Nietzsche vs. Kant: Contrasting Philosophical Perspectives

Nietzsche vs. Kant: A Philosophical Comparison

Metaphysics

Kant argued that metaphysics isn't a science because it doesn't meet material conditions, yet it remains relevant due to humanity's inherent moral inclination towards it. Nietzsche countered that morality itself fuels false metaphysics, with humans creating it to bear life under a veil of lies.

Human Nature

Kant viewed humans as both phenomena and noumena, shaped by animality, humanity, and personality. He believed that while animality represents a selfish, unsocial being, humanity and personality drive ethical and social development. Nietzsche, however, saw the noumenal reality of humans as a fabrication. He posited that humans are intermediaries between animals and the Übermensch (Superman), and progress requires shedding slave morality, the concept of the intelligible world, and dualism, embracing instead the will to power and accepting the "death of God."

Ethics

Kantian ethics, characterized by its formality and lack of specific content, revolves around categorical imperatives and a rational, duty-based morality. Nietzsche criticized this, arguing that ethics should be based on reality, not abstract concepts. He viewed Kant's "duty" as a Platonic "Good in itself," a universal and perfect fiction that represents human decline and passive nihilism. He challenged the notion of a universal duty, advocating for individual interpretations of duty.

Politics

Kant's political ideal of republicanism emphasized popular representation and the separation of powers to guarantee freedom, legislative dependence, and equality for citizens. Nietzsche rejected this system, opposing equality and socialism. He believed the Übermensch isn't afraid of differences, thus separating equality from justice. While not advocating for a specific political stance, Nietzsche's critiques provided a philosophical defense against totalitarianism and anarchism.