To gain an understanding of both of these philosophers it is important that first we depict their individual morals and values.
Lets start with Nietzsche :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBjgOCZXX1A <----- here is an interesting audio clip on Nietzsche main theories
- He was a 19th century philosopher
- He wrote criticial texts on religion, contemporary culture and science using a clear and distinctive style through the use of irony and metaphor
- Nietzsche's influence remains substantial within and beyond philosophy, notably in existentialism and postmodernism.
Nevertheless. -the awakening of moral observation has become necessary, and mankind can no longer be spared the cruel sight of the moral dissecting table and its knives and forceps... the older philosophy... has, with paltry evasions, always avoided investigation of the origin and history of the moral sensations. With what consequences is now very clearly apparent, since it has been demonstrated in many instances how the errors of the greatest philosophers usually have their point of departure in a false explanation of certain human actions and sensations; ...a false ethics is erected, religion and mythological monsters are then in turn called to buttress it, and the shadow of these dismal spirits in the end falls even across physics and the entire perception of the world. (from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human,)
Morality makes stupid.- Custom represents the experiences of men of earlier times as to what they supposed useful and harmful - but the sense for custom (morality) applies, not to these experiences as such, but to the age, the sanctity, the indiscussability of the custom. And so this feeling is a hindrance to the acquisition of new experiences and the correction of customs: that is to say, morality is a hindrance to the development of new and better customs: it makes stupid. (from Nietzsche's Daybreak)
Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life. (from Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy)
And now for Kant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8jAs0utwxo <---- here is a great clip on Krant's theories
-Kant created a new perspective in philosophy which had widespread influences on, philosophy continuing through to the 21st century. He published important works on epistemology (theory of knowledge), as well as works relevant to religion, law, and history. One of his most prominent works is the Critique of Pure Reason, an investigation into the limitations and structure of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are the Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on ethics, and the Critique of Judgment, which investigates aesthetics and teleology.
-Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed through epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources and limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects about which the mind can think must conform to its manner of thought.
-Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality – which he concluded that it does – then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it is possible that there are objects of such nature which the mind cannot think, and so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside of experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. And so the grand questions of speculative metaphysics cannot be answered by the human mind, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind.
Both philosophers have interesting and extremely complex theories and perspectives however, i prefer Nietzsche's because it offers individualism and allows a person to experience life where as Kant's theory runs into problems because of its absoluteness - with no exceptions for white lies or for lies that one undertakes for some really good moral purpose and is too tunnel visioned for my liking!
Who's theory do you prefer?
No comments:
Post a Comment