[ 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: 18 KB, 200x252, kanteven.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7250221 No.7250221 [Reply] [Original]

Just bought Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics by Kant.

What should I read before going into Kant, if anything? I've only read the greeks and Nietzsche so far.

>> No.7250240

>>7250221
read hume, then understands that empiricism trumps rationalism since rationality is only one subpart of the imagination, which is the essence of the mind.once you tame the mind, you have access to pure perception, pure existence.

>> No.7250246

>>7250221

Descartes, Hume and Leibniz for an understanding of what he brings to the table and how his thought was revolutionary.

>> No.7250267

>>7250246
>>7250240

what should I read by them?

>> No.7250307

>>7250267

You can probably skip Descartes, but if you want a thorough and comprehensive study of philosophy, don't do that.

Meditations by Descartes
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by Hume
No idea about Leibniz tbh.

>> No.7251096

>>7250307

you can't say its a comprehensive study of hume without reading the treatise

>> No.7251105

>>7250221
>reading Nietzsche before Kant

fucking retard

>> No.7251108

>>7250307
new essays by leibniz
but then you also need to read locke

HURR THERE IS NO END

>> No.7251119

>>7251105

I only Zarathustra tho so that's not too bad I guess.

>> No.7251126

Tbh you'll need to read Descartes before Locke, before Descartes you'll need Bacon and Aristotle tbh

>> No.7251127

>>7251119
no its not but you literally cant understand nietzsche before you read kant and shoppy because his writings are a reaction to their work

>> No.7251137
File: 231 KB, 863x752, THE_RIDE_NEVER_ENDS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7251137

>>7251126

what should I read from Bacon? Ive read TheTotle already.

>theridethatneverends.jpg

>> No.7251149

>>7251127

maybe I can't fully understand him yet, but tbh it's not like Zarathustra is a very complex philosophical essay.

Maybe I just missed out completly though I have no idea.

>> No.7251150

>>7251126
>before Descartes you'll need Bacon and Aristotle tbh
fuck you bitch ass nigga little punk son of a bitch eat my shit goddamn jewish chupacabra

>> No.7251152

>>7251149
>it's not like Zarathustra is a very complex philosophical essay.

its very complex though fam

check the sep for more info

>> No.7251161

>>7251137
Advancement of Knowledge
Essays
Novum Organum
New Atlantis

>> No.7251164

>>7251137
well novum organun ofc
but thats assuming you've STUDIED the organun by toto before
have you
because most ppl dont if they are not students

>> No.7251172

>>7251119

You really shouldn't start with Zarathustra either. I tried that, and now I have AIDS.

>>7251149

>maybe I can't fully understand him yet, but tbh it's not like Zarathustra is a very complex philosophical essay.

Yeah, this means you didn't get it at all. No worries, I haven't either yet, and I doubt that many have. Plenty of time.

>> No.7251182

>>7250221
>I've only read the greeks

Don't bother with anything else.
I don't mean this to be a classicist snob or anything like that, but with the greeks you have all the content you'll ever need to work with in your entire life.
Digest all what was taught, contemplate everything, and begin creating your own system by your own faculties of reason.

Bonus points: contradict yourself on purpose in later works but claim that you are still "right anyways" ("it's not good or bad, but the opposite") and you'll probably be famous for over 2 centuries.

>> No.7251521

>>7250307
Leibniz is a somewhat annoying writer to get into because he doesn't have a specific work that encapsulates his philosophical project in its full.

I'd advice you to read Monadology.

>> No.7251562

>>7251172
> I haven't either yet, and I doubt that many have.

At the fear of being called a pleb, I must admit that every time someone gets up in arms about Nietzsche being the greatest thing ever, I'm slightly confused.

He's enjoyable to read, and his thoughts are unique, radical and fascinating. But his ideas often seem contradictory, unfounded and needlessly polemic.

I don't know. Maybe I just need to read more of and about him.

>> No.7251586

>>7251562
no, dont worry, your view is reasonable
source : phil master student

>> No.7251760

>>7250267

Descartes: Meditations
Leibniz: Primary Truths
On Contingency
Discourse on Metaphysics
Monadology
(these are all short essays or letters, shouldn't take long)
Hume: Treatise on Human Nature (just Book One)

Do it in that order.

>> No.7252816

>>7250221
Kill yourself. No, seriously, dying is easier and less painful than reading Kant. He seemed to write in order *not* to be understood.

>> No.7254208

With hume how important is it to read both the Treatise and the Enquiery?

Can one get by with just the Enquiery or will it suffer

>> No.7254210

>>7252816
he is difficult precisely because he is clear

>> No.7254215

>>7254208
not that much important
reading the enquiery should be sufficient unless you want super solid understanding

>> No.7254224

>>7254215
thanks.

>> No.7254267

I'm not OP, but I have a similar question :with what book (by Kant) should I start to study is philosophy ?

>> No.7254295
File: 37 KB, 300x448, 186058408X.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7254295

>>7250221
>What should I read before going into Kant, if anything?

>> No.7254347

>>7252816
Kant's difficulty mostly comes from the fact that his subjects tend to be incredibly abstract and bordering on the incomprehensible.

Hegel though, fuck that.

>> No.7254379
File: 898 KB, 200x200, He_knows_you_dropped_it.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7254379

>>7254295