What should I read after the greeks and before Kant?

>>24512656 (OP)
here you go

Nothing. The medievals are all arguing Aristotle vs Plato (=Augustine etc) in many ways and with an unbelievable degree of autism, and theologizing (using philosophy to make sense of bible and dogmas). The modern philosophers before Kant are mostly pseuds and sophists. Just skip to Kant and use Sep to fill in the gaps. I read a fair amount of Aquinas, and Descartes, Hume, Locke, Hobbes, Spinoza, and some Leibniz and it frankly feels like wasted time.

>>24512679
>>24512683
Thanks frens

>>24512683
I read Descartes, Aquinas, and Spinoza... Definitely agree

>>24512679
>master Wolff/Baumgarten before Kant
This is a meme lol.

>>24512656 (OP)
read something worthwhile. aka not philosophy.

>>24512710
So, what? Fiction? Academic books? It's all the same really

>>24512710
>>24512693
Are you guys going to contribute to the discussion at all or just post variations of "ur gay lol?"

>>24512683
>Just skip to Kant and use Sep to fill in the gaps
What is Sep?

>>24512717
Telling someone to read Baumgarten before Kant is like telling someone to read the Talmud before the gospels or else you won’t understand Jesus’ criticisms of the Pharisees.

>>24512683
Descartes is basically just updated Proclus and Plato (see Theatetus and Meno for what I mean- clear parallels to duality and Innatism). He’s not even super necessary. Tl;Dr just read Plato and you’re fine

>>24512683
I actually did enjoy Rules for direction of the mind but that is an overview of basic logic rather than metaphysics.

>>24512837
Heretic

>>24512837
That’s a very superficial parallel man. Descartes 1) has a radically skeptical methodology; 2) is a dualist; 3) is a mechanist. He’s about as far from (neo)Platonism as it’s possible to be. I realize there are points of convergence but they’re superficial.

>>24512855
Plato's Theaetetus and René Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy are foundational texts in the history of epistemology, despite being separated by centuries. While their approaches and conclusions differ, they share some key similarities in their philosophical inquiries:
1. Inquiry into the Nature of Knowledge: Both works grapple with the fundamental question of what constitutes genuine knowledge. In the Theaetetus, Socrates and his interlocutors explore various definitions of knowledge, including perception and true belief, ultimately demonstrating the inadequacies of these definitions. Descartes, in the Meditations, embarks on a quest for absolute certainty, using doubt as a tool to dismantle beliefs that could potentially be false in order to arrive at indubitable truths.
2. Skeptical Method: Both Plato and Descartes employ a form of skepticism as a method of inquiry. In the Theaetetus, Socrates, known for his Socratic method, raises critical questions about accepted notions of knowledge to expose underlying inconsistencies and guide his interlocutors towards a deeper understanding. Descartes utilizes a methodical doubt, systematically questioning his beliefs, including those based on sensory experience and even mathematical truths, to identify any belief that is beyond doubt.
3. Emphasis on the Role of the Mind/Intellect: The significance of the mind or intellect in acquiring knowledge is underscored by both texts. Plato, while not definitively establishing a theory of knowledge in the Theaetetus, highlights the limitations of relying solely on sensory perception. Descartes, in his search for certainty, establishes the thinking mind as the foundation of certain knowledge with the "Cogito Ergo Sum" ("I think, therefore I am").
4. Rejection of Purely Sensory-Based Knowledge: Both works suggest that knowledge cannot be solely derived from the senses. The Theaetetus shows that sensory information is fallible and insufficient for true knowledge. Descartes' methodical doubt also targets sensory experiences, recognizing that the senses can be deceptive, and explores the possibility of deception through dreams or an evil genius.
5. Search for Certainty: Both Plato and Descartes are driven by a desire for certainty in knowledge. Descartes' entire project in the Meditations is dedicated to finding a foundation for certain knowledge, unaffected by doubt. The Theaetetus's exploration of different definitions suggests a pursuit of a certain and reliable understanding of knowledge, even though it ends without a definitive answer.
In summary, both Plato's Theaetetus and Descartes' Meditations represent significant attempts to understand the nature and limits of human knowledge, utilizing critical methods and emphasizing the role of the intellect in the pursuit of certainty

>>24512858
“Radical skeptic methodology” doesn’t matter much when Plato comes to similar conclusions (the Forms as eternal and the world of heraclitean fire as fleeting with you the individual cognition serving the same role basically of the Cogito in Descartes’ reasoning).

>>24512861
As long as proclus is dropped we have no outstanding epistemic conflict. Beyond that dialectic is about all that matters, and whatever you think about Euclid means nothing to me.

>>24512656 (OP)
Read the debate between Leibniz and Spinoza in picrel

>>24512861
I’m not talking to someone who’s too lazy/stupid to write their own posts. Dialectical inquiry is not the same as “maybe I don’t even have a body.”
>>24512872
I said there are points of convergence, I explained why they’re superficial. “But Plato doubted junk too! And look at these superficial points of convergence!” Absolute pseudery, both of you. You’re not smart enough for philosophy.

>>24513052
>Dialectical inquiry is not the same as “maybe I don’t even have a body.”

You don’t see the forest for the trees. Plato saying that the physical realm is an illusory falsehood which melts away in the face of the eternal Forms- that is basically the same as Cartesius’ views on the illusory nature of the body. The evil demon wasn’t a literal conjecture but merely a thought experiment to get you to accept dualism- even if the physical world is false, there must be an eternal substance which never perished away outside of it.

Ideas like the patricide of Parmenides and Innatism prefigure Descartes’ views by centuries. I don’t think Plato and Descartes are one for one but Meditations can easily have its main dualist points be taken from readings of Plato.

>>24512656 (OP)
I took a class on Hume & Kant last semester and the entire second half of class was dedicated to the CPR.

This book was required and the one you will want to get:
Jill Vance Buroker Introduction to Kant

It will allow you to get up to speed on the respective positions of the rationalists (ie Leibniz) and empiricists (Hume) at the time Kant started writing–important to know because he in some ways synthesized the two camps–and explain the problems that served as the impetus for his critical project.

Even this text is a challenge because Kant’s ideas are not easy, but it is thorough and will make it significantly easier to understand his arguments. Good luck and thanks for the reminder to study Kant again!

>>24512656 (OP)
Read Thomas Reid and then realize that you can skip Kant entirely.

>>24513153
>Jill Vance Buroker Introduction to Kant
Just ordered this, thank you.

>>24513157
Which book?

>>24512679
>self and not-self
is this crypto buddhism?

nigga just grab what you want to read, read until you dont understand and what you dont understand is probably because you dont know the terms they use, and those terms they use are probably better explained in aristotle. every single nigga took aristotle terms and meanings to begin with everything they want to explain. also kant is a hard as fuck midget to understand not because he writes schizo garbage or because he is a wannabe poet, but because he is a very systematic writer. if you are familiar with aristotle you must remember how fucking tiring it is to keep remembering things that macedonian nigga explained at the start, the same goes for kant.

>>24512656 (OP)
Greeks

Descartes
Locke
Leibniz
Hume

Kant

>>24512656 (OP)
the bible

>>24513479
An inquiry into the human mind and intellectual powers of man

>>24513509
No, not really. If you lurk /lit/ for a little bit you should catch the Fichte anon posting about it sometime.

no half measures

>>24513509
I don’t know a huge amount about Buddhism. But the main difference it seems is that while Fichte denies that your personality/individuality is your “self” (it’s actually an object, a not-I, albeit one that’s intimately joined to you; see the end of the deduction of representation, or the end of the second introduction), and he denies that there is any sort of soul substance, he does affirm that what you really “are” is an ought. Your body and personality are instruments of the ought, and the ought is an appearance of God.