Wrong. Start with Kant's preliminary works, then work your way backwards to the Greeks, then work your way forwards all the way up to the Critiques, then very quickly peruse later German and French philosophers, then jump all the way backwards to the Vedic scriptures, then jump to the Christians (again) and include the mystics, then back to the Greeks, then jump all the way forwards to Weininger (Kant's greatest disciple), then concentrate on the Vedic scriptures, the Christians, Kant, and Weininger, with brief interludes of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Girard. All the while you should be reading classic fiction. Absolute celibacy is required for this path. Also acceptable: brief intermissions into the occult, hedonism, and/or quantum physics which are quickly abandoned on account of a rapid descent into nihilistic despair.
By chance, are you familiar with a reading guide for Kant's corpus?
I intend to read his three Critiques, but I'd like to read some of his other works too.
What do you think?
Connor Jackson
Yes, well done OP, well done OP . . .
HOWEVER
Cameron Flores
>I remain puzzled by the total lack of production values with English presses (OUP and CUP are the main culprits, but Continuum is probably even worse), if you compare them to Dutch, Italian or German publishing houses. There is no consistency in quality, not even in format or size (see the picture), where one would expect to have some standard for such a prestigious series as the Cambridge edition of Kant's works. The quality of paper and printing is beyond poor even with the hardbacks, although some, such as my copy of the Notes and Fragments have nice smooth paper. The idea of sewn books (still common for some hardbacks in the Netherlands and Germany, certainly for the more prominent titles) has been jettisoned long ago.
And these things are like 80$ a pop! WWWHHHYYYY
Bentley Adams
My reading guide for Kant:
>the Christians (early Fathers, hardcore ascetics like St. Anthony and St. John of the Cross) >the Bhagavad Gita >Weininger >the Tao te Ching (in very small doses) >the Bible (again, in small doses especially in the case of the Old Testament, or in larger doses as you feel more grounded) >his preliminary works: Logic, the Prolegomena >surprisingly helpful: various short essays and correspondences of Kant's >a dictionary
Take the Critiques slowly but deliberately, it will not go down easy the first few times but you must take your medicine.
Lucas Johnson
it's true, most US presses are utter shit. can also vouch for the german presses too. getting something from meiner verlag or vittoro klostermann is like a religious experience. the only US presses I like these days are SUP and northwestern
Actually you should start with math and science. Then work back as you see necessary Classics are for brainlets
Aaron Cook
What do you see in this picture, user?
Juan Collins
I started with Nietzsche and continued with Schopenhauer and Kant. Now I understand Black Metal pretty well, and that's all I need.
Matthew Wilson
You need to read the Bhagavad Gita.
Benjamin Wood
Sounds shitskin desu but I'm not going to discard it based only on this trait, what is it about?
Austin Rogers
Nevermind. It might do you better to go sit near a river for a while.
Luke Lopez
a tree on a field with sky behind it
Thomas Gutierrez
imagine being these people
Henry Brown
fucking pleb
Jose Garcia
oh do I have to watch a malick film or read the bible to see what a non pleb sees
Robert Lopez
no, you have to be someone who naturally wants to watch malick films and read the bible
Leo Lopez
>Whiney-nigger >Kant's greatest disciple
Cooper Gutierrez
there's a war and a prince doesn't want to do it but Krishna's like suck my dick your gonna die anyways just get it over with.
Ryan Gomez
A smug pepe in the clouds. Anyone else? Lol
Jack Taylor
a placenta
Luis Fisher
Here you go. In regards OPs picture, I only found the Jasche logic lectures useful for the Critique. I would read the introduction to that (p. 527 in the book), skip the "logical perfections" parts, and then read from "Universal doctrine of elements" until the end of that lecture (p. 589 to p.640)
"Logic has not gained much in content since Aristotle and indeed it cannot, due to its nature. Aristotle had ommited no moment of the understanding; we are herein only more exact, methodical, and orderly. " - Kant (Jasche logic lectures)
Jaxson Flores
Is it viable to split philosophy into autists and not-autists? You always get that stench of autism from Aristotle, Kant, Wittgenstein...
Cooper Flores
I feel like the relation between Aristotle and Plato is autism destroying mysticism.
Jack Foster
>autism destroying mysticism. that's just philosophy
Jeremiah Reed
Yeah, I think what you're looking for is what Reinhold and Fichte called Popularphilosophie. Try something like Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Ayn Rand, or John Green.
Ryder Allen
Hegel is just as complex but i dont think he is autistic.
Dylan Reyes
Really? I feel like Hegel is pretty autistic. I think prose philosophers like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard and the non-autistic kind
Brayden Long
This is a reminder that Neoplatonists thought Aristotle wasn't down-to-earth enough.
Bentley Stewart
>haven't read anything by an author >want to read his entire bibliography just because What the fuck, user? Maybe read Prolegomena and then see if this guy's ideas are actually worth months/years of your life to study before deciding.
Luke Bennett
What should I read after Weininger?.
Brayden Hernandez
Wrong, start with Descartes' Discourse on the Method which was the proverbial kick off to the enlightenment.
Mason Hill
wikihow article with instructions for suicide
Oliver Garcia
Trust me, I'm very much sympathetic to this position.
I want to read his foundational trilogy and those few work that might help prepare the way. Others may come in time, but maybe not. I don't necessarily intend to read everything he wrote.
You may be wondering why I'm willing to dedicate so much thought to a thinker I may not even like. The thing is, I love Schopenhauer, and Schopenhauer wants me to read Kant. There's no way around it really.
