So how the fuck do I read his obtuse and needlessly elaborate philosophy...

So how the fuck do I read his obtuse and needlessly elaborate philosophy? I've taken to reading Kemp Smith's commentary but the Cambridge edition's introduction seems equally informative - above this, it's (somewhat) contemporary. Will I be setting myself up for an early 20th century misreading of Kant by continuing with Kemp Smith?

Other urls found in this thread:

earlymoderntexts.com/authors/kant
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>not just taking the redpill and skipping all these continental libcucks

Unironically this.

Let the teachings of Quine show you the way.

German metaphysics is the scourge of the earth

>not jumping straight to Schopenhauer

pleb

Kant is a fucking nerd, but so were all the philosophers who followed him. I feel obliged to have at least a basic grasp on his work.

read all of his works with the words "critique" or "metaphysics" in the title, skip the rest.

I feel sorry for anyone who skips Kant based off of some strange inaccurate concept of bipartisan philosophy. there aren't many names out there who have advanced the field more than he did.

>not just reading The Last Messiah
bls

Read Hitler, Schopenhauer's 'On Women' (the rest of his ouvre is utter pseudo-scientific, unfalsifiable muh feels garbage) and the Culture of Critique Series

Kemp-Smith is fine inasmuch as a century has grown up reading him, and learning how to read around anything unusual that he does. But the new authoritative translation of all of Kant's work is Guyer's, which is partly modelled after Kemp-Smith and used by everyone. It comes with the Cambridge commentaries you're reading as well, all part of the same series.

I'd stick with Guyer's translation, and accompany it with the Cambridge Companion to the Critique of Pure Reason, which more or less has side-by-side exegesis articles you can read. Some are better than others. There's also the Companion to Kant, which might be better for overviews and more condensed summaries.

Kant is really hard. It's made more difficult by the fact that most Kant interpreters and contemporary scholars interested in Kant approach him by wrenching his system forward into their own, rather than explaining it historically with reference to its antecedents. Whatever you may think of contemporary analytic Kantians, for example, if you get around to reading them later, ignore them for now.

Try to look for diagrammatic sketches (literally and figuratively) of Kant's architectonic, and try to really get your head around why he thought the transcendental turn was a Copernican one. For example, I understood Kant a lot better once I had read much later transcendental critiques of psychologism, and then read them back onto Kant (to an extent).