/lit/ - Literature

>>18502286
>>18502331
Found it.
Well I almost remembered it right.

>>18288006
many people on this board will tell you this is a bad idea. this will not give you a general understanding of philosophy. that said, if you're really interested in epistemology, or are only interested in philosophy because you're a mathematical logic major or something, then I guess it's reasonable. Kant is very hard and somewhat idiosyncratic, so at the very least it may be worth following something like pic rel. you don't need to read the greeks to understand kant, but the greeks have no prerequisites and will help you learn a little about philosophy before you tackle kant. also it's not really true that analytic philosophy has "more refined logics and understanding of language and argument." it's just a different understanding.

there was a thread like this a couple months ago:
> warosu . org / lit / thread / 17336834

>>17336834
There's a chart, see pic rel. You need to be familiar with the language of philosophy before you read Kant, especially since Kant uses really idiosyncratic terms and so it's a bad place to learn the names of basic concepts. As >>17336881 says, Kant is too specific to be a good starting place. Greeks aren't necessary to understand Kant, but they're really good to start with because they have no prerequisites. That said, you could just as well start with >>17336882 if you're willing to put in some googling legwork.

>>17336899
>I should start where I'm interested
This is good advice once you know the basics. Learn to run before you throw javelins. Learn calculus before algebraic topology, &c.

>>16564584
there you go

Is it true than studying the Monadology will ultimately help me understand Kant, or is this chart fucked up? I already read Spinoza, I'm not sure if I wanna dwelve into another rationalist system...but I want to understand Kant.

>>16461705
There is a chart. tl;dr you need solid grounding in the metaphysical context and should read his more accessible works first. That or a secondary text. You honestly probably don't need the Monadology if you're solidly grounded in phil.

>the nazi is the only one who saved as .png
every time a jpg is saved it decays a little more anons

No, you don't need to read Locke. He is important for philosophy in general, but definitely not for Kant. I have read nearly every philosophical work between Descartes and Kant - Berkely, Bacon, Locke, Hume, Leibniz, etc - and I can tell you that you only need to read Leibniz and Hume, however, reading the first two parts of Baumgarten's metaphysics will really help with Kant's terminology (Ontology - Cosmology)

Kant recommends a textbook on metaphysics himself

Start with Kant to initiate the non-materialist mindset desu

>>15917391
Also, pic related should help.

Is this an actual good guide to getting a good foundation for Kant? I know reading Hume and etc would be good but I honestly just want to get to Kant

>>13724019

>>13725337

Wait. What does this image mean?
Why there's so much weight for Leibniz - other than Spinoza, or any theologian in this image? If I interpret the book as a criticism of Spinoza metaphysics, does it change some meaning of the text?
Is there any relationship between Leibniz and Kant?

He's talking about the necessary conditions for experience being time and non euclidean geometry, not that non euclidean geometry is impossible and so on. Also your probaly too dumb to comprehend kant, read pick related.

can't back this up because haven't reach kant yet but anyways maybe it can help OP and other lost souls

>>13368108
better question, has philosophy tube understood any Kant?

This is a good kant chart

best metaphysics?
starting to follow this chart to read kant
never read any of this shit but i assume once im done with kant i can go to hegel or schopenhauer or something, so that'll be cool

Locke, Wolf, Hume and Leibniz are bare minimum before starting kant.