[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 236 KB, 550x330, imagem_2023-12-23_231033189.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22863924 No.22863924 [Reply] [Original]

Hello, I started studying philosophy 4 years ago, I started with the Greeks, I read a lot of Plato, mainly metaphysics and epistemology, I spent a whole year reading Aristotle, mainly Nicomachean ethics and metaphysics, after that I read some scholastics, I went to Plotinus, I read everything from Descartes, a bit of Rousseau and Badiou, and now I'm starting to Spinoza.
My question is, what background is needed to understand Kant? Which ones are necessary to read for understand Kant?

>> No.22863932
File: 118 KB, 568x852, 55793571-7011-4D2D-889F-64CF25BF8F80.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22863932

>>22863924
all you need now is locke, berkeley, hume, and leibniz. and wolff and meier if you can read german. good job op.

>> No.22864194

>>22863924
None. You have to be a retard or a child to get filtered by Kant. Also that is Jacobi.

>> No.22864199

>>22864194
>You have to be a retard or a child to get filtered by Kant
then this board is filled with retards and children

>> No.22864205

>>22864194
Heck even I got through a lot of Kant when I was 15

>> No.22864210

>>22864205
>Heck
gayest word ever

>> No.22864213

>>22864210
But yet, it is used

>> No.22864217

>>22864194
Theres a difference between being filtered by Kant and wanting to read him in context.

>> No.22864285

>>22863924
>Wolff, Jacobi, Spinoza, Hume

>> No.22865272

>>22863924
one word: leibniz

>> No.22865345

>>22863924
truth is you need nothing to fully understand Kant... because Kant himself sums up everything he refers to pretty good in his critique of pure reason...

>> No.22865356

>>22864194
You have to be a retard or a child to skip Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Baumgarten, Hume and Kant's early metaphysical writings before reading his first critique

>> No.22865360

>>22863924
>yet another dude who thinks this is a picture of Kant

>> No.22865398

>>22863924
if kant looked like that he'd be too busy getting laid to be pioneering groundbreaking philosophy

>> No.22866438

>>22863924
If you really had read all those philosophers and had a minimal grasp of the history of philosphy (which you would have considering you are reading those philosophers chronologically) you would't be asking such stupid questions.

>> No.22866486

>>22865345
It’s like learning Latin before the Romance languages, you’ll get a better feel if you do it, but any good textbook should cover all those bases