/lit/ - Literature

Descartes and Hume

Descartes and Hume. Kant is typically thought to have synthesized Rationalism and Empiricism and Descartes and Hume are the two most prominent examples of a rationalist and an empiricist.

>>10666040
That’s all?

>>10666044
To understand Kant's direction you need to understand rationalism and empiricism, as well as the general philosophical theory. You should be good to go.

>>10666044
the hard part is understanding kant

>>10666034
The Meme Itself by Adam Roberts

>>10666034
Literally everything.

>>10666044
Understanding philosophy isn't the same as understanding Kant's philosophy

>8 replies
>no plato
just read the entirety of western philosophy too while you're at it and you'll be set to go senpai

>>10666319
>9 replies
>no Peterson

Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

Don't bother. Read something actually relevant.
Mental masturbation in worthless, invalid philosophy is no way to go.
>>10666319
Because Plato is an invalid hack.

>>10666319
I don't think anyone read Plato in here.

>>10666373
>Because Plato is an invalid hack
Without a doubt the dumbest thing I've ever read, grats

>>10666034
Confession: haven't read Kant because his books are too big. I think Kant spend too much time writing.

Do not listen to people who say "just Descartes and Hume" or "start with the Greeks." In order to have a firm grasp on what he's saying and why, read (in order):
>Descartes' Meditations
>Locke's Essay concerning Human Understanding
>Leibniz's Discourse on Metaphysics
>Berkeley's Treatise and Three Dialogues (my personal favorite desu)
>Hume's Treatise (which is just a God-less Berkeley)
Everything but Locke is really short and it's well worth undersranding.

Better question: Which English translation should be read?
The only comfy epub I can find is by Meiklejohn, but I hear he's bad.

>>10666567
He worked in a library for a long time, then he came and wrote the Critics. He had plenty of time so he did it, the absolute madman.

>>10666567
At the beginning of the Critique of Pure Reason he talks about how the book is as short as it possibly could have been and I feel like digging his grave up to smack him because no it fucking isnt

>>10667290
Cambridge

>>10666034
Take this advice: when you are ready to understand the jergon and you get to finally read it, you'll realise that you could have spent all that effort and time reading non-fiction.
Read Aristotle, read Descartes, read Hume, Plato for leisure. Then read pragmatism, substract the retarded "what promotes and is useful life is truth". Then read Michel Serres.
If you follow my advice you'll be studying reality and not ghosthunting.

>>10666373
>plato is a hack
>kant is a hack
>nietzsche is a hack
>heidegger is a hack
>wittgenstein is a hack
>whitehead is a hack
>leibnitz is a hack
>Heraclitus is a hack
this is how you know someone is a sub-human p-zombie and you should pray for their swift and untimely death

>>10669618
would their death really be untimely though if that's how you feel about them

>>10666044
Well you also need pre-req's to Descartes and Hume but if that's not something you already have read then you're like a year away even having critique of pure reason in your sights.

>>10669618
Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and Whitehead are not invalid, nor traditionalist, nor Platonist.
Try again.

>Immanuel kunt

>>10666034
don't waste your time on this obscurantist bullshit

watch a sadler vid if you're actually interested

>>10668667
Any opinions on the Hackett?

>>10670804
>obscurantist
*pulls fedora to the side, cocks head 30 degrees, gives a wry smile exposing pearly white canines, cracks knuckles*
nice buzzword

>>10670804
>>10670923
He's baiting, Kant explicitly says in the preface to CoPR that he is "not conscious of possessing" a talent for self expression and he hopes that someone after him will express his philosophy with more lucidity.

>>10666034
Tbh, this was the first real philosophical work I read and I got through it fine. I had a little bit of knowledge of basic metaphysics cause of theology classes, but that's it.

>>10666404
??? Plato is literally fun times, what are you talking about.

>>10666034
Descartes and Hume are good ideas, but why would you guys skip over Locke and Leibniz? He specifically addresses them just as, if not more often than Hume, and significantly more often than Descartes.

>>10666034

My suggestion is that you read both volumes of The World as Will and Representation. They are incredibly insightful and enjoyable and essentially function as a refining of what Schopenhauer considered to be Kant's best work.

>>10666040
>>10666043
Well what from Descartes and Hume?
Descartes:
>Meditations on first philosophy
>Discourse on the method
But Hume?
>?
>?

>Plus I'd consider Locke's "Essay conscerning Human Understanding" as a necessary read along as well for Kant

>>10672232
this.

>>10672863
Treatise Concerning Human Understanding

Why no Spinoza lol

>>10666363
No. Read the prolegomena alongside to supplement your reading of CPR. Along with some secondary literature. Why metaphysics of morals for a reading of CPR??