Why do people still follow Kant today despite the fact that Nietzsche completely debunked his moral philosophy?

Cont.

And in social """sciences""" of all places.

>OP
>assuming only OP can shitpost

Also Nietzsche is a bullshit buster in the same manner of Stirner: pointing out that even the most logical system of morality still lacks a basis in reality.

>Actually modern philosophies of science, mathematics and logic stand of a firm Kantian basis

That's actually quite interesting. I was just talking shit.

>whereas Nietzsche only served to inspire shitty post-modern memes.

He found use in psychology, and post-structuralism was centered around him. Though I suppose you'd consider both of those to be post-modernist memes.

>le spook man
Yeah, you don't understand what refutation means. Go back to basics, to Aristotle, and come back in ten years.

but he also makes up his own bullshit without any backing. his slave morality master morality dichotomy is utter garbage

See Neopositivism and the Vienna Circle. Very influential. All sons of Kant.
Phenomenology was also a huge philosophical movement. Kant's disciples.

(Me)
Finally Schopenhauer is a personal favorite of mine. Kantian philosopher.

>Phenomenology was also a huge philosophical movement. Kant's disciples.

Phenomenology isn't strictly Kantian, it's just a discipline of studying subjective experience isn't it?

See that's the thing, that is indeed his opinion but he doesn't prove it to be true he just piles on dismissive rhetoric to those who disagree.

Conversely, Kant is very clear that the objectivity of his moral philosophy rests on the assumption that living in community of rational individuals is preferable to living in the "state of nature." That is Kant never claims his philosophy is universally objective truth, only that it functions in a specific context of shared assumptions among rational individuals.

>go back to the guy who was wrong about literally everything

Yeah sure, I'll see how many teeth women have in their mouths.

If Kantian morality has no basis in reality, then the rest of it crumbles as well.

I see. You must be at least 18 to post on this site.

>See that's the thing, that is indeed his opinion but he doesn't prove it to be true he just piles on dismissive rhetoric to those who disagree.

Well, you can't actually prove something like that, you can only point it out in specific incidents, and he does demonstrate this pretty clearly with Kant.

>Conversely, Kant is very clear that the objectivity of his moral philosophy rests on the assumption that living in community of rational individuals is preferable to living in the "state of nature."

He never gives a reason to think his philosophy is necessary in this regard.

>That is Kant never claims his philosophy is universally objective truth, only that it functions in a specific context of shared assumptions among rational individuals.

Kant's philosophy completely falls apart if it isn't universal objective truth, since he was outright pushing it as an absolute ideal.

Aww... you should go tattle to your mommy on me. I seem to have hurt your feelings.

Aristotle is worthless, only Thomists disagree, and they're even more worthless (which is incredible, since worthlessness should be an absolute state).

You're embarassing yourself.

Nah. I'm having a giggle.

Yeah, morons are easily amused.

He pushes it as an ideal for those who desire to live in a rational community. Obviously there are both irrational people and those who don't want community and Kant wouldn't claim that they would be bound by his ideas.

>Nietzsche
>relevant

See I'm having fun, are you?

>He pushes it as an ideal for those who desire to live in a rational community.

He never really gives a reason to think that this is the only way to do so (frankly I think Spinoza does a better job) or a reason to want to. If his system of morality can be defeated simply by ignoring it, he's on the same footing as Nietzsche, only with less insightful commentary on the human condition.

He doesn't give a reason because as I said in my initial post it's an assumption that he rests his entire philosophy on and Kant has the humility to be open about the fact that his ideas only work if they rest on these assumptions.

Conversely, Nietzsche just pontificates and dismisses his critics as dumb dumb loser heads who just don't get it maaaan.

>He doesn't give a reason because as I said in my initial post it's an assumption that he rests his entire philosophy on and Kant has the humility to be open about the fact that his ideas only work if they rest on these assumptions.

But it doesn't even work on the initial assumption. He provides no reason to value his philosophy. What you're saying is tantamount to "he wasted a lot of paper."

>Conversely, Nietzsche just pontificates and dismisses his critics as dumb dumb loser heads who just don't get it maaaan.

You've never read him, have you? He's vitriolic, but possesses a self awareness that's uncommon among philosophers in that he knows full well his philosophy is just opinion.

If you did read him, you clearly just got butthurt that he didn't treat your ideas with kid gloves.

Actually now that I think about it, Kant does explain why the rational community is preferable to the state of nature in "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals" and although I can't remember his exact reasoning I believe it was something along the lines that life is more comfortable and pleasant in a community than alone.

Also I've read Nietzsche's "Ecce Homo," "Genealogy of Morals," and "Zarathustra." Although it's been years since I read them, my impression was that they were heavy on bombast and light on reasoning.

This. Nietzsche is an essayist and literary critic, not a philosopher. Why can't people get this simple concept? He inaugurated an era in which "philosophy" amounts to opinion and every journalist becomes a philosopher.

>Actually now that I think about it, Kant does explain why the rational community is preferable to the state of nature in "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals" and although I can't remember his exact reasoning I believe it was something along the lines that life is more comfortable and pleasant in a community than alone.

And he still doesn't demonstrate a reason to believe that, or that his system is the only way to achieve a rational community, or that being irrational in a rational community isn't a valid way to live.

>Also I've read Nietzsche's "Ecce Homo," "Genealogy of Morals," and "Zarathustra." Although it's been years since I read them, my impression was that they were heavy on bombast and light on reasoning.

They are bombastic, but they're not light on reasoning. He just doesn't approach philosophy as a dialectic, he states his views outright and they're not without basis or merit.

Philosophy, in its entire existence has fundamentally failed to ground anything in logic or prove anything; it has not advanced, people will still argue in favour of its most ancient doctrines and put up a pretty good fight doing so.

Nietzsche was a philosopher that realized this, and worked from that position, providing commentary and insight on the human condition and the universe as it relates to that rather than attempting to create some concrete system that amounts ultimately to nothing, because we're all stuck trying to pull ourselves out of a bog with our ponytails.

pointing out various logical flaws in someones philopsophy is more that dismissive retoric, it underminds the argument.

Which Nietzsche does very well, granted after and before that he does what you describe.

Nah philosophy proved a few things. Ex: identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, Cartesian doubt as starting point for secure knowledge, etc.

>identity

You realize people still argue that the self doesn't exist? Or am I making a wrong-headed assumption on what you mean by identity here?

>Cartesian doubt as a starting point for secure knowledge

Philosophy hasn't even been able to conclusively prove knowledge yet.

Also I'm ignorant of the middle two, I must admit.

Kant isn't trying to force people into agreement with his ideas, he just hopes that you will like what he has to say and if you agree with him that you act on it in your own life.

There's a reason why there's a lot of "Wojak as Kant" memes.

>Kant isn't trying to force people into agreement with his ideas, he just hopes that you will like what he has to say and if you agree with him that you act on it in your own life.

Oh. Well in that case you're right. Nietzsche doesn't disprove him. I feel like I just wasted a lot of your time.

Non-contradiction hasn't been proven, it's just been assumed, and it's more in doubt than ever.

Identity as in the principle of identity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

You can doubt everything but you can't doubt that you doubt. This is pretty much incontrovertible.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_doubt
I'm going to sleep now. We'll talk more later.

Ah, I'll do some reading. I'd actually be interested to learn of things philosophy has conclusively proved, because I was starting to feel like the whole discipline is a bit absurd.

Also I'm pretty sure you can't doubt that you doubt something, since the question of whether or not you're lying to yourself about doubting could be present.

Prove it. And don't mean show me source that someone doubts it. Anyone can say anything.

Quite the contrary, having a civil discussion on Veeky Forums is a rare enough occurrence to be worth my time.

Have a good evening.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction#Alleged_impossibility_of_its_proof_or_denial

Not that guy, but this might give you a start for where to look if you're interested.

>Have a good evening.

You too.

Actually I didn't express myself well. An axyom can't be proven or disproven. You can only show a counterexample. So instead of prove it I should say show an example where it does not apply. But I will bump tomorrow.