How to start with Kant?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
How to start with Kant?
How to start with Kant?
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
prolegomena
this, then you can move on to the 3 critiques.
if you want to be really thorough or just love kant there are the Cambridge editions of his lectures on different topics. It's really long but you can read just one or two lectures.
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/authors/kant
Start with the Prolegomena
anon do not listen to these midwits. Kant specifically said the prologomena are not for students in the literal first paragraph of the prolegomena
>These Prolegomena are destined for the use, NOT OF PUPILS, but of future teachers, and even the latter should not expect that they will be serviceable for the systematic exposition of a ready-made science, but merely for the discovery of the science itself.
Plus he presupposes you tried to read the Critique already. Instead, read his lectures on logic and metaphysics.
you don't. Boring and useless. Read the wikipedia of the thing you're interested in or something else.
>t. boring and useless
that anon may be boring and useless but he's right, unlike kant whose presupposition of noumena makes multiple of his little proto-phenomenological mind trinkets completely pointless.
>he's right,
nope he and you are both moronic
>unlike kant whose presupposition of noumena
QED
give me one single application in the real world Kant has given (you) by reading his work
the absolute state of bugmen
the time spent on reading Kant could have been spent to:
-become a proficient coder
-become a proficient writer
-read books with actual relevance
now you have to cope by calling me a bugman
How does Kant not have relevance?
prove his relevance then
Because of Kant, I know AI will never become conscious. You speculate, and fear, and perhaps fantasize on the matter; I know.
>proves my point
coming from someone who's read critique and secondary sources, kant is one of those philosophers where you will do better reading a secondary source. he wasn't an efficient writer and there are better things to read from the era.
>he wasn't an efficient writer and there are better things to read from the era.
absolute lies. Kant is so precise and efficient if you get filtered by just one word you will be immediately filtered, and he is the highest peak of all modern philosophy before German Idealism.
>How do I start with Kant?
You kant.
Why nobody recommends reading the Prefaces and Introductions of the Critique of the Pure Reason? They are very accessible and gives a good overview of what Kant attempts to do with the CPR and the Prolegomena.
Read Schopenhauer instead. He's Kant but less autistic and with a more colorful worldview.
If possible, considering only the first critique for the moment (since it will take you some time before you get to the other 2), start with:
1) Hume's first Enquiry, which will give you the background regarding the critical aspect of Kant's work)
2) Leibniz: Monadology, Discourse on Metaphysics and the New Essay on Human Understanding – the first 2 will give you the background regarding what Kant thought about when he was thinking about metaphysics, which is almost always the metaphysics of Leibniz; the new essay will give you an overview of the kind of rationalist theories/epistemologies Kant wrestled with in many sections of the first critique
3) Christian Wolff's German Metaphysics. Unfortunately this text is left untranslated in most languages, so if you can't get your hands on it it's not the end of the world. That said it would be very helpful if you can, since Kant takes most of his terminology from this book. If you can find it, you can skip on Leibniz (since Kant for the most part reads Leibniz from the lens of Wolff's German Metaphysics, which summarizes most of the themes in Leibniz' philosophy).
There are other very helpful sources, like Berkeley and Locke, but they're not as widely present as the ones I've mentioned.
At the beginning I told you to read them "if possible": by this I mean that they're not absolutely necessary (Kant fortunately is one of those authors you can read with very little historical background), but at the same time I think they will make reading the first critique exponentially easier.
As a general advice, accept that (unless your an already seasoned reader of complex philosophical texts) you will most likely fail in your first attempts. It's not the end of the world. If you keep trying eventually you'll internalize his terminology (to the point where you will be able to think with it on your own), which is the main obstacle when it comes to having a basic understanding of his texts. I would also suggest you to read the Prologomena first. The Prologomena are basically a divulgation of the first critique. They do not contain most of the arguments included in the KrV, but most of the conclusions are in there, which means that at the very least you will know in advance what Kant is trying to get at when you'll read the first critique.
Cassirer's book on him
> I would recommend against reading all of the stuff the above anon recommended first, since it might lead to burnout if you want to read Kant and not Hume/Leibniz/Wolff.
This. Kant is a very singular philosopher in that his work does not heavily draw from the work of his contemporaries except as influence. Meaning, he does not borrow concepts a lot. His system is highly original and all you really need to know about the context of philosophy of his time is that metaphysicians were making insane claims about reality that not even 200 miles away the anglos were fervently disputing like their lives depended on it. In many ways it was an all out war of ideas being tossed around with no way to know up from down. Kant wanted to create a system which grounded the great variance of claims all across his philosophical landscape and necessarily then did not want to draw from what he saw as, on the whole, idle speculation. His biggest influence would probably be Hume but he was even wary of using Hume’s terms and ideas. (Written for OP)
Unless you're going to become a scholar, just listen to lectures on YouTube.
read secondary literature until you get sick of it and just read the text itself
Enlightenment thinking ruined the world.
how
acquire autism