Critique of Pure Reason

[Anonymous No.18210299]

Just bought this today. What else do I need to read to make sure I fully understand it?

[Anonymous No.18210314]

>>18210299
Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Berkeley and Hume. But honestly, you can start with the Critique right away, Kant is generous enough to summarise these philosophers' positions before discussing them. Some people read Kant's Prolegomena first, I did but and it helped a bit, but I wouldn't consider it mandatory. Honestly reading a bit of Schopenhauer's discussions on Kant explains some of his central ideas in a much more accessible way.
If you are patient and willing to consult a bit of secondary literature for clarifications from time to time, you can start with the Critique right now.

[Anonymous No.18210549]

>>18210299
>you can start with the Critique right away,
big if true.

[Anonymous No.18210598]

>>18210299
I miss that guy like u wouldn’t believe

[Anonymous No.18210898]

>>18210299
I really hope you didn't get the Penguin version.

[Anonymous No.18210904]

>>18210898
what’s better?

[Anonymous No.18210954]

>>18210904
oxford.
penguin version is a bit milky.

[Anonymous No.18210973]

>>18210299
The Kant Dictionary by Lucas Thorpe. It will help you clarify some things while you read. Also, as other anon mentioned, Prolegomena is also good.

[Anonymous No.18211087]

Norman Kemp Smith, who is one of the major translators of Kant, wrote THE commentary on Critique of Pure Reason.

Norman Kemp Smith - A Commentary to Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason

You don't have to sit and read every line but when you come across passages (which you undoubtedly will because the German DOES NOT lend itself to english translation, there are tricks the translators use that they discuss in their translator notes), then you refer to this work for clarification.

>>18210314
>Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Berkeley and Hume.

Disagree. If you understand the project that Kant is involved in*, you really don't need to read any of these, but reading Hume will certainly help, since Kant is almost specifically responding to Hume.

*Kant is attempting to answer, at least in part, this question: What is the source of knowledge? Knowledge being defined as information about the external world. There were two major camps. Empiricists and Rationalists. (British) Empiricists = Locke, Berkeley, Hume --> Sensory-perception is the source of knowledge = All knowledge is based in & on experience through our senses. (Continental) Rationalists ---> Reason is the source of knowledge ---> Senses, yours and mine, and our natural perception cannot be trusted, which can be reasoned out. This kind of cues Kant's idea of the spectacles that we are never able to take off, for if we could, we would be able to see-things-as-they-really-are, although that is precisely what we, humans, cannot do. Thus, the distinction between APPEARANCE and REALITY, leading to his ultimate writings on whether or not God can be reasoned since we absolutely do not perceive or necessarily sense God (our perceptions cannot be trusted, reason helps us at least see this even though it leads us to dark paths e.g. more questions than we can ever possibly answer).

Understand this project to the best of your ability before really diving in.

I'd also recommend Donald Palmer's Looking at Philosophy. Go straight to the section on Kant.
Sophie's World by Gaarder is also a great read.

Please please please do not let anyone here think that you MUST read

>Descartes
>Locke
>Leibniz
>Berkeley
>Hume

in order to understand what Kant is doing. Having a general introduction to those writers via introductory texts, referring to the primary documents when they are referenced by later thinkers like Kant is sufficient, especially if you really are interested in Kant's thought in particular.

In addition, I'd also suggest you check out this professor's videos, who was kind enough to post them online. He analyzes the entire text of Critique of Pure Reason, a text he had been studying for over 30+ years. It greatly helps. In fact, if you want, just start watching the videos to get a sense of what you're in for. Because once you get to categorical imperative and whatnot, it can get a bit confusing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d__In2PQS60&t=70s

[Anonymous No.18211094]

>>18211087
The (Continental) Rationalists being Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, btw.

[Anonymous No.18211105]

>>18210904
Hackett

[Anonymous No.18211225]

>>18211087
wow. someone who has actually read kant. refreshing.

thank you for this

[Anonymous No.18212178]

>>18211094
>>18211087
Why are you referring to them as "continental" when there was no split yet at the time?

[Anonymous No.18212234]

>>18210299
Thanks for making this thread OP was about to make it myself

[Anonymous No.18212248]

What Kant, Plato and Veda do I need before I start Schopey? I've only read Plato's Republic so far.
Should I hold off on Schopey until I'm done with all of Kant's critiques and have flipped through some of the Gita?

[Anonymous No.18212249]

Why would somebody read Kant in the first place?

[Anonymous No.18212255]

>>18212178
Because that is the term widely used in actual circles of academic philosophy.

Refer to this for a general overview.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/continental-rationalism/

[Anonymous No.18212266]

>>18212249
The Categorical Imperative though not a perfectly fleshed out concept is considered an intellectual rebirth after responding to its implications. This provoked some of the greatest genius of Schiller, Schopenhauer, Heidegger etc. Philosophy as the root of the manifold sciences has leaped in the greatest bounds: Plato and Kant. Everyone must respond to them. They are the elephant in the room for all proofs.

[Anonymous No.18212274]

>>18212248
>Should I hold off on Schopey until I'm done with all of Kant's critiques and have flipped through some of the Gita?

Not at all. Your lack of knowledge or reading on

>Plato
>Veda's

should not keep you from at least reading this book in particular. Which I must admit, is an excellent, read even though I'm not big on the pessimist myself.

[Anonymous No.18212278]

>>18212249
So you can boost your vocabulary to reformat your mind in all categories and maxims and scopes of behavior.

[Anonymous No.18212285]

>>18212266
I concur.

[Anonymous No.18212309]

>>18212274
I was only considering the only book I had knowledge of: The World as Will and Idea. It looks promising. What you offered is exciting. Thanks

[Anonymous No.18212328]

>>18210954
>Milky
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.18212330]

>>18212266
I don’t understand how he isn’t just rehashing Christianity

[Anonymous No.18212336]

>>18212328
He spilled milk on his copy and doesn't understand that there are other copies that exist which are not covered in milk

[Anonymous No.18212353]

>>18212330
Christianity itself can be looked at under the lens as Neoplatonic maxims and Hermetic rhetoric with Hebrew malware.
Kant is looking at the substance of rules and their practical functioning as well as their capacity to be understood. Kant can allow you to compile your own GNU/ScientologoMormon Cult

[Anonymous No.18212585]

>>18212266
>You would like to do x?
>Well what would happen if everyone did x? Did you think about that, buddy?
Wow, so intellectual...

[Anonymous No.18212597]

>>18210314
>no Baumgarten or Wolff
Amateur.

[Anonymous No.18212600]

>>18212249
because that boy was wicked smaht