I am not at all familiar with Maimon's work, so cannot really comment on that. I am curious, what would you suggest as the best introductory work of his or commentary on his work (if he is really difficult to follow)?Shaibei wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 10:09 pmAshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:46 pmNot according to Heidegger. The latter's interpretation of the former is similar to what BK has now done with Jung - reveal in a compelling manner that Jung's metaphysics is not at all what the mainstream (including foremost 'experts' on Jungian psychology) imagines it to be. They either dump him in some category of dualism or pretend he doesn't even have a metaphysical position. I see the same thing going on with Nietzsche, who was probably the biggest philosophical influence on Jung along with Kant.
Nietzsche had a clear position that humanity was headed in a certain direction, from the 'last man' to the 'superman', the former acting as a bridge from 'animal consciousness' to meta-meta-cognition. In some sense it was similar to the dialectical progression of Hegel-Marx, except Marx envisioned a materialist process while Hegel and Nietzsche did not. The 'will-to-power' concept is also clearly derived in large part from Schopenhauer's Will, except more specified and carrying teleological connotations, which he attempted to prophesy in advance and did a damn good job as far I can tell.
So for those reasons I would say Nietzsche is pretty far from relativism. I am also not sure why you are identifying Kant as a relativist? He is certainly responsible for philosophical traditions which claim the noumenal is absolutely outside of experience, but at the same time he necessarily admits that an objective noumenal realm exists, independent of any personal experience and cognition, and must influence humanity in some ineffable, undetectable way.
Nietzsche has aphorisms about the relativity of science, and his superman creates values, as there are really no inter-subjective values, so it is no wonder that some see him as the first postmodernist.
As for Kant, he caused the Copernican revolution, didn't he? We are the ones who shape reality. If we compare him with his critic Maimon, then the latter argued that in order to justify the objectivity of science one must assume that the categories of mind correspond to the categories of M@L.
At the end of his book Miamon also writes about the development of consciousness, but while he remains skeptical Hegel takes this idea further. The way in which Maimon tries to justify science will also explain the difference between Nietzsche's superman to, for example, the Kabbalists' perception of Primordial man. For the Kabbalists Primordial man is the ideal of values to which humanity approaches. In other words, God gives objectivity to morality. I do not know Steiner in depth, but I suppose that in some way he also treats values as truly exist
I see what you are saying with Nietzsche and Kant, but ultimately we must evaluate them on their own metaphysical positions rather than perceptions of their positions or the positions they may have inspired/influenced after them. They are thoroughly embedded within the German idealist tradition which also flows through Heidegger and Jung. The latter believed the 'collective unconscious' (M@L) was beyond introspective access and only discernible through its impingement on ego consciousness. In that sense, we are responsible for the creation of values, although I would call it the re-creation/rediscovery of ideal values through self-knowledge, making the unconscious conscious.
The Judeo-Christian God, in Jung's view, as expressed in his Answer to Job, is no different from the collective unconscious. He posited that God needs self-reflective man to save Him as much as we need Him to save us. To the extent Kabbalist tradition follows that rather mystical, semi-Gnostic take on the scripture, I would agree with it. From my understanding of Steiner (who also wrote about Nietzsche as a "fighter for freedom"), he takes it beyond all of the above through his first-hand experience of higher realms. So his position is in tension with Kant/Jung, but simply because he is taking their positions further and refusing to accept the Kantian phenomenal/noumenal divide as absolute for 'post-modern' man.
So I believe values "truly exist" for all of these thinkers, but they also posit that these values do not exist separate of our own evolutionary spiritual development as self-reflective beings, and in fact that development is what allows the values to be freely and fully revealed through humanity. It is what allows the values to be known experientially, rather than merely intellectually, in the most meaningful way. Christ is the archetypal representation of that particular process which is unfolding, i.e. there is currently no more comprehensive and profound symbol for that process.