/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16514706]

Where do I start with this autist.

[Anonymous No.16514835]

[Anonymous No.16514932]

>>16514706
>>16514835 Is a great guide for someone who wants to groom themselves for the first Critique, but it's actually a somewhat poor guide for Kant in general. If you want to get a sense of what most of Kant's philosophy is actually about, especially a lot of his positive, practical philosophy, try starting with his newspaper article/column "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?"
http://web.cn.edu/KWHEELER/documents/What_is_Enlightenment.pdf (there are probably better translations in other places.)
As for that guide, the Monadology is a great start to get an idea of the raitonalist picture (though you can probably substitute it for Descartes' Meditations just as well.) However, the rest of the guide up to a certain point is sure to lead the curious reader astray and get them entirely tangled in a bunch of issues that fail to build the proper context. Instead, I would suggest something like:
>Monadology by Leibniz
>Hume's Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding
This is the work that actually awoke Kant from his dogmatic slumber apparently. If you don't have much familiarity with philosophy after Kant, it will probably disquiet you and then some.
>Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics
This more lays out the conclusions and sketches the arguments that are elucidated in much more detail in the next work. If there's any good reason to read this it's in order to have an outline that the CPR would fill in.
>Critique of Pure Reason
It's rough. Take it slow. The first preface is especially beautiful, with the metaphor Kant uses of metaphysics as a queen and various philosophical schools as scheming political factions (Dogmatists as despots, empiricists as giving a false genealogy, skeptics as nomadic invaders, and so on.)

[Anonymous No.16514939]

>>16514932
>This is the work that actually awoke Kant from his dogmatic slumber apparently.
Thats an of quoted and often misused quote that people sometimes take way too far, >>16514835
actually explains why Hume, at least most of his work, isnt dirrectly influential on Kant. Really its mostly just the Causality shtich.

[Anonymous No.16515017]

same shit gazali, farabi and idealists have been saying for years. but it pretends its not mystical and so it justifies its existance in academia. nothing book-worthy. dont waste your time.

[Anonymous No.16515092]

Can anyone recommend a good lecture series on YouTube about Kant's ethics?