Is Kant Necessary?

[Anonymous No.13723961]

So far I've done alright slogging through all of the philosophers from the greeks to the german idealists to the Traditionalists to the marxists, but Kant I haven't brought myself to read.

His books look so incredibly boring, but he seems to be central to philosophy because everyone responds to him all the time. Is it really necessary to read him for an overall understanding of philosophy?

[Anonymous No.13723967]

>>13723961
Yes.
Stop being lazy.

[Anonymous No.13723974]

read some philosophers that came after him if youre not interested in kant and you will become retrospectively interested in him through the obsessions and critiques of others

reading the fellas that come after him puts why he is so important into context which makes reading him easier and more interesting

[Anonymous No.13725053]

>>13723961
So you sludged through Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, ect, but Kant is too much?

Just read his short works. Don't read the critiques if you don't wanna.

[Anonymous No.13725170]

>>13723961
No, he's a faggot pseud

[Anonymous No.13725235]

>>13725053
>Plato
>slodge

My man, Superman Socrates can carry a conversation

[Anonymous No.13725240]

>>13723961
Don't slog through him if you don't want to. If you're reading someone you're interested in whose responding to Kant, then yeah I'd check him out.

Naturally, if you're interested in what someone responding to Kant has to say, you'll be interested in Kant's problematic