Thread 24855454

for reading Kant?

I don't think I really care much for either Descartes nor Hume nor many of the others who fall within this. Spinoza I might be open to reading just out of curiosity. he seems pretty important I think to the kantian enterprise. who else? I've already read Plato and Aristotle. will be reading Augustine soon, and about Aquinas (I don't care very much for aristotelian style philosohy beyond what Aristotle himself wrote). I feel Kant can be into'd with nothing more than relevant secondary literature and a sharp mind.

>>24855454 (OP)
all you need is a sharp mind

bumpp
when mt life if sturem and the asngels ask me to recall the thirll of them all,
ooo,
i should tell them i remember you oh oh you oh you. youuu

>>24855454 (OP)
Just don't.

>>24855454 (OP)
You either kan or you kan't.

>>24855454 (OP)
Sound like you Kant do it yet.

Kant is rather pedantic and methodic in explaining his reasoning so you don't really absolutely need any perliminary reading.

>>24855454 (OP)
>I feel Kant can be into'd with nothing more than relevant secondary literature and a sharp mind.
Literally just read the primary literature, retard. You got memed by the esoteric kantianism poster.

It's honestly really difficult to say. The significance in Kant lies in his overturning of what he deems the dogmatism of the previous philosophical tradition in favour of his critical method (in other words, the idea that pure metaphysical knowledge that goes beyond experience can be reached through thinking without a prior investigation into what the limits of reason are in the first place). It's a huge step in the history of immanentising our worldview. The greater your storehouse of your pre-Kantian philosophical knowledge and it's various ways of establishing it's epistemologies and ontologies in this 'dogmatic' manner will make you 'get' the significance of Kant in a much deeper way. It's pretty much impossible, for example, to really get why Kant's criticism of intellectual intuition was so revolutionary unless you're already steeped in how common it was as epistemological standard in Neoplatonism and the medieval tradition.

Let's say if you really want the basics, you want to have an okay grasp of the role of transcendence in pre-Kantian philosophy, and how we are supposed to have access to, for example, Plato's Ideas or Aristotle's theological ideas. Then you want to have somewhat of an idea of some of the immanentising steps that crafted the context for Kant's mature criticism of dogmatism. Most of all then, you want to see how Kant is a midway between the pure empiricism and the pure rationalism that was going about in his context.

So get Hume in your soul, to see the pure empiricist and inductivist attitude to knowledge, that scared Kant into a sense of doubt. And get some Spinoza, to see a great rationalist who also wants to immanentise our notion of reality and really get away from transcendent concepts which have no reality outside of our directly visible power of existence.

That should be enough, imo, to get a decent context for the issues Kant is facing, although in an extremely concise manner still.

>>24855454 (OP)
I’m looking into this as well and haven’t yet found an answer. So I did some basic reasoning and I’ve started with Plato.

>>24855454 (OP)
>I've already read Plato and Aristotle
Ur done then.

all this philosophy shit is just a way for rape victims to cope with life, I don't like it, change my mind

>>24855454 (OP)
You can absolutely approach Kant with a sharp mind and good secondary literature, but it helps to have a few conceptual tools in place: familiarity with the basic problems of early modern epistemology—how knowledge relates to experience, reason, and the self—and with the rationalist/empiricist tension that Kant tries to resolve. Even if you skip Descartes and Hume, you should at least understand their key questions: the certainty of knowledge (Descartes) and the limits of causation and induction (Hume). Spinoza is indeed worth reading, since his systematic rationalism and notion of necessity deeply influenced Kant’s sense of what a “critical” system must transcend. Beyond that, knowing something about Leibniz’s metaphysics (monads, pre-established harmony, analytic/synthetic distinction) and the structure of transcendental arguments would help a lot. Since you’ve read Plato and Aristotle, and are moving through Augustine and Aquinas, you already have a grip on the metaphysical and ethical background Kant inherits. So yes—you can begin Kant with secondary guides like the Cambridge Companion or Henry Allison’s introductions, provided you keep an eye on the key questions about knowledge, freedom, and the conditions of experience.

>>24856015
That’s a fair and partly correct thing to say—Kant is extremely methodical and self-conscious about his reasoning, often pausing to define his terms and justify his method. In principle, you can read him without extensive preliminary study because he tries to build his system from the ground up. However, his prose is notoriously dense and his terminology technical, so without some sense of the problems he’s addressing—especially the rationalist–empiricist debate and the question of how synthetic a priori knowledge is possible—his careful reasoning can feel abstract or aimless. In short: yes, he’s pedantic enough to explain himself, but to understand why he’s explaining things that way (and what’s at stake), even a minimal grasp of the philosophical context or a good commentary will make the experience far more rewarding.

>t. Chatgpt

>spinoza I might be open to reading just out of curiosity. he seems pretty important I think to the kantian enterprise.
huh? kant was diametrically opposed to spinoza, who espoused an extremely mechanical world view.

>>24855454 (OP)
Complete the meme trilogy, Plotinus

>>24856593
now drop a "thanks nigger"

>>24856276
So Spinoza and Hume, then. thanks