How much Hume do I need to read before tackling this?

Is his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding enough?

Also will Kant be more difficult than Spinoza's Ethics was?

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Read lebniz instead


New essays on human understanding

Critique of pure reason is very similar plus some Hume influence

If you have read and understood Spinoza's ethics you are a genius. It the most dense philosophical work ever written.

His Treatise should be sufficient

>he hasn't already read and annotated the oxford edition of his Treatise before becoming interested in Kant

Kant didn't even read Hume's Treatise. There isn't any necessary prerequisite reading for Kant, just ignore the imbeciles telling you how it is imperative to go through 1 million of books before engaging with the one you desire. Moreover, Kant is considered a great entry point into a serious study of philosophy (according to Jaspers at least). Just turn off the computer and start reading.

>It the most dense philosophical work ever written.

I thought that title went to Hegel.

I'd prefer to read in order up to at least Kant, I previously had zero background in philosophy and knew nothing about epistemology. If I want to understand Kant I need to know what he's critiquing in the first place. Once I finish Kan't first critique I will probably stop reading everything strictly chronologically. Besides, the rationalists and empiricists have been enjoyable to read. The only long reads relevant to CPR are the Ethics and Locke's essay, and the only very difficult one is Spinoza.

you don't just read Kant, you study him.

Ethics is not the most dense philosophical work ever written, lol.

this is a good outlook. I would suggest only reading the inquiry, because it is the one Kant read. However it is not strictly necessary to read Hume at all before Kant, because Kant does not critique any of the specific arguments Hume uses (besides that math is analytic) and because Kant does not borrow any technical terminology from Hume (indeed Hume did not have any)

Here is a guide I made for CoPR awhile back, maybe it will be useful for you. I read nearly everything chronologically aswell and this is what I thought would be the bare minimum for CoPR from what I had read.

Make sure you fully read the introductions to the books. What may also help you some with Kant's logic are the Jasche lectures in logic. Read the introduction (history of logic, philosophy) but skip the "logical perfection" portion. Start reading again at "1. Universal doctrine of elements" until the end of the lecture. You can read the whole thing but those are the parts that are meaningful for CoPR.

enjoy it, the three critiques are my favorite books, I have no doubt they will have a profound effect on anyone who reads and understands them.

Thanks brotha!

Are you in ethical theory?

It's more important for You, as a non-scholar redneck that isn't in Ivy League, to read 2ndary literature about Kant himself rather than worry about his philosophical grandfathers.

of Hume, you need to only understand Hume's issue with causality: plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/

This is the only part you really need if you want to.

but again, secondary scholarly lit about Kant himself is way more important for you to read if you aren't in uni

>Kant didn't even read Hume's Treatise.
so this is the power of Veeky Forums, the most intellectual board on Veeky Forums.

dogmatic slumberer detected

Yeah that's enough. Don't listen to that retard who said don't read anything before Kant. You need to understand what the CPR is responding to which is (for the most part) Hume and British Empiricism more generally. Definitely recommend reading the prolegomena alongside it too. And there's plenty great secondary reading you should dip into to get the most of it.

Tbh the first half of CPR is the best, the rest is notes

Why do you need to know about Kant the Man? Very unnecessary imo

Secondary literature about Kant meaning secondary scholarly literature about Kant's philosophy which frames it in its correct context and not limiting the scope to 1-author at a time (like reading Hume's original work)

It will help him more than reading Hume, if he wants to understand Kant. Pretty sure some Oxford introductory book can do it (Very Short Intro to Kant).

more like enquiry concerning humen understanding

>Kant didn't even read Hume's Treatise. There isn't any necessary prerequisite reading for Kant
Actually no

>Also will Kant be more difficult than Spinoza's Ethics was?
Yes. Kant wrote to not be understood.

Kant is literally a dunce.

Cone dome and all.