Question

Hello and blessings,
I heard a nice idea from Rabbi Sherki, which says that when prophecy ceased, it split into mysticism in the East and philosophy in the West.
Philosophy tried to “manage” on its own, without revelation. Until Kant came along and said that by reason alone it is impossible; you need cognition, you need the senses. This is philosophy’s “admission against interest” that it cannot get along on its own, and therefore this exile ended there, and the process of the Return to Zion began, in which the Jewish people climb back toward prophecy, merging East and West, mysticism and philosophy.
In that spirit, it may be possible to formulate it by saying that Socrates was the first to argue that a person can act on his own. To understand on his own what is right, what is true, what is just. And on top of this conception philosophy was built. Until Spinoza came and said: if a person understands on his own, then where is there room for God? God is existence itself, the entire cosmos. It is all of nature. 
Then Kant came and said: it is impossible with our reason. There must be an external source. 
Then Nietzsche came and said: in fact man is here alone; there is no need for God. So let us acknowledge that and part peacefully from God. If there is no God, then only man is here and his goal is to enjoy himself, and resources are limited, so the strong survive, and if someone gives them a conscience, then we will kill the one who gives the conscience and the weak.
So in fact Nazism is a direct product of the philosophy that Socrates began. 
This perspective complements Rabbi Sherki’s words in that the “failure” is not only in the intellectual ability to manage without revelation, without experience, by reason alone.
Rather, also in the fact that little by little the philosophers emptied the world of God, thereby leaving it exposed to Nazism, which destroyed it. (What has happened since then is also that following Nazism, the world said: if there are values there will be suffering, so let us empty ourselves of everything—and that is the state of the West today.)
Is this perspective correct from a historical/philosophical standpoint?
I would be very glad for any direction/source/comment/insight on this matter.
Thank you very much,
Daniel