Where should i start Kant, assuming i have no philosophy background?

nah I'd rather look like this qt

Culture of Critique

This

Wasn't bothered to make my own thread for this.

If I have concerned myself with the presocratics, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Origen, Empiricus, Aurelius, Eusebius, Hippolytus, Porphyry, Proclus, Iamblichus, Stobaeus, Boethius, Simplicius & Philoponus, will I be ready for the Summa Theologica? If not, what else should I read beforehand?

The Chad Hegel vs The Virgin Schopenhauer

Summa Thealogiae

Read the other summa first

Bullshit

the turks

So I am ready for Aquinas generally speaking?

You have the option become an ugly, cross-eyed ginger manlet with no discernible skills in philosophy

But you can become famous, revered as a great philosopher and get as much ass as you want

Do you?

Shut the fuck up. I'm reading the first critique now before reading any "Greeks." It has nothing to do with even Aristotle's views - OP should just go with Hume and Descartes first.

Holy fuck your so dumb

Why do people try the hardest philosophical texts when they start philosophy? You wont get as much out of it as you could. Grab something like this
broadviewpress.com/product/the-broadview-anthology-of-social-and-political-thought/#tab-description
and iron out the history of philosophy first so you know what ideas came from where (including Kant's). Then, go back and flesh out your understanding of the philosophers you see as important. Then, you can approach whatever you'd like in philosophy.

>your

>(you)

This. Then Prolegomena

Heaps of people think the Prolegomena just confuses things. Part of the reason why people dismiss Kant is because of the contradictory things he said in it, when he was trying to sell the Critique of Pure Reason after it flopped when it came out. It's basically just a dumbed down version of it, which fucks with people's understanding of the Critique, from what I've heard.

Kant literally only ever read ONE (1) book by Hume.

How can such an influential thinker be a pseud?
Jacobi knew as much.

There were barely any translations of Hume available to him. I think the amount of Hume he read is understated by the way. Read Wolff's paper "Kant's Debt to Hume via Beattie."
jstor.org/stable/2708003?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

>not following the direct conversation of philosophy without understanding the origins

It's like you enjoy missing things

Yes, I'm going to read the entire discourse of philosophy since 500 BC before my course on the philosophy of mind by next semester. That's not even possible in most people's lifetimes unless you miss a bunch of shit.

> assuming I have no philosophy background

As others have mentioned, you'd be better off starting with Plato/Aristotle. If you insist on starting with Kant, go with Critique of Pure Reason and a reader's companion so that you can understand the references and context. From there, continue on to Judgement and then branch out into more niche topics (Beautiful and Sublime for aesthetics, Metaphysics of Morals for morality/ethics, etc).

Wrong, the average height of the prussian man in the 1800's was 3'4
He was beyond tall for his time

Why do you want to study Kant so much

hes by far the least interesting of the GOAT philosophers

name 1 (one) person more interesting than kant

not who you asked, but schelling tbqh

fpbp

That's easy,
The ground works for the metaphysics.

C R I T I Q U E
R
I
T
I
Q
U
E

docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

Most of this is not important, by Kant no one engaged with Aristote properly at all and if you want Kant there's no reason to read Aquinas as well, after all, he never read him. You'll need rationalism era thinkers, Descartes, Leibniz, Wolff, Spinoza, Hume. He liked the Stoics tho.

Oh heck no. Aquinas is a high context philosopher, to understand him you need to read prior theology and philosophy, such as Augustine, Aristote, Boethius, Pseudo Dionysus and probably modern secondary lit would help as well, MacIntyre, Gilson, Feser, Garrigou-Lagrange are all incredibly useful at getting Aquinas and for something less taxing, find The Thomistic Institute on SoundCloud and listen to fr. White and his class on Aquinas' metaphysics.

The Critique of Pure Reason -> The Critique of Practical Reason -> The Critique of Judgement -> The Culture of Critique

Bravo

You actually do need Kant to understand Schelling

With his ethics and critique of judgement (his best work). Epistemology is for people who at one point in their life owned a samurai sword.

why would you even want to read kant without having read others? not only is it as accessible as shangrila but he was a reaction against other writers so if you dont know them you wouldnt see the point or know the arguments kant was trying to counter. I suppose since kant ultimately has lost modernity provides some reason but you still shouldnt start with kant.

>kant never read aquino
Wew, what a fucking hack. Never touching this kent guy, thanks for the heads up.

By no means an expert but I read another post on this cum-candle trading outpost that said you should
>not start with Summa Theologiae, go with Summa Contra Gentiles instead.
and another that said
>start with the Greeks and spice them up with some mystical stuff like Kempen, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and so on, going chronologically with the Church Fathers, could also be a rewarding experience. Read Augustine once you've read at least the most important Plato dialogues and some Church Fathers. As for Aquinas, that's a whole other story and you'd need to read tons of Aristotle and reading secondary lit like Copleston and Feser.

Can't comment on the validity of that but that's what I'll be following when I get round to studying those guys

I'm not sure how this would mean anything beyond not taking his comments on Aristotle and the medievals seriously. But this is equally true for Hume, Locke and Spinoza. The whole era has until actually recently been ignored and most of "common knowledge" on it is total crap (see Adorno opening his mouth on anything related to medievals based on shitty enlightenment memes). Luckily, the 20th century has seen a huge revival of aristotelian philosophy because it is inherently friendly to realism (that's ontological in its case), but doesn't fall into the pit of digging your head in the sand for practical purposes on say brute facts and so on. I would highly recommend Gilson, Garrigou-Lagrange, MacIntyre, Feser and Amscombe.

I can't believe you actually saved my comment lol
Nice to see my shilling is working.

t. Brainlet

insecure pseuds are easy to lead

Why would it be insecure or pseud to take someone's advice on how to approach a large subject?

Honestly just read Critique of Pure Reason. He lays out what he's responding to decently enough.