Reading Kant

This, I would say.

I jumped straight to the first critique after the rationalists/empiricists, but Prolegomena is definetely like a short and concise, clear version that'll be easier to get through for some.

imo if you can read and understand the sep or iep entries on Kant (and maybe read some early modern entries as well), you can probably just jump right into the Critique. alternatively just read the passage in the Critique on Logic. if you understand that then you're not going to have any problems. if you don't understand any of it, reading the prolegomena first probably won't help.

>reading kant in 2017
that's some solid waste of time lmao

Ultimate guide to Kant by someone who actually read him

He's only halfway though

Really needs Hume and Descartes additions and it's great.

Yeah the lack of any of his writings on Christianity and Judaism is a massive gaping hole and is a necessity for anyone with an interest in Hegel and Nietzsche

I think Nietzsche is one of the few of the big thinkers that can be jumped in without pre-reading, like Plato, but that's just me.

Obviously you get more out of him once you read.. more, but still.

this kind of raises the question, are thinkers who can produce works without the need for previous reading better or just more accessible?

They're probably more accessible is all.

Thats what I'm saying, Nietzsche's response to Christianity and Truth is really clarified by his reading of Kant even if they're legible without that background

yeah but you have to read his Critique first before reading his moral and religious writings

It's just a matter of style of writing. A contemporary expert in any field is not going to write every work of theirs as if it's written for the layman; they will write it for the other experts in their field. The Critique was obviously written for other philosophers at the time, and that's the only reason so much context is needed

the philosophers at the time of the release didnt much care about CoPR

Absolutely agree. Just pointing out the guide should be expanded

I saved a great couple posts from a grad student that knew his shit about Kant about secondary sources

Is Kant to blame for philosophy turning into autismal circlejerk of meaninglessness that it is today?
I just finished Kenny's history of philosophy and it seems like everything was going along just fine until this manchild showed up

no, what you are talking about is the effect of Enlightment and scientism.

Kant was actually the first person to rescue it from the autism of the Rationalist-Empicists. You'd do well to read real books instead of pop science garbage

nah, Hegel is responsible for the downfall of western philosophy

t. someone who doesn't have any fucking idea what hegel wrote and is just repeating garbage he heard somewhere on the internet

Explain why his rescue didn't work/last. It's all 1s and zeroes now and "muh rationality muh laboratory test muh matter that I can see and touch" gospel of truth everywhere

Because some people still haven't read him and Wittgenstein. They don't matter and are best ignored

>we should all drown in metaphysical bullshit because MUH FEELS MAAAAAAAAAAAN

Seriously, you're dumb af.

>They don't matter.

as in Kant and Witty don't matter or the people who haven't read them don't matter?

but Kant rejected metaphysical bullshit, that was his entire project...

The people who haven't read them. They're the intellectual equivalent to when in a Warner Bros cartoon a guy walks off a cliff and doesn't fall until he looks down

People are kantian. At least a large part of western, decently educated people.

Actually read Kant retard

op here, thanks for all the answers

I'll go sep entry on Kant > Monadology (is it really that short?) > prefaces and first section of the critique > prolegomena if previous is too difficult or the rest of the critique

I know, mate. Why are you telling me this?

Read Kant you dumb fuck.
Yeah, but they dictate the common consensus on truth and world, no?

many believe his transcendental aesthetic was refuted by Einstein. Indeed, this was Einstein's opinion himself. Personally I don't agree with that but for people who had interpreted the transcendental idealism as "space and time bear no relation to things in themselves", which I see as a misinterpretation, Einstein's theory of relativity would have been a big blow.

Read the post I was replying to, you fucking troglodyte.

Maybe I just can't see it. I try to.

Read Leibniz for funsies before and then Prolegomena and you will have more fun with Critiue of Pure Reason

Leibniz to understand what Kant's about.
Prolegomena to get a "patch" on Critue of Pure Reason before reading it

what in the heck made you think these low iq insects can answer that question. this is a cesspool of brainlets kid.

"muh rationality muh laboratory test muh matter" is another form of "metaphysical bullshit" in itself, which Kant also objected.

>Yeah, but they dictate the common consensus on truth and world, no?

Only in the same way Marvel films do

There are already good posts with regards to pre-reading posted here.

I would read the Monadology, preface AND introduction to the Critique and Prolegomena, then the SEP entry for Kant and then his works themselves.

b-but we answered the question though

There's no Hume or Descartes in that pic yet

I mean this in the materialist way; studying natural science as the science of the world of possible experience is secure in Kantian philosophy

Hume is dealt with in the first description, did you read the chart? I think that guide is supposed to be the "minimum necessary to understand Kant without reference to secondary"

Personally I think the Monadology can be read without having read Descartes.

>philosophy is a field that, unfortunately, reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke, 'those that can't do teach, and those that can't teach, teach gym.'

I'm baffled by what he meant by this, what are gym teachers in this context? I feel like he just meant to reference the cliche aphorism but then went for the Woody Allen version to sound wittier despite it having no purpose here

I have a biologist friend that says shit like those guys on the right all the time
how do I redpill him?

Browse Veeky Forums and realize just how little respect intelligent STEM students have for Science

Ask him to be specific what philosophy he's talking about; he probably can't.

>Is Kant to blame for philosophy turning into autismal circlejerk of meaninglessness that it is today?
>I just finished Kenny's history of philosophy and it seems like everything was going along just fine until this manchild showed up
No, you're thinking of Hegel and his crackpot metaphysics in new clothes and everything that followed a la socioeconhistoricistempirical doodle doo, Nietzsche, DUDE PHENOMENA LMAO and ultimately les frenchies.

Kant warned us of all of this in the ole tranny dialectics but of course everyone ignored the parts which cucked their worldview and overinflated egos so what we got instead was nu-idealists Goethe and Schiller propagating empty phrases like "dude reality aint real lmao" "mind makes reality" and so on and that was literally the extent of the German idealists' understanding of Kant, plus a few buzzwords they picked up from the wikipedia entry like noumena which they categorically misused. You think I'm being edgy but actually read Hegel's take on Kant, it's frighteningly low iq low reading comprehension drivel. Honestly like he read the wiki entry of copr and only half way. Better than Neetcheesie's "thoughts" on the matter sure but then again everything is better than neetcheese. Get some standards will you? (Fun fact: Did you know Kant ignored the weimarcucks' pleading for correspondence? He smelled the brainletism half a Germany away)

tldr really it's the 19th century when philosophy went wrong because nobody understood the critiques at the time (it's only recently that physics and cog science have been starting to catch up, meanwhile in philosophy we have Zizek, Peterson and 420 lmao phd theses per day on Hegel, Marx and Cheesie..).

What I've come to accept is that in the end it's a normie norm world. Kant is dry and unfulfilling -- Hegel is intriguing and mysterious. Spiritual. You can give the normie a book but you can't teach him how to think critically. It's not a """""""hero archetype"""""" thing to do.

>t. hasn't even read Kant

Please keep your inane posts to a single sentence in the future ty

Exhibit A

That's wrong. Hegel inspired lots of smart writers, good writers with intellectual goals and achievements.

It's just bunch of scientism and Enlightment shitting out the field. Someone needs to pick up where Kant left and curb stomp them again

DUDE

EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY

LMAO

Dude you're making a total of zero arguments here, you're just listing thinkers you don't like and declaring they contemptable with no justification. Any person who claims to have moderate intelligence and literacy can't dismiss central thinkers of the canon as idiots. You can disagree with them sure but presuming that Hegel just wasn't smart enough to read Kant is fucking retarded

>That's wrong. Hegel inspired lots of smart writers, good writers with intellectual goals and achievements.
Inspired, right. Inspirational man he was. So inspirational. Just like Neetcheesie.

Yes both him and Nietzsche were inspirational and great thinkers.

But you know better, I assume?

>tfw to smart for Hegel

>Dude you're making a total of zero arguments here

...

...

t. my face right now

>"I didn't understand Hegel"

no one is stopping you from expanding it you lazy faggot

wrong, continental philosophy turned into shit after postmodernism

say that to my FACE youtube.com/watch?v=kA8CFD9T8H0&feature=youtu.be&t=43m22s

>discuss ways to expand it
>just do it lazy faggot

One step at a time

I always have to pull the reins on my hindsight bias, because Kant just seems to simple and clear to me now. The ideas just make so much sense.

That is the beauty of his work though, the invidiual ideas are so clear and obvious yet somehow no one thought of them before him. And from there the real brilliance is not in the invididual ideas but the cohesion that runs through them

>kant
>simple
his work is literally unintelligible to anyone below 120 IQ

Yes, that is a good idea. The prolegomena is quite short and gets you used both to the writing style (translation or no), the ideas, and the vocabulary all at once. Being able to hack Prolegomena (or not) will if nothing else, give you a good bead on what you're getting yourself into with the larger work.

113 IQ brainlet here, can confirm

And to anyone over, it's boring as fuck

Kant is a world-crusher, I don't think he's boring for anyone that understands him.

> 1414337750481-4
That's an unusual filename, from which chan did you get it from?

2ch,hk

Kantian idea are literally part of reality. You were experiencing Kant when you were still a child. Reading his treatise on education made me see the kantian ideology that lives with us. My mother probably thinks Kant was a composer, but kantian ideas of education were a thing in my household.

What did Locke and Hume get right Kant anons?

>that bitchbeta voice
As expected from a Hegelfag

>Hume.
the doubt of understanding causality without a prior knowledge and how garbage the human mind actually is.

>Locke
dontknowloljustreadHobbess

It won't make a difference. Read some good secondary literature first or you will understand nothing.

I've only read existentialists and Plato because I've been depressed. What exactly do you get out of studying metaphysics? It sounds interesting, but why is Kant so important?

freaking edgelord

vafan

You get to understand the true capabilities and limitations of certainty and rational thought. In an age where people are reverting either to dogmatic scientism or memetic post-ironic skepticism thats incredibly important

>It sounds interesting, but why is Kant so important?
He set out some axioms and rules that would latter give birth to popular concepts of modern science, democracy and liberals. I think he's the driest philosopher and gives ontology a bad name.

Locke was right in that we couldn't know about the thing-in-itself. Leibniz believed we could, and Locke believed we couldnt.

>the doubt of understanding causality without a prior knowledge
But he was wrong about this, as Kant showed

You just need enough context, you can absolutely read and fully understand Kant without secondary. In fact there is a guide in this thread titled exactly that, see He set out to find the limits and bounderies of reason, so that we don't waste time trying to figure out things that are impossible for us to

Im pretty sure Kant goes on record to say that Hume was right to doubt it. Go download PDF of Prolegomena and check it out.

I've read the Prolegomena and the Critique.

Hume was wrong that we learn cause and effect through "habit" empirically. In the sense that Hume meant it, he was wrong, because Hume really was regarding things as they appear to us. Hume's argument was like this - if I hit a nail with a hammer and it goes into the wood, how can I know a priori whether the hammer caused the nail to go into the wood, or whether these two events simply happened together at the same time, and through habit of seeing this we aquire from experience the idea of cause and effect?

Kant says we can infact know a priori cause and effect BUT only insofar as we regard things as appearances, which is the only way we need to regard things anyway.

Kant proves that cause and effect are a necessary analogy in order to synthesize unity in the apperception of time. In this way Kant proves a priori cause and effect for things as they appear to us, because, without cause and effect things would not appear to us at all, which is the way he proves nearly everything in the Critique.

He was wrong according to Kant, but what Kant says he was right about, was the initial doubt and the understasnding that something was off with the understanding of causality.

and that was also Hume's greatest achievement according to Kant (the initial doubt and questioning of it)

the above is in the intro to Prolegomena

What you are posting about and what I am posting about are completely different things.

Also, Hume's claims destroy natural science whereas Kant's affirms it. Natural science is the study of nature insofar as it contains objects of possible experience, which covers all of physics as we know it.