So Veeky Forums, how can i get into Kant? I really want to dig in but i feel like a certain bagage is needed

Kant: A Guide For the Perplexed, pirateable on libgen

plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#Rel

youtube.com/watch?v=Wc9Q3TBFMFs
youtube.com/watch?v=s7n9Vs6m-fA
youtube.com/watch?v=oV6mArm3LPY
youtube.com/watch?v=pssT4ggyF20
youtube.com/watch?v=rR-syCO7kCU

iep.utm.edu/kantview/
iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/
iep.utm.edu/kandmind/
iep.utm.edu/kantaest/

For context you'll want to know
plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
iep.utm.edu/epistemo/

not all of it necessarily btw, just have some passing familiarity of the history of metaphysics and epistemology up to Kant and you'll be a lot happier. Not even in a comprehensive sense, just know what the dominant strains are or something.

Read:
Aristotle
Descartes
Spinoza
Leibniz
Locke
Berkeley
Hume
Reid

then Kant

Not OP, but this YouTube series seems amazing. Thanks man.

No Plato?

it's very metaphysics and epistemology heavy, be forewarned, and it goes right through the presocratics to the medievals and problem of universals from the ground up

if you can slog it out, especially if you do the readings (fucking seriously) it's very good, but be forewarned that the "meat" can be squandered if you burn yourself out on all the "bread", which unfortunately is mostly in the first half

To be honest, 5 minutes on Wikipedia explains all of Plato's beliefs on metaphysics. There isn't much to it

why the fuck are you wasting ur life on dumb shit like kant when you could be doing literally anything else? u really need to ax urself if the smug feeling from reading kant will be worth it? especially since no one gives a shit at all

All right, in that case I'll probably just go through it whimsically rather than chronologically.

I don't know how you're reading the post, but Kant was never implied to be introductory.

Prolegomena to any future metaphysics
Critique of pure reason
Everything else

Good luck - if you're a pleb then Lube up for a good skull fucking

Honestly, the best way is to just pick up the Critique of Pure Reason and just dig in. The Cambridge edition has a superb introduction and a rigorous set of footnotes to guide your reading. Also, be studious in your reading, and consistent: read a certain amount each and every day, re-read certain passages that don't click right away and don't be afraid to look up terms and definitions or have some secondary literature for further research to clarify particularly tricky passages. Kant isn't the best writer, but he's methodical and consistent. After a week or so of reading every day, you'll start to pick up his method and terminology and things will begin to make sense. No baggage required.

What's your education in philosophy like? A solid background in early modern stuff (empiricists *and* rationalist) will really help. Especially Hume and Leibniz/Wolff.

Jesus Christ what the fuck

shut your fucking whore mouth

samharris.org/forum/viewthread/16849/

Remember as you read the critique the writing is structured like an argument rather than a presentation of a completed doctrine. Im not exactly sure why this helps, but it really really does.

1) Don't listen to the people who tell you to read all of philosophy before Kant to understand Kant. That is absolutely ridiculous. They only say that to troll or because they are underage novices who still believe this meme.

2) Don't listen to the people who tell you Kant is impossible to understand. You do need to go in with a glossary or dictionary of his terms (several exist as monographs) because even though he will explicitly define each term, he rarely gives examples to clarify them and the examples he does give, well, suck balls. Do something like keep a list of terms yourself along with some good examples. That can also make reading him more fun.

But the trick to understanding Kant is to actually read his text in his own words. I almost have to liken it to reading mathematics. You have to get a sense of the way he is thinking about all this and the only way you can do that is to see how he flips and moves around all his terms. Eventually you will be gliding through them and using them like a pro. It is really like any technical language.

You really don't need to do anything. I guess I had read the dialogues of plato and most of aristotle's metaphysics, but the Critique of Pure Reason really is not terribly hard. It's long and requires thoroughgoing attention, but its very lucid. I only recall a few sections about Leibniz or Wolfe I clearly lacked the necessary background for. Otherwise when Kant does reference another philosopher, he provides sufficient exposition on the original position to comprehend his refutation.

This could not be more true. As for the list of terms, just write them as Kant defines them. The Penguin edition is even helpful enough to bold them for you. Any time you feel vague on a word Kant uses, consult the OED, which often has a definition precisely for Kantian philosophy.

This thread is a waste of time, except as another example of the different degrees to which people can be wrong. Please don't base any notions of Kant on it.