[ 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: 11 KB, 225x346, kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8619644 No.8619644 [Reply] [Original]

Do I need to read anything before I start this? I'm an undergrad philosophy student, I've read most major works of political philosophy and taken a class in epistemology and a class in metaphysics.

>> No.8619648

please, kill yourself
kant isn't michael sandel you degenerate

>> No.8619649

>>8619644
Well if nothing else, you have to have a good grip on Hume.

>> No.8619652

>>8619648
what the hell is your value system

>> No.8619657

>>8619649
I'm familiar with him as a thinker in that hes been mentioned in my other philosophy classes but I haven't read any of his primary works.

Are encyclopedia articles on Hume good enough for starting the Prolegomena? You have to start somewhere and if I decide to read Hume first then we just as easily can say I should read Descartes before Hume (whom I have read, my point just being it can get regressive)

>> No.8619671

>>8619644

Read Hume's Treatise and both enquiries,they're not hard and very readable.
Then read his Lectures on Logic and Ethics.
I would recommend also to buy a Kant dictionary.

>> No.8619678

>>8619657
well Descartes wouldn't be a bad point to start either. But while yes, a secondary literature insight on HUme would suffice, as >>8619671 says, his treatise is easy enough to read and he's analytical enough that you can do it from scratch.

and a general introduction to Kant, as the anon also says, wouldn't go amiss either.

>> No.8619726

>>8619671
>>8619678
Thanks a lot anons

Do you recommend a particular kant dictionary and any particular translations?

>> No.8620352
File: 64 KB, 578x800, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8620352

>>8619726

I'd say Caygill's Kant dictionary, from my own experience. Tremendously helpful.

>> No.8621854

>>8619678
>Reading Descartes before Sextus Empiricus

NEVER do this.

>> No.8621865

>>8621854
this shit approaches meme status. Sextus Empiricus has historical value and helps understand the backdrop of skepticism, but nothing in it isn't also spelled out by Descartes.