no hes retarded.

yes hes intelligitarded

>>24747779
Maybe. He was gay.

How did this dude make a 30 minute video of Nietzsche critiquing Kant? Nigga barely says shit on Kant, Nietzsche doesnt criticize philosophers, he just insults some percieved personal aspect of them, and then simply opposes their values. Nietzsche isnt smart enough for critique.

>>24747779
first off drop youtube philosophy then worry about what a philosopher was trying to say

>>24747779
>arguing against a philosopher using linguistics
Now I see where Wittgenstein ripped his shtick off from

>>24747830
What? Are you retarded? What the fuck are you doing on this board retard? Youve never read Wittgenstein. Witt formulates direct analogies, and examples to deconstruct and show the flaws of certain thoughts, and represents those thoughts fully to respond to them. He clearly outlines his arguments of attack, and he never insults anybody or nitpicks, he questions the ground peoples conclusions stand on, the only flaw of his in PI, is he doesnt finish conclusions often, he mostly establishes premises that imply a conclusion. Genstein is closer to Kant in methodology if anything, than Nietzsche. Retard.

>>24747779
Maybe don't clip the quote from a video lol. Preferably share a pic of the page in a physical book.

I cant believe Nietzsche pulled the "Well if youre saying X, then X would mean what youre saying cant mean anything" Schtick that juvenile analytic philosophers seem to pull on him where they say "If truth is le subjective, then saying truth is le subjective, is subjective and doesnt mean anything" shit on Kant.
Nietzsche is ACTUALLY the dumbest and worst philosopher ever, possibly.

>>24747843
go kys retard, i bet you havent even read nietzsche else youd know he barely says more than whats presented in the video on kant. retard.

lol based neetchgod

How is it possible for one man to this so many shit takes? He was wrong about religion, wrong about psychology, wrong about history. Was there anything at all that he got right?

>>24747900
Unfortunately I think he was pretty correct about the arbitrariness of values...is what Id say if not for the fact that reading up on lectures and the history of philosophy...NIETZSCHE IS LITERALLY JUST A BORDERLINE DIRECT COPY OF THE SOPHISTS THAT SOCRATES (through Plato) WAS CONSTANTLY ARGUING AND FIGHTING WITH and it made me go "holy shit, is philosophy just a meaningless circle that never resolves anything?" kek like holy shit, it was a genuine and unironic revelation. He even takes a literal borderline "might is right, glorify, old heroic virtues of nobles and strong men, and power over reason" that the sophists literally do.

Explains so much about why he hates Socrates so much (also the fact that Platonism almost certainly has a direct connection to Christianity). I used to think this dude was original, but hes really not, if you know history of philosophy. Maybe its just because Platonic thought dominated philosophy for SO long that Nietzsche seems new and fresh.

Ive heard retards try to give credence to the whole ressentiment theory (its shit and contains all the same flaws he criticizes Kant here for but even worse) or something ive seen leftists do, of giving him credit for the idea that "Identities arent real because were made up of contradictory mental versions of ourselves" and now im not even convinced thats actually unique about him too, but i see less clear pushback about that so, idk.

is this thread a critique of pure nietzsche?

File: FN_festivals and games of(...).png (286 KB, 695x385)

286 KB PNG

>>24747779
>MUH MANIFOLD

. . . it's a truism that hardly required the architechtonic, but for the fumes of scholasticism-- neither it, the noumenal, nor the subject are uniform or interchangeable among sentient life-- much less among homo sapiens sapiens . . .

This is why he abjures "any phenomenology" in Beyond Good & Evil: humanism requires the permanent prevention of speciation and/or breakaway civilization (on or off Earth) and suppression of novel types that may precipitate novel consciousness(es) altogether.

We are within "the hothouse of human types" he calls necessary for the emergence of Overman-- this is the greatest danger as well given the mass of mutational load required for modern medicine to sustain with infant mortality and autoimmune suppression . . . Kant's ethics cannot bear the burden of regret - or command - compare this against Clausewitz . . . the categorical imperative works just as well for antinomian actors irrespective of any general 'good'.

>>24747849
>I cant believe
He didn't and you're illiterate.

>>24747929
In N’s defense, he pretty much states he’s just a fan of the pre-socratics and despises Socrates and Plato

>>24747943
>he’s just a fan of the pre-socratics
But even the presocratics arent as extreme as him and would likely be against the sophists aswell

>>24747937
What does "His answer defeating himself by explaining a means...by a means" mean then retard if not essentially saying "heh your argument is self defeating!" fucking retard kys.

File: FN_Socialism.jpg (506 KB, 1128x1520)

506 KB JPG

>>24747929
>The Good (in general) does not exist-- it is only conceived of and is for the Pneumatics, the Nobles, the Philosophers

The Lion is evil to the lame Zebra. The dying Lion being eaten alive curses the Vultures. Law exists to make the Human Terrain tolerable to higher types, and instrumentalize human-animal barbarians at lower and retarded levels of development. Made into an end in-itself, that idolatrous, incestuous self-justification of force will eventually wield the mob against the Guardians. City State level of organization will guarantee real Liberty by force of arms, with actual citizen-soldiers with franchise skin-in-the-game, or free range digital ID UN Smart Cities will attempt bioweapon mediated Morlockdowns on a scale dwarfing the most unhinged Alex Jones rants from the 2000s.

The more I read about Nietzsche the less I ever want to read his work. He seems like a total cornball

>>24748036
>The more I read about Nietzsche
Reading his actual books is even worse if youre not a retard. Genealogy of Morals is the one everyone says "is more like traditional philosophy!" but is just riddled with narratives and presumptions.

>>24747779
my guess is he just regurgitates Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant so it's probably correct.

>>24748140
I'm pretty sure Nietzsche abandons his fervor for Schop by BG&E but honestly I don't even think Nietzsche has the sophistication in idealism to even critique Kant, based on how he critiques him here. Its legit how an undergrad might critique Kant

>>24747952
The question Kant asks is how does an agent get the fundamental assumptions it works from, for example you can't use logic to decide to trust logic. If you do you already trusted it for some other reason since you're appealing to it.
According to the quoted text the answer Kant gives is just "a thing (faculty) does it".

File: IMG_0697.jpg (158 KB, 640x916)

158 KB JPG

>>24747779
Kant’s proof for synthetic a priori judgements were based on math, which Nietzsche refuted.

>>24748192
What? No. I mean it depends on how youre interpreting the question. This kind of reminds me of when I watch Presup debates and they play language games where theyll ask atheists "How do you get knowledge without God" and its not really about engaging with an honest answer, its about pinning you down on the unreliability of knowledge sometimes, and basically trying to imply that knowledge only makes sense if its objective and that can only come from God.

Anyway the way I understand the question is. "How is it that we understand matters of fact without experience" Thats a translation without all the philosophical jargon (that btw, kant never used, im pretty sure apriori wasnt a think before him, but after him, the word specifically) and he basically goes onto explain all the ways in which our mind orders the world. And he uses analogies and examples. Like the infamous mirror and hand example.

But what does Nietzsche do. He IGNORES all this argumentation, completely disengages it, to throw a petty "youre trying to explain how we can understand something...by explaining how we understand things! aha!"

Surely, even YOUR retarded ass understands how stupid that is?

Using the analogy Nietzsche uses where he says "Its like trying to explain how opium causes one to sleep, by pointing to the fact that opium contains a property that causes one to sleep" but beyond the very reductive expression of that analogy...isnt that how all medicine and even science answers things?

Even if you get technical about what specific chemicals opium effects, and what about its own chemical makeup affects the chemistry in your body...could that not just be reduced to "Opium has something unique that makes your body sleep?" And as truth destroying as Nietzsche is, im pretty sure even he validates science's "objectivity" to some degree. I atleast know for a fact that he uses "objective" and "science" in the same sentence in Beyond Good and Evil once, with no negative qualifier.

>>24748211
I dont understand this contention???. Kant probably wouldnt disagree that math rests on assumptions that dont actually exist in reality, that was what the entire fucking Critique was about. What the fuck is this criticism? It doesnt mean anything? I dont even think this is the common critique of Kant. Im pretty sure the common critique of Kant is the purported analytic vs synthetic divide in the first place.

>>24748219
Your seething has nothing to do with the validity of synthetic a priori judgements.

>>24748234
>the validity of synthetic a priori judgements.
do you even know what these words mean?

>>24748235
Not an argument. I accept your submission.

>>24748244
its not an argument. im just genuinely curious, because maybe its me using these words wrong this entire time, id rather not be wrong about this stuff

File: images (48).jpg (13 KB, 222x227)

13 KB JPG

>>24747825
The funniest part is him calling Socrates ugly and a weak coward when Socrates fought man to man against the Spartans and distinguished himself in battle while Nietzsche saw no combat and was still "traumatized" before being kicked out of the military for being a bitch.

Nietzsche makes way more sense when you realize that the Last Man is autobiographical. The Super Man is the fantasy of the Last Man, the incel who, in between hurling invective at everyone while decrying resentment, pauses to cite the advantages of no fap (seriously) while also discoursing as an authority on women while being a friend zoned (twice) incel.

>>24748036
Nietzsche is intentionally corny. That’s why he called his biography Ecce Homo and said “I am no mere man. I am dynamite.” He says over and over in his work that he doesn’t like the gravity philosophy is treated with

If you want writing where he takes himself more seriously then you would have to stick with his writings in his 20’s like Birth or Tragedy (which he later said is cringe)

>>24747841
Wittgenstein can be called many things, but the later works can hardly be called clear, or even arguments.

>>24748211
Most mathematicians would agree with this though. The only ones who would disagree are mathematical platonists

>>24748254
kek, noticing the parrelells with plato and schopenhauer to me has opened my eyes a bit, because this socrates quote is legit some shit i could imagine Schopenhauer saying, just replace strength, and physical with intelligence and mind

>>24748216
>isnt that how all medicine and even science answers things?
Sometimes, describing a system is different from describing how a system arises. A description is iterative, like mapping the surface of a planet by travelling across it. An answer to how a system arises is revolutionary, it gives the ability to roughly map the entire surface by modelling the phenomena that created the surface you're mapping in the first place.
According to Nietzsche Kant asks the second kind of question and gives the first kind of answer.
Effectively Kant says "there's a generator with x properties" at least compared to Darwin who actually provides a pretty full explanation for how this mountain, faculty arose. Darwin's model has power, Kant's doesn't appear to have much.

>>24748121
Genealogy of Morals is pretty much fiction. Historians have pointed this out. The post-modern response by Foucault and co has generally been: "but Nietzsche is just doing mythology, so like, it's fine."

The level of abject sophistry here is mind-blowing.
>"Why yes, I am refuting these positions by just making up facts about them. That's ok though because I am being creative."

Worse still, this is often paired with the defense of claims that seem to refute themselves by claiming that the metaphysics of difference means that logic cannot apply to them because a term means something different every time. Basically, "I am not contradicting myself because I am commiting the fallacy of equivocation instead!"

>>24748258
Okay, I take back the "clearly outlines" statement, but its not like i didnt acknowledge that to some degree. Ive read PI, and honestly plan on rereading it someday. Wittgenstein's problem in PI, is that its not a book he actually wrote, its like a collection of disparate notes. Which means, he starts a train of thought, and then finishes it without offering any conclusion, and then he'll drop that point and then return to it like a couple chapters later.

The most obvious place you can see this if im remembering correctly, is when he uses the chess board analogies or the +1 analogies, theyre elaborated on in scattered bits in the book.

Still, I think if you just take the premises to the conclusion yourself, he has an obvious point, just by virtue of how much he reiterates on it. Its unsatisfying, especially because he doesnt really bother to give any answer to the problems he poses, just breaks your philosophical stability. I actually think he probably did want to give a way for meaning to be reaped, but simply couldn't find it before dying

>>24748253
Synthetic = truth isn’t contained in the predicate
A priori = can be known without sense data
Synthetic a priori judgements are truths that are knowable without the senses and which require information outside of their predicate to arrive at. Kant gives the examples of math and counting. But Nietzsche refutes math, so Kant’s proof is invalid.

>>24748211
He really was a historical illiterate huh. The ancient mathematicians, from fucking Egypt, thought math was magic precisely because the real world only approximated it. That's exactly why they like it. And they loved the stars because, given the level of fidelity they could observe, they seemed perfect.

>>24748121
>>24748255
I’m going to read Nietzsche so I can do a better job making fun of him

>>24748268
I dont even personally criticize Genealogy of Morals on the historical basis, because Nietzsche tards are super weirdos who simply act haughty about "missing the point". But ressentiment is an empty concept. Its so convenient it can be applied to ANY group of people. And Nietzsche tards dont like that, so they try to narrow it out by defining out Nobles vs Slaves very rigidly.

But the question I always pose is "How does Nietzsche explain how the weak slave class that needs the noble class to be evil to feel better about themselves...not just "beat" the noble class but literally SUBSUME and become the noble class, or convert the noble class to a "slave" mentality? When nobles dont need anything to feel any satisfaction or value. And are so IMMUNE to slave proclivities (Nietzsche literally outlines how typical flaws of slave people, dont affect nobles as strongly because they dont need to cope like slaves do, i could find the direct quote but im lazy and its not worth it with Nietzsche fans anyway) that it rubs off them.

Yet the romans let the Christians dominate them culturally, despite being weak and considering the romans evil.

Maybe one can consider this a bit of a "historical" critique. But Nietzsche never addresses this. He just defines either side in incredibly rigid arbitrary ways seemingly disconnected from any reality. Which brings us back to the "ressentiment is too convenient that it can be applied to any group" problem, and at that point...wtf is the point?

It doesnt work from a historical perspective, or even just a "usefulness" perspective.

I think this critique of mine completely destroys the point of ressentiment. But I dont like to fuel my ego with this sentiment, so I tried to engage with Nietzsche defenders, but what they do is ignore Nietzsche's actual words and interpret them like scripture in some way that abstracts his words into a higher meaning that seemingly comes from nowhere and references nothing (if you ask them where they got the interpretation, they just repeat the interpretation) hence I consider that if Nietzsche is a philosopher, then philosophy is more like religion than anything it claims to be.

>>24748274
Okay, so basically exactly what I said here
>24748216
>"How is it that we understand matters of fact without experience"
retard.

I really think Nietzsche must have misread Kant. Because Kant even bothering to answer the question how its LITERALLY framed makes no sense. Its contradictory. Synthetic judgements cannot be known apriori according to Kant

But if we interpret it in even more different words like "How is it that we understand Mind Dependent judgements to be Mind Independent" then an answer can actually be given. Its because we mix up/mistake Mind Dependent things for being Mind Independent. And then Kants entire critique makes sense, since, inspired by Hume, he goes on to explain how and why that doesnt make sense, by establishing the distinction between analytic and synthetic facts and proving that such a distinction exists.

I dont know if a Kant expertised anon is in this thread that can confirm if Im making sense.

Does Kant really ever ask such a stupid question as Nietzsche seemingly presents? Or is my interpretation more accurate? Because I dont trust Nietzsche.

File: IMG_8447.png (70 KB, 1262x1100)

70 KB PNG

>>24748306
Kant was afraid of the Übermensch and had to hide behind Aristotelian syllogisms to cope.

>>24748317
Did I do it guys? Did I win my first serious philo discussion on /lit/ through pure knowing and understanding by actually reading the source material and strengthening my understanding with supplementary lecture material online?

Hilarious how I do shit like this, but can barely get myself to go to school

>>24748329
Debating is a tool slaves use to make themselves feel powerful.

>>24748339
Good one. I love the endless convenience of Nietzsche for words to never mean anything beyond the way they can be used as a bludgeon against what they like or dont like. In that sense, my judgments that his judgements on language remind me of Wittgenstein is eerily prescient...

>>24747849
>I cant believe Nietzsche pulled the "Well if youre saying X, then X would mean what youre saying cant mean anything" Schtick that juvenile analytic philosophers seem to pull on him where they say "If truth is le subjective, then saying truth is le subjective, is subjective and doesnt mean anything" shit on Kant.

Pointing out that someone is refuting themselves isn't juvenile. It's a perfectly apt response. Perhaps for Nietzsche's vision of truth, certainly for someone like Rorty. If the truth of your position implies it is false, or that we lack warrant for asserting it, that is a problem. The common pomo response in defense of Nietzsche, that it they are right everything is contradictory and equivocation is also sophistry because obviously if one is allowed to contradict oneself (and make up facts) one can argue anything.

>>24748291
The Slave vs Master dichotomy is not one of class, but of different types of morality. The master bases his values on himself, whereas the slave bases his values on others. It is entirely possible for a slave to adhere to master morality, or for a king to adhere to slave morality.

To understand Ressentiment we must look back to a time before morality, when only the law of the jungle existed and the strong ruled over the weak as they pleased. At some point the weak got so resentful of having their agency taken away by the strong that they invented the slave morality, declaring the strong to be evil and the weak to be good. Ressentiment then is an emotion so negative that it becomes a force of creation.

The Romans becoming Christian has nothing to do with their systems of morality, what happened is that paganism went through its own "Death of God" event: the world that paganism was birthed in no longer existed and thus Christianity, which formed in this new world, took over.

>>24747779

Nietz's critique of Kant in your video's quote mirrors the early moderns' critique of Aristotle. "By means of a faculty" was a classic Aristotelian academic answer to everything. "Why do we go to sleep? By means of a sleeping faculty that instills a sleeping virtue in us". These explanations were treated seriously by academics (who were all christian aristotelians) for centuries. This is related to N's broader point that Kant is doing enlightenment crypto-religion because learned institutions (IE kant's audience) preferred religious-like arguments, points, etc. He found it personally hilarious that by shedding dogmatic religious thinking and attaining a "light of reason", someone as wise as Kant was regressing into intensely dogmatic/medieval points.

>>24747830
But his argument has nothing to do with linguistics. He's saying that Kant's philosophy is silly but people don't realize because it's hidden under a heavy prose.

I don't know who I am replying to but did N. predict that the slave and master would become amalgamated in modernity via the global imperative towards pleasure/success/bioregulation and mass surveillance? Even if those that rehashed him (ie.Foucault, Agamben, etc.) stretched their interpretation does that make them wrong?

>>24747779
It is correct against the letter of Kant, yes. What Nietzsche is saying here is what all of the post-Kantian idealists also said. It doesn't make logical sense to posit a cause of causality but on the surface at least it appears this is exactly what Kant is doing.
>>24749197
>This is related to N's broader point that Kant is doing enlightenment crypto-religion because learned institutions (IE kant's audience) preferred religious-like arguments, points, e
I don't know what you're talking about, Kant is a radical departure from ancient and medieval thought. Or are you some sort of retarded person who thinks any rational argument or analysis, especially if it's more complex than a 4chan post, is automatically suspect?
>He found it personally hilarious that by shedding dogmatic religious thinking and attaining a "light of reason", someone as wise as Kant was regressing into intensely dogmatic/medieval points.
But this is false. Maybe for Nietzsche, from his own point of view, Kant is basically the same as everyone who went before him, but Kant really did upturn the applecart, that's why he's so important.

>>24748351
>I love the endless convenience of Nietzsche for words to never mean anything beyond the way they can be used as a bludgeon against what they like or dont like.
Same, he tells you that's what he's doing though and you keep trying to do some gotcha as if he's trying to convince you of anything.
One of his big points is just bee yourself, if you like retarded arguments for how to live life go for it fully, become that which appeals to you. If it works out somehow you did a thing, if it doesn't at least you didn't spend your life's struggle playing pretend.
When he writes he's talking to the people who like what he likes, he's not trying to convince anyone. Those who are meant to be inspired will be inspired.

>>24749608
>When he writes he's talking to the people who like what he likes, he's not trying to convince anyone. Those who are meant to be inspired will be inspired.
Trvth as fvck....woah...he reminds me of Jesus...its like how almost all Christ believers eventually default to "You have to already believe to believe" woah...Philosophy more like Religion with more fancy sounding words...thats gawdlike

>>24749527
>I don't know what you're talking about
i appreciate the honesty. Of course N man knows about the Kantian turn, he's not targeting that. He's instead observing the psycho-social drivers of rational argument/analysis, and notes the deeply religious origin and structuring of it, as well as how the *academy* perpetuates this structuring. N isn't against using reason or analysis, he's obviously using it himself. He's against employing reason in creating systematic, life-denying structures. He rails against Idealism as being the chief example of this more broadly, but vs Kant, he'll elsewhere say that Kant was writing for and most popular among an audience of Christians, and that a "thing in itself" is just recreating a religious-style "hidden world" behind the apparent one. It's not so much that Kant is doing medieval theology, it's just that he, nor the enlightenment has come close to escaping the religious structuring of their thought, which N correctly argues runs far deeper than merely following a particular set of dogmatic propositions or beliefs about causality/god/the limits of reason.

>>24747779
He is utterly correct. My first two books of philosophy were Kant and Nietzsche ironically, and over time Kant has proven to be unoriginal and overly-wordy. Reading Kant is like doing laps in the kiddy pool. A lot of exercise over very little area and no real depth. Brevity is the soul of wit and Nietzsche seems to have known that. His style is punchier and his ideas are really there to interrogate you. He's an instigator.

>>24749527
Don't respond to this thread anymore the Nietzsche fanatics have come out in full force saying completely retarded shit like this:
>>24749197
With no remote reference or understanding of Kant. This is a thing typical of Nietzsche that I cant describe here. But he creates narratives of understanding to cover over a "referent" that defines and characterizes that thing to be understood as the thing covering the referent, and nothing to do with the referent or anything produced by the referent at all.

How do I know this? Because Nietzsche tards will NEVER EVER EVER QUOTE ANYTHING. They will never ground their arguments in anything. They will never actually refer to what theyre talking about, they refer purely to Nietzsche's circularly self validating interpretations, and simply judge validity PURELY on how subjectively appealing it is.

Christians actually do the same, and ive seen them use a LOAD of philosophers that if theh actually read them, would seemingly contradict them, but they twist their words to convenience and validate their belief about God (They do this with philosophy in general too, by using philosophical terms to make their presuppositions sound more sophisticated).

Nietzsche has led me to the unfortunate belief that Philosophy must simply be closer to religion, than anything of what it purports itself to be: Love of Truth.

>>24749915

What do you exactly expect philosophers to do? Do you want Nietzsche to deploy kantian jargon and only describe everything in his terms, and show some flaw from within his system? Not only does nobody do this, you're not doing this right now. In fact, you're actively creating a narrative of understanding over Nietzsche's points, without citing him yourself

>>24749985
>Do you want Nietzsche to deploy kantian jargon and only describe everything in his terms
Just because I think Nietzsche is a retard r
that makes up concepts so convenient to the point of meaninglessness. Doesn't mean that the fact I hate pancakes means that I think everybody must eat Waffles. You understand?

Also that guy saying Nietzsche wasnt literal about class is wrong. When Nietzsche is breaking down the etymology of certain normative words we heavily associate with morality, he distinctly appeals to how they were uses by nobles or warriors.

Yes, I know that Nietzsche accounted for Priests, so its not a sharp "Slave vs Master' Dichotomy, but Nietzsche would simply say that the fact a priest cant get anything done through pure violence or force makes him of the slave morality. I could go find the quotes again as I actually OWN a copy of Genealogy of Morals. But its never worth it with you lot. Youre just like Nietzsche, its not even truth that you dont care about, you dont even care about a basic referent. Its just all interpretation with no referent, just what can be created/construed as one.

Also the whole "NIETZSCHE NEW SLAVE AND MASTER WOULD GET MIXED UP IN DA FUTURE" is irrelevant because my criticism is about the origin he gets the dilineation from in the first place. But even ignoring that, what Nietzsche is doing by acknowledging that the dichotomy can become unclear, is what is called "lampshading" in writing. SINCE IT BREAKS DOWN THE ENTIRE BASIS FOR HIS POINT MAKING IT A JUST SO STORY

>>24749985
> Do you want Nietzsche to deploy kantian jargon and only describe everything in his terms, and show some flaw from within his system
Yup, nobody in the history of philosophy has ever done this. Christ almighty you kids are retarded. Let me be crystal clear: it's easy to see what's wrong with Kant, a middle schooler could see that. It's harder and more interesting to understand what's right with him. Nta btw

>>24749985
>without citing him yourself
i literally made this thread retard, i am citing him implicitly, and citing him implicitly again by virtue of arguing against people quoting Nietzsche like that one dude quoting Nietzsche about Math. Fucking retard, context clues dumbass. I already explained whats wrong with Nietzsche's interpretation of Kant earlier.

>>24749620
You only prefer coherence and logic because of some magic "faculty" that deemed you would like statements like that. Even logic agrees that appealing to that preference is not any different from appealing to any other preference.

File: two.jpg (806 KB, 4000x1848)

806 KB JPG

>>24750008
well I own two copies

>>24748254
Socrates is the priest of atheists

>>24750010
>it's easy to see what's wrong with Kant
The context is Nietzsche looked to all these guys for answers to the deep questions but they don't provide. The supposed answers are always "it's turtles all the way" or "it's the Christan/Platonic God" but nobody has anything really solid to back up any answer. The two foundational appeals any philosopher implicitly builds on are preference and power. Only power is apparently external and capable of punishing you for being wrong.

>>24750019
Well, your thread doesn't actually target any specific criticism of Nietzsche against Kant. That's why everyone is confused and throwing random shit around. Earlier in my reply>>24749197 here I'm guessing as to what you mean from the text in your screenshot, but who know if that's your actual issue. Nietzsche has a number of different issues with Kant, and any of them opens up a gigantic can of worms.

>>24750077
Yeah because Nietzsche doesn't criticize for shit and barely talks about Kant, and when he does its the most shallow criticism ever that doesnt even remotely engage with any of his work. Dude you guys are losers. You bothered to defend something so blatantly shallow anyway, the quote is there, the criticism is there. It has been clarified and exhumed for you and anyone to see. Its just shit, be honest with yourself atleast.

Half of the reason I even made this thread is because I read BG&E and dont even remember criticism of Kant beyond Nietzsche's generall shallow criticism of a number of philosophers where he EPICLY owns spinoza by calling him sickly, and he mentions Kant in passing there too. And I found it hilarious that somebody made a super serious video about Nietzsche's criticism as if it was and indictment on Kant, since ive been reading secondary material on him recently.

>>24750022
>Even logic agrees that appealing to that preference is not any different from appealing to any other preference.
Logic cannot make statements on such. Also logic isnt real. Its a language. Its like saying "Even the english language agrees it sucks since the english language as manifested by english speakers, complain about the arbitrariness of certain rules!" uh, yeah thanks for the riveting analysis genius.

File: 1666163349572563.jpg (59 KB, 360x360)

59 KB JPG

>>24748268
>>"Why yes, I am refuting these positions by just making up facts about them. That's ok though because I am being creative."

>>24750103
Wow...Nietzsche is gawdlike, its almost as if western thought just has a meaningless preference for logic that is disputed even by logic itself. Making things up is simply too gigachad. Nietzsche is so clever for implanting the ideal and principle of no truths so that when people who think Logic is real criticize him, us loyal followers can simply dismiss him and appeal to another virtue: creativity, never truly disproving the other virtue because contradictory things can be TRUE in a world without truth...woah...das deep

>>24750101
>Logic cannot make statements on such.
The rules of logic dictate the conclusions, an appeal to logic is supposed to be beyond subjective preference but according to the rules of logic it's just one step removed from preference. You only like appeals to logic for subjective reasons like valuing the apparent power you feel like it gives you.

>>24750111
Power is real and can punish you for having the "wrong" preference or making up the "wrong" story.

>>24750114
You have no idea what youre talking about regarding logic, and im not replying to you anymore because youre a retarded psychologizer and didnt even engage with anything said.

>>24750137
Now who's just making shit up?

>>24750097
Alright op, there's no need to get worked up, I'll try to explain some but once you figure it out you'll realize why Nietzsche doesn't have much to say in terms of a strict and classical refutation.

>Hume demonstrated posteriori
>Kant demonstrated priori

Nietzsche followed both of them. You can side with one or the other, you can make the choice dependent on circumstances, you can reduce your whole philosophy to a single idea, but if you want to do both then you basically have to reach a conclusion that humans don't possess the capacity for these sorts of judgements. Don't mistake my last statement as a pass, Nietzsche still said we all do it but there is no possible truth due to a lack of faculty. If this is the case then how would one expect Nietzsche to perform a refutation in the strict sense? This is almost a reversion to the circularity he mocked Kant for. His answer was that we all make interpretations, projections, and gain perspective but even if these have the convincing effect of feeling like truth to us, they aren't, and even if we wanted to whatever we thought we had wouldn't make it past Kant and Hume.

>tldr Nietzsche reached a conclusion but the conclusion also excludes his ability to issue a direct refutation to either

>>24750153
>>24750114
>you feel
retard, kys. its like you dont understand language or basic concepts. maybe thats why Nietzsche's love of untruth is so appealing to retards like you. This is a speculation, with relevant basis unlike your psychologizing