[ 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: 154 KB, 964x1388, kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17336834 No.17336834 [Reply] [Original]

what do I need to read before him? Can I start philosophy with him?

>> No.17336837

>>17336834
The Greeks

>> No.17336861

>>17336837
You really don’t need the Greeks to understand Kant. Greeks are good start to philosophy in general though.

>> No.17336881

>>17336834
Don't start w him, he has a particular view on metaphysics ontology etc, and he's really in depth. You'd just have to be too invested and you couldn't critique his views. Just start w the greeks

>> No.17336882

>>17336834
rationalists and empirists.
Descartes,Leibniz,Spinoza(pbuh)
Locke,Hume(pbuh),Berkeley.

>> No.17336899

>>17336837
>>17336881
I was going to start with the Greeks in terms of philosophy but an anon on here said that it's a meme and I should start where I'm interested. I take it he was wrong

>> No.17336925

>>17336899
He wasn't but Kant is kinda hard to read
You should at least be familiar with the ideas of these
>>17336882 though

>> No.17336952

>>17336925
OK, thank you anon

>> No.17336953

>>17336899
It's definitely not a meme anon, Kant deals with many of the ideas and forms set up by Plato and Aristotle, so you should definitely start with the Greeks at least for a year.

But that said, don't just spend all your time on the Greeks, though you will undoubtedly enjoy and develop a personal interest for them, you should read above all works you are interested in, so any novelists or thinkers you just like, with the Greeks. Except Kant can be very hard, especially if you're starting with no other background, and you almost certainly wont get him. That's why I advise the Greeks who first define philosophy and set up a classical image of everything in which you and Kant are to work in.

>> No.17336961

>>17336882
You forgot Hobbes.

>> No.17336968

>>17336961
Hobbes is not mandatory.

>> No.17336976

>>17336968
Lol ok psued check out this ngl famalam kind cringe jk chill.

Hobbes is mandatory, especially for political thought.

>> No.17336979

Ignore this retard >>17336882
You only need Leibniz and Aristotle, but you can read without them too (assuming you're 130+ IQ)

>> No.17336986

>>17336899
It depends what you're reading philosophy for. If you're reading it to understand philosophy you 100% should read a couple dialogues of plato(Gorgias, protagoras, republic), some works of aristotle (ethics, rhetoric, metaphysics). A general pre socratics book particularly look at parmenides and Heraclitus but any of them that interest you particularly you can look into.

The issue w Kant is he has a lot of baggage from the liberal influence that was heavily present by the time he was born. He's very in depth which is great but his Metaphysics starts w the individual instead of reality. Aristotle was a nominalist and Plato was an idealist. It's hard to talk about the individual if your metaphysics only accounts for it. After those aforementioned suggestions you can straight jump into Kant. If you want to stay around the greeks, the stoics and epicureans are a good jump in point. Rationalists and empiricists are okay but I do recommend German idealism after presocratics.

>> No.17337047

>>17336976
Hume's treatise is similar to Hobbes.
he can read it later; anon just wants to get Kant.
>>17336979
i doubt he can get Leibniz without the others.
also Hume is mandatory for reading Kant.

>> No.17337062

>>17337047
Stop posting retard

>> No.17337065

>>17336899
If you want to actively engage w Kant start w the greeks and particularly just try and understand their metaphysics and how that would imply their conclusions (plato's objective truth implies his rhetoric the socratic method, it also implies the modern interpretation of the math perspective mathematical platonism). You do the same w kant but w no background in metaphysics it's simply hard to do. The most metaphysically diverse in breadth and depth is in the greeks so it's easier to see Aristotle and be like, okay I understand how his metaphysics would bring up a different interpretation of math compared to Plato.
Kant has an interpretation of math too but it didn't get to fruit out because mathematical platonism was revived (along w intuitionist math which was phenomenological). If you like Kant you can save his math (or hegel's) interpretation if you understand metaphysics. You can save Aristotle's philosophy of science but you can't do it if you have no way to sift through Kant which understanding metaphysics allows.

>> No.17337070

>>17337062
no you are the retard.
fuck you

>> No.17337083

>>17337047
If you're trying to understand metaphysics of Kant then there are zero prerequisites except the ability to understand metaphysics

>> No.17337084

>>17337047
>>17337070
I think you're based, what do you think of that?

>> No.17337106

>>17337083
dumb.
>>17337084
thanks

>> No.17337114

Cringe thread full of midwits

>> No.17337125

>>17336961
Hobbes (pbuh) is essential, but not really for understanding Kant

>> No.17337155

>>17337106
Sucks for you.
Here op,
Start with Plato's Gorgias. If you agree with him read his Protagoras and his Republic. After Plato read Aristotle's Nichomachaen Ethics. If you agree with him read his Rhetoric. Whether you agree or disagree, read his Metaphysics after. You don't have to read it all but it's a great step to understanding ways to perceive Metaphysics, or systems that map reality (like Physics, the modern subject instead of Aristotle's book, is a system that maps material causation).
After that, check two metaphysical heavyweights out in Parmenides and Heraclitus. From reading Plato and Aristotle you'll see how a Metaphysics can have a wide range of applications in fields like math, a creation narrative, how things exist, ethics etc. Parmenides and Heraclitus are metaphysical extremists but they come from a time before wide applications were expected. What they bring up can be answered by your metaphysics, which you already have before reading these writers.
After that I would recommend reading a nice history of philosophy that is a bit more biased towards your metaphysics so you can see their interpretation across other philosophers.
Alternatively you can read The Cave and the Light by Arthur Hermann for an even take on how universal their metaphysics is.
After that pick where you want to explore and refine your metaphysics. The next big metaphysical clash is between the Stoics and Epicureans. The largest clash would be the German Idealists where a lot of work was done trying to refute the rationalists and empiricists. Ultimately choose what draws you and after exploring that I would read another history of philosophy to tie it all together and fill in knowledge gaps then explore modern philosophy in either the Analytic or Continental philosophers to get more modern tools and terminology to put into your metaphysics.
After that you can explore any piece you missed or want to revisit or you can get into logic and try to develop or adopt a logic language that speaks to your metaphysics.

>> No.17337172
File: 586 KB, 946x2017, try_google.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17337172

>>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.

>> No.17337183

>>17337155
Shitty advice

>> No.17337224

>>17337183
Yes. Your hard-hitting reply is about all we're going to get which is why you'll never be successful. Cope retard faggot

>> No.17337409

>>17336834
Descartes, Leibniz and Hume - read them parallel with some kind of history of philosophy overview

>> No.17337662

>>17337155
what a sweaty tryhard

>> No.17338749

>>17336834
yes you can, just read something about prior metaphysics if anything. read the Prolegomena.

>> No.17338855

Who are "The Greeks" exactly? I assume Plato and Aristotle, but which other greeks are necessary before moving on to more modern works?

>> No.17338864

>to read kant you have to read this guy
>to read that guy you have to read this guy
>to read that guy...
yeah OK.

>> No.17338872

>>17338864
Yes zoomer some things just take effort

>> No.17338884

>>17336834
If you're short on time, Hume and Leibniz.

>> No.17338895

read a survey history of philosophy first. you'll be fine.

>> No.17339155

>>17338855
Assuming you mean phil? Plato + Aristotle are more than enough and both wrote a huge amount. The only reason to read more is if Greek phil is your thing and you want to get really into it. Then you read the presocratics and sophists and stoics and epicureans, followed by the Romans. Otherwise just read the 5 dialogues, Republic, Metaphysics, Nichomachean Ethics, and maybe Politics.
If you're talking about literature, history, or drama there's a lot worth reading.

>> No.17339177

>>17336882

>Praise unto Spinoza and Hume

Based anon (pbuh)

>> No.17339423

>>17339155
I've been reading Seneca because I like the stoic meme and he references Epicurus all the time so then I want to read him maybe. And I guess I'd read Aurelius and Epictetus at some point but not in a rush.

>> No.17339578
File: 1.72 MB, 6200x3413, Stoicism_Introduction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17339578

>>17339423
Ah based. Unfortunately Epicurus' works have been mostly lost and so we only have a few letter and some quotes. Aurelius and Epictetus are great though. Happy reading!

>> No.17339636

>>17336834
I’d recommend reading Hume’s “Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding” and then as much of Kant’s Prolegomena as you’d like. You don’t have to read all of fucking western philosophy before Kant. Read Kant. Read other philosophers. Reread Kant. Profit. Philosophy isn’t a game of Pokémon Go. Keep on reading and returning, but for God’s sake don’t read 300 other books before Kant when you want to read him because some 4chan retard told you too.

>> No.17339645

>>17339578
do you have any more images like that? this is great, thank you

>> No.17339694

>>17338872
>to take effort requires having value that surpasses effort
>to have value that surpasses effort it must be universal enough definitionally
>to be universal enough it must have a foundation
Um OK guy

>> No.17339705

>>17339423
He compares reading Epicurus to scouting an enemy camp lel

>> No.17339775

>>17339423
btw I've got 6/7 of the university of chicago seneca hardbacks, all cloth bound, but one of them I'm really having trouble with -- Hardship & Happiness. The one I got wasn't a clothbound with dust jacket, it was this weird like... it was like a paperback with a cardboard cover glued on. I returned it, kek $65 for that. But it had the same isbn, and I can't find any listings that give any info on photos to determine whether it's clothbound. I had this with Anger, Mercy, Revenge as well except I found a clothbound listing with less trouble.

>> No.17340792

I've read some smaller Plato dialogues and the Republic and currently am reading Nicomachean Ethics. Once I finish it should I move onto Aristotle's politics or can I move on? Also where should I go past that, stoics, Augustine, Descartes, something else? Also I kind of want to read Maimonides because I'm a Jew, is he worth it?

>> No.17341082

>>17340792
I would read rhetoric then parts of Metaphysics. His politics is sorta an addendum. They're related to his nominalism but very tangentially. Only read if you're interested in politics. After that you can move to the presocratics then whichever period you want.

>> No.17341100

>>17340792
>>17341082
Also he's worth it if you like aristotelianism. You should read those three (ethics, rhetoric, metaphysics) before you read but by all means do so. I'm lucky to have had a platonist version of Aquinas in Augustine but if you're not a platonist then you'll enjoy him a lot.

>> No.17341106

>>17340792
>>17341082
>>17341100
Also I would read a history of philosophy after the presocratics and choose where you want to dive into.

>> No.17341388

>>17336834
Buy the Kant dictionary and A History of Philosophy (Copleston)... I think volumes 1, 5 and 6. Read copleston volumes first, then read the original texts with the Kant dictionary. Next, go back and read Aristotle then re-read the copleston volumes. Then move on to volume 7 and read Hegel and Schopenhauer. Then Nietzsche. Then read volume 4. My suggestion.

>> No.17341583

>>17336834
Try