I bought this thing out of impulse at a garage sale. What books do I need to read before understanding it?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
I bought this thing out of impulse at a garage sale. What books do I need to read before understanding it?
Everything before Kant. Start with the Zoroastrians.
That could take me a few years idk.
That's the price you have to pay for philosophy. You gotta no-life this shit. You can't have one foot in, other foot out. You're either an intellectual or a pseud. I gave up having sex so I could read. I gave up having friends so I could read. I gave up my sanity for the truth. Who am I kidding? You'll never be ready for Kant, you're not even ready for Plato... Get the frick out of my board.
a copypasta was born
Fine, I'll go back to the sports board to rant about footy. I also bought The Republic I guess I should read that first.
Republic isn't even philosophy, where's all the philosophy that's gonna quite literally drive me insane? I got the enneads by plotinus cause after the first 100 pages of the republic I dropped it cause it was all pontifications I had stumbled on by the time I was in high school kek, or is it all a juvenile waste of time and I should just read calvino instead? Plotinus better be the redpill I'm looking for
Same poster lel
I'd recommend close to the opposite of this, it's works AFTER Kant that you'd want to read to understand Kant. IQfy vastly underrates modern philosophy and how much it's advanced things over the older thinkers, and just brushes aside a lot of it as pedantry. This doesn't mean that reading the ancients is at all useless, but it's just that more modern thinkers do a lot better at addressing the gaps in Kant's thought and where he's not properly thinking through things given they know him in hindsight.
For instance, it would be basically silly to just read through the CPR and then NOT at any point read Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, or to not engage in exploring the advances made in logic past Kant's basically Aristotelian understanding of it. I also strongly recommend (and no, this is not a meme, people who refuse to recognize the value of this man's thought rarely give good reasons why he shouldn't be taken seriously, despite it otherwise being otherwise a good idea to be very skeptical of the kind of person who writes autistic Harry Potter fanfiction) reading through Eliezer Yudkowsky's sequences, since he's actually very good at summarizing the potential philosophical implications of modern science in ways I've not seen anyone else do (since actual scientists post Einstein seem to really suck at this).
>advances made in logic past Kant's basically Aristotelian understanding of it
>advances
lmao
IDIOT DETECTED
Some basic knowledge about history of philosophy in general, epistemology in specific: empiricism and rationalism.
And a frick ton of patience.
Technically you don't need to read anything before it, it stands alone as its own comprehensive work. With that said, Kant wrote this to deal with the ideas of his time, so you may want to watch a few introductory lectures to get a feel for the sort of climate in which the work was born (because there's no point reading the entirety of, say, Hume, when you could get the gist of what Kant was trying to settle in 1-2 hours of video lectures).
Interesting, what universities have good lectures on Youtube? Though I might ask another friend as I have the book in Spanish and would need to translate concepts if I watch things in English.
I read it alongside Victor Gijsbers' lecture series, but he only has English or Dutch, no espagnolese unfortunately mi amigo.
(actually I don't know if he has a dutch version of the Kant lectures, I haven't checked)
Check sugrue
I don't know Dutch so it doesn't matter.
Unironic answer, i would recc just trying to read the book itself. Its said to be a bit difficult of a philosophy book because Kant has a particular style with his writings. See, it's a meme thing on this board to recommend reading all the big philosophical books in order, which is a really big undertaking. Read what interests you.
You’re allowed to read it now, anon. It’s not going to burn you if you open it up and Google any questions. I started reading Nietszche before anything else. I realized I was in over my head, sure. But I still learned some shit.
I am asking because when I was 15 I tried reading In The Heights of Despair without any philosophy background and I did not really understand anything. I still lack a philosophy background, I am studying History but uni started less than a month ago and so far I just read a few short texts by Heidegger, Jaspers and Lyotard. Relatively simple stuff but I am yet to swallow an entire book.
well there are many different book lists and such for a more complete philosophy education and they have different starting points ranging from the hindu scriptures to the greeks. I personally dont think you need to worry about prerequisite material too much, philosophy becomes easier to understand the more you read it. for Kant specifically some people would recommend Descartes meditations and Hume's Enquiry.
It's funny because Philosophy is not really considered an important class but it's the one I'm spending most time on reading the material and doing the homework. So I will maybe keep studying it as a side thing,
What was the person you bought it from like? Or was it some zoomers selling grandpas shit.
If you buy a better edition, you don’t need to read anything else.
If you just want to go straight into it then ideally, in this order:
>Kant by Paul Guyer
>Kant's Doctrine of the Faculties by Gilles Deleuze
>Prolegomenna to any future metaphysics by Kant himself
Or, alternatively, if you want to go the primary philosophy way
>Meditations by Descartes
>Ethics by Spinoza
>Essay concerning human understanding by Locke
>Principles of human knowledge by Berkeley
>Monadology by Leibniz
>Enquiry concerning human understanding by Hume
The thing is with this is you would probably even require secondary lit about Spinoza, since he's hard, and moreover knowledge of Plato and Aristotle. But since your focus is reading Kant, then secondary lit on them should be fine.
To anyone that did read Critique of Pure Reason, what is the biggest thing you have achieved since?
Huh dumbass
Everything previouslu written. Or just beyond good and evil
Kant is a c**t who got filtered by the fact that he can't grasp absolutely anything abstract (a.k.a. the thing in itself) and resorted to experience because he had too much trouble reasoning everything out.
Literally a skill issue.