of his life at the university. Kant was recognized as a noble philosopher and scientist specializing in many areas. Kant wrote several difficult to read books, but included influential context regarding to practical morality, science, history, politics, and metaphysics. Along with many scholars and philosopher of Kant’s era the published works about nature of reality, free will. Although, the books were commended at the time, they are currently influential in terms of ethics. Kant’s most remarkable books are Groundwork in the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and Metaphysics of Morals (1798) contributing to Kant’s foundation of

David Hume was a Scottish philosopher in the eighteenth century that had some pretty interesting views on cause and effect, which made him an empiricist. This just means that he believed that you had to experience something in order to know about it. David Hume was also best known for his influence on the systems of philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher and like Hume, was in the eighteenth century. Kant had many great points in his life and research and his beliefs, to this day, continue to have massive influences on contemporary philosophy. Especially in the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, political theory, and aesthetics. In this paper, we will discuss David Hume’s empiricist skepticism with Immanuel Kant’s theory of transcendental idealism.

Kant is well known for his work in the philosophy of ethics and metaphysics; also, he made an important astronomical discovery on the nature of Earth's rotation. Kant exceeded both values of his time, Rationalism and Empiricism. We believe his work did a

Throughout his career, Nietzsche’s philosophy becomes known for it’s challenging of Christianity’s fundamental principles and traditional morality and ethics. His notions followed themes regarding the edification or enhancement of individual and cultural health through the means of respecting and valuing the powers of will, creativity, life and nature in the direct reality of the world we live in. Nietzsche’s emphasis of an embodiment with the present, direct world comes in direct opposition to religious ideas concerning life after death or value beyond the knowable, tangible world we are situated within—exemplifying him as secular philosopher concerned with the human experience. Nietzsche’s efforts and approaches to human experience centralize around the question: how is it that one should live? Through this framework, academically, Nietzsche is often referred to as one of the first original existentialist thinkers.

Because we are so keen on learning, we are disengaged from our experiences, and therefore are not in the right place to understand ourselves (3). The words that are used to define any given concept are not to be taken at face value since the judgment of our moral values depends on their respective time periods and cultural influences, which are subject to change as everything else does. In other words, they are products of the moral projections of people’s values, which often have a multitude of dimensions that surpass the shallow fields of initial interpretation. Consequently, we need to look beyond the surface interpretation of these words by re-interpreting their meanings many times to be able to judge what we believe. As we change with time, our interpretations are subject to change, and our value systems evolve, both preventing us from establishing absolute meaning regarding anything. As a result, we cannot truly understand concepts unless we remove several historical layers from them. Many times throughout his polemic, Nietzsche hints at the necessity of asking a question from “various perspectives” (41). “Understanding the demonstrated purpose or utility of a thing, its form, its organization” is not

Although the problem of the relationship between Nietzsche and metaphysics might seem to be a settled issue, this is in fact a quite complicated and fascinating problematic. The difficulty with this subject lies in the often unacknowledged ambiguity that the term ‘metaphysics’ exhibits in Nietzsche's writing, as this word assumes different nuances and connotations in different contexts. Therefore, if we can get past the usual rhetoric on the topic, we come to realize that Nietzsche addresses the topic of metaphysics in at least two distinct ways.

Friedrich Nietzsche was a 19th-century German philosopher and held in regard amongst the greatest philosophers of the early part century. He sharpened his philosophical skills through reading the works of the earlier philosophers of the 18th century such as Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Arthur Schopenhauer and African Spir; however, their works and beliefs were opposite to his own. His primary mentor was Author Schopenhauer, whose belief was that reality was built on the foundation of experience. Such as it is, one of his essays, Schopenhauer als Erzieher, published in 1874, was dedicated to Schopenhauer (Mencken, 2008). In the past two centuries, his work has had authority and influence in both

Due to the apparent focus both authors place on religion and how it affects the manner in which people think and their subsequent actions, the comparison of how faith is critiqued by both Marx and Nietzsche may allow one to secern their respective characterization of the default state of mind of humans and why they should change it. Nietzsche’s orotund and detailed rhetoric on religion is seen as the main focus of his argument:

5. Discuss Nietzsche’s theory of “will to power” and “the innocence of becoming”. Does the hypothesis of the will to power successfully “debunk” traditional religion, morality, and philosophical claims to provide the “disinterested” or “objective” truth?