/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15269746]

Should I order a few Nietzsche books starting with the geology of morals or should I go back to the beginning of German idealism and begin with Kane’s critique of pure reason

[Anonymous No.15269753]

>geology

"God is dead and we have killed him with a rock."

[Anonymous No.15269761]

>>15269746
Kants Critique of Pure Reason is notoriously difficult to read. Unless you're reading it for a university course you're better off going to secondary sources that explain it.

[Anonymous No.15269764]

>>15269746
I don't think Kane published that book, Anon.

[Anonymous No.15269768]

>>15269761
Where should I begin anon

[Anonymous No.15269786]

>>15269768
The Cambridge Companion to Kant, and the Companion to the Critique of Pure Reason are good.

[Anonymous No.15269792]

>>15269786
Thank you sir I have picketts German idealism which I guess would be a good place to start all this
Then should I move onto reading schelling fichte and Hegel then Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.15269816]

>>15269768
With Descartes and Hume.

[Anonymous No.15269849]

>>15269746
This guy >>15269761
Is fucking you over. The Critique is not some impossibly difficult book, just prepare for it well and you will end up understanding Kant much better than by reading secondary sources (something lazy people do). Read Descartes' Meditations, Spinoza's Ethics, Leibniz's Monadology and Hume's Human Understanding for pre reqs. After that get into Kant by reading his Lectures on Metaphysics in the 1770s and 1780s as well as the Prolegmena, which should be a pretty solid intro and primer. While you read the Critique take your time and make notes, watch lectures (Wolff has good ones on youtube) and read secondary sources and lecture notes (UC Berkeley or Davis has Critique lecture notes available online). Its key that you get a good translation, go for either the Hackett or Cambridge.

[Anonymous No.15270030]

>>15269849
>Dude just read 2000 pages of dense philosophy from Spinoza, Descartes, Hume and Leibniz first and you can read Critique of Pure Reason fine

[Anonymous No.15270099]

>>15270030
I just ordered all 4 of these :/
What have I done?

[Anonymous No.15270135]

>>15270030
It's well worth it to read each of them for their own sake beyond just being prep for Kant. Why would reading and adequately understanding something be easy? Of course it takes time to prepare for and read Kant. If you really wanted to cut edges I guess you could go the short route and read secondaries for the pre reqs, but none of the books I listed are long and they can all be easily read in one month.

[Anonymous No.15270329]

>>15270135
Most normies are not going to understand Kant no matter how much prep work they do. Kant is esoteric and uses an absolute shitton of philosophical jargon that is hard to cut through to discern what he's actually saying. Unless you are planning on doing a graduate level philosophy course or taking on Philosophy as a full time hobby it's not reasonable to dig through a dozen philosophical texts to prep for Kant, which won't be enough for most people anyway.

[Anonymous No.15270349]

>>15270329
I disagree. Kant is not that difficult, in fact he is quite clear unlike Hegel or Heidegger. I do agree that the jargon is outdated and very difficult, but this is something that is fairly easily learned with a little background in Leibniz and some secondary help from books or lectures. The preparation for Kant does not need to be very extensive, you can easily fit the core pre reqs in under 500 pages. I don't think that someone completely new to philosophy should jump right into Kant, but he isn't impenetrable and you most certainly don't need to be a grad student to read the Critique. I read it when I was 18/19 and understood it very well and I didn't even have as much preparation as I recommend to OP.

[Anonymous No.15270350]

>>15269746
>the geology of morals
LOL

[Anonymous No.15270372]

>>15270349
The issue is are you really going to discern more than an academic who actually boils down his arguments and concepts for you? You're going to understand Kant better if you have someone teaching him to you than bumbling through the text yourself.

[Anonymous No.15270379]

>>15269746

[Anonymous No.15270464]

>>15269753
kek

[Anonymous No.15270585]

>Should I order a few Nietzsche books starting with the geology of morals or should I go back to the beginning of German idealism and begin with Kane’s critique of pure reason

[Anonymous No.15270611]

>>15269753
kek
>slate vs marble morality

[Anonymous No.15270641]

>>15269849
alternatively just read the prolegomena and some secondary. The prolegomena is essentially a shorter version of the critique of pure reason, it should be fine if all you want out of kant is background for nietzsche

[Anonymous No.15270654]

>>15269746
Why would you need to read Kant's work on metaphysics and epistemology to understand Nietzsche's work on ethics?

[Anonymous No.15270807]

>>15269746
No, if you want to understand Neechee then you'll need background a decent background about Ancient Greece, Christianity, and a general overview on the European philosophical tradition on virtue metaphysics, epistemology and teleology. If you haven't read at least 2 foundational works on each of these areas, then do not bother with Nietzsche, you have plenty more to learn. Another thing about Nietzsche is you will get more out of his work if you've grown up with Christian moral training, since he predominately combats that value system and he knew his Bible better than most people ever have.

Nietzsche is worthwhile to read. He's was really thoughtful and tortured individual that understands the modern psyche. But it's easy to get a false impression of him if you don't read the full breadth of his work and understand his transformation as a thinker.

For that, I recommend THE PORTABLE NIETZSCHE translated by Walter Kaufmann

>>15269753
kek

[Anonymous No.15271031]

>>15270372
Are you really going to better understand a text if you learn its native language rather than a translation of varying and unknown quality?

Philosophy is meant to stimulate your own thoughts in unique ways. It’s a love of knowledge. Not a love of someone elses’ interpretation of someone elses’ writings. You don’t actually love knowledge if you’re seeking 2nd hand sources simply because the primary is too difficult to understand in your own language. That’s like never deadlifting your max because it’s too hard and you’re comfortable 20% below PR ad infinitum.

The only exception to this is the burden of learning another language to read books where there can be some certainty of the quality of translation. Though reading texts in their native language is always the best version if possible/realistic.

[Anonymous No.15271117]

>>15269746
>KANT: Prologomena to Any Future Moral/Anthropology
These are more relevant to Genealogy of Morals/Beyond Good & Evil set up to it
>GOETHE: Faust
"Spirit of Negation"
^
>HEGEL: Philosophy of History/Right
>CARLYLE: Sartor Resartus
"Everlasting yea/nay"
"Worship of Silence and Sorrow"
>SCHOP: Essays
>SCHELLING: On Myths, Historical Legends and Philosophical Themes of Earliest Antiquity (4 BOT); Foundations of Natural Right
>KIERKEGAARD: Either/Or; Fear & Trembling

GOM is straight and to the point. Parsing the rest of the corpus in light of the rest of the concepts you've heard of his could use the aforementioned for context and a primer. Good luck.

[Anonymous No.15271218]

>>15270641
Yeah I agree that it's probably enough for Nietzsche. But if OP ever wants to dive into other post Kantian thinkers he will eventually need to read through the Critique.