/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22183148]

What do I need to read before him?

[Anonymous No.22183241]

[Anonymous No.22183246]

>>22183148
why do you want to read him?

[Anonymous No.22183251]

>>22183241
(((secondary literature)))

[Anonymous No.22183258]

>>22183251
aka qrd
work smarter not harder

[Anonymous No.22183270]

>>22183246
Who are you the Kant police?

[Anonymous No.22183366]

>>22183270
no now go back

[Anonymous No.22183550]

>>22183148
https://archive.org/details/handbooktokantsc032915mbp/page/n15/mode/2up

[Anonymous No.22184166]

>>22183148
The Greeks for sure, but in all honesty you can survive on a secondary literature/surface level knowledge of everything between Kant and the Greeks.

Just understand the general questions preoccupying pre-modern philosophers, brush up on your Hume, and then dive straight in.

[Anonymous No.22184427]

Presocratics -> Plato -> Aristotle -> Descartes -> Hume -> Kant -> Schopenhauer -> Nietzsche
nobody needs more philosophy than this

[Anonymous No.22184471]

>>22183148
what you need to do is the question

[Anonymous No.22184491]

>>22184427
Heidegger completes them all

[Anonymous No.22184584]

>>22184427
What about the Dominicans

[Anonymous No.22184591]

>>22184584

[Anonymous No.22184614]

>>22183148
this makes Kant make sense

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.22184624]

>>22183148
hume -> kant -> peirce -> introduction to calculus -> differential equations -> quantum mechanics 101 -> end with plato

[Anonymous No.22184628]

just watch kurzgesagt, it's where i learned everything i know about the world. i'm german and i vote green btw.

[Anonymous No.22184632]

>>22184624
where have you been this whole time fren?

[Anonymous No.22184636]

>>22184471
kek although true
pussy is huge time and energy taker

[Anonymous No.22184811]

>>22184614
how?

[Anonymous No.22184925]

>>22184624
>>22184632
Butterfly is more Epicurus/Stirner/Nietzsche/Wilson

[Anonymous No.22185830]

bump

[Anonymous No.22185834]

>>22183148
Being familiar with Hume, Leibniz, and Spinoza would be helpful. Also knowing generally some Locke, Berkeley, and Descartes would help. The First Critique is primarily a response to Humean skepticism, particularly about causality, so understanding Hume's skeptical challenge is essential. Prior to his turn to critical philosophy, Kant's position was close to a Leibnizian view (the version expounded by Christian Wolff), and though he later rejects Leibniz's dogmatic rationalism, he is still heavily influenced by Leibniz in many places. Kant also says somewhere that Spinoza's metaphysics is the most plausible, if his own view about space and time turn out to be false, and generally Spinoza's philosophy was a popular though heretical position that to some extent Kant saw as a threat (Spinoza is also important for later post-Kantian debates, especially those started by Friedrich Jacobi). Locke is helpful because he is a proponent of the kind of empiricism that Kant is arguing against. Berkeley is a subjective idealist and after the publication of the First Critique, many people thought that Kant's position was essentially Berkeley's, so Kant wrote the Prolegomena and the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason to try to distinguish himself from Berkeley. Lastly, Descartes is useful as general context. I don't think Kant actually read Descartes, but his own project is continuous with the Cartesian move to attempt to ground epistemology on the nature of subjectivity itself, rather than appealing to an external authority like God.

[Anonymous No.22185992]

>>22185834
good post

[Anonymous No.22186556]

>>22183148
Nothing is really mandatory other than having autism and a cold, königsbergian soul.

[Anonymous No.22186585]

>Locke
>Hume
>Leibniz
>Baumgarten
>Wolf
>Reid

[Anonymous No.22186592]

>>22186585
>Mendelssohn
>Meier
>Weishaupt