/lit/ - Literature

>>9255369
Locke was right in that we couldn't know about the thing-in-itself. Leibniz believed we could, and Locke believed we couldnt.

>>9255439
>the doubt of understanding causality without a prior knowledge
But he was wrong about this, as Kant showed

>>9255575
You just need enough context, you can absolutely read and fully understand Kant without secondary. In fact there is a guide in this thread titled exactly that, see >>9251922

>>9255952
He set out to find the limits and bounderies of reason, so that we don't waste time trying to figure out things that are impossible for us to