Is this enough prep before tacking Kant's first Critique?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

sqapo.com/kant.htm
philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/conant/Analytic Kantianism.pdf.
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

just give up

These threads are so stupid. You're doing anything you can to put off reading the Critique. Just read the fucking critique already, you're going to have to re-read the fucking thing a few times anyway.

Why would I read the CPR with no background knowledge of what Kant's critiquing?

Its like telling someone to read an advanced microeconomics textbook without knowing the basics of economics.

sqapo.com/kant.htm

Can't philosophy just be reduced like this?

you'll definitely be prepared if you read all these. You could just honestly read Descartes and Hume and get a contemporary companion for the critique and be straight. I recommend routledge's guide as well as cambrides. I would even recommend reading the cambridge guide right now because it helps situate a reading-between-the-lines of the rationalist and empiricist project which you wouldn't see by yourself as a novice.

Also these are some really great essays on Kants contributions to analytic philosophy: philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/conant/Analytic Kantianism.pdf.

Brandom's explanation of Kants semantic turn really helped me understand the project on an analytic level. But its also important to keep in mind Kants importance in shaping the subject for the future of continental philosophy

Don't reply to a small thinker, he can't see further than what looks to him like someone putting off reading a book. The fact you're reading something else instead is beyond his comprehension.

Yes, it's definitely advisable to read these before getting to Kant.
None of these are very long, so it shouldn't be too bad.
Also, you should throw Spinoza's Ethics in there to get a better picture of Modern philosophy leading up to Kant.

Read Aristotle's Organon first of all.

Read the books in your pic in their publication order.

After those you can read

Kant's Lectures on Logic, and Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics

Then you are ready for the CPR.

Spinoza is useless

>hurr durr argument by analogy

start with the greeks

This is absurdly inefficient. You haven't read any of these have you

Yes. Same goes for literature. Just read the sparknotes for Ulysses it was amazing.

This. Just fucking read it. Kierkecuck started with fucking HEGEL.

>Having to re-read the Critique.

Does Kant not repeat himself enough for you? lol

Get the Cambridge Edition and read the intro. That's it.

Shit is not that complicated.

Kant isn't even engaging primarily with anyone aside from Hume and the forgotten metaphysicians that were floating around Prussia at the time.

I seriously hope you're not paying those prices for public domain writings. You'll probably find copies of these at any moderately sized used bookstore for a couple dollars each.

And they're entirely free online.

>the forgotten metaphysicians that were floating around Prussia at the time.
like

He tells you what he's critiquing. He references Locke and Hume by name plenty of times.

Yeah OP this is honestly overkill preparation. We all come from our own idiosyncratic background, so I don't know what you're into, but honestly the Critique isn't as bad as people make it out - especially with how well organized modern editions are. My favorite is the Pluhar translation through Hackett, so definitely get that. It's really well divvied up. Read the introduction, then also read the introduction to the Mieklejohn translation for some good historical contextualization. That should be enough honestly.

Illiterate or amnesiac or ignorant or trolling or some combination of the above.

Didn't Kant say that he was heavily influenced by Rousseau? You should probably throw him in there too.

You pretty much just need to read Plato and Epicurus, listen to Leo Strauss's lectures on Hegel and Kant that are on the leo strauss university of chicago page website, he explains Kant really well.

these threads are dumb but this is the dumbest post holy fucking shit
>what do you mean "do I need a hammer to get this nail in the wall" just beat it in with your fist or something you pussy

There's really no reason to read anything more than Leibniz and Hume (though read book 1 of his treatise on human nature instead). Kant himself cites Plato by name far more than Locke, Berkeley, or Descartes.

A certified Kant scholar made this one

Hell, Kant cites NEWTON by name more than Berkeley, Locke, and Descartes. Hume and Leibniz are enough to taste the two major strains of his day.

>more than Descartes
hold up there buddy, he directly responds to Descartes' arguments in far more than just a passing way

>efficient
>reading philosophy

pick one

If you have to ask this question, restart with the Greeks.

You can't properly appreciate Leibniz without Spinoza, and Leibniz is very important to read.

You should really have a basic grasp of syllogistic logic, because Kant uses many of its concepts (like ground/consequent, form/content, sorites and prosyllogism) not only in their traditional applications, but as models for his psychology and metaphysics.

Plato's Republic would also be worth preparing with; Socrates' method of isolating the different faculties of the soul seems to anticipate (and influence, I'd guess) Kant's separation of sensibility from understanding from reason. And, perhaps more importantly for an initial study of the first critique, Republic also clearly presents the thesis that by studying pure mathematics, we can approach more closely to transcendent metaphysical knowledge and ready our mind for its attainment; you won't understand Kant without grasping his arguments about what pure mathematics can and can't teach us about metaphysics, and Plato serves as a helpful comparison on this point, especially because Kant explicitly diagnoses Plato as being overconfident and deceived by this very allure of pure mathematics. The section of the Critique of Pure Reason in which Kant introduces this also happens to contain his quite beautiful metaphor of "the dove in flight."