Alright /lit/ I've put it off long enough but I'm finally gonna dive into this Prussian fuckboy's work tonight and I need some advice. What's the correct order to read his work in and what's the quickest way to read them?
>>7683556
you say things like fuckboy and you want to quickly read Kant, just give up now
>>7683556
>quickly
if you wanna rush through a philosopher you shouldn't even read him you cunt
>>7683556
>Judging someone based off a two sentence long post on a Balinese finger painting forum
I've read all the major enlightenment philosophers before him already. Maybe you could stop being a condescending fuck and be productive.
I had trouble understanding Kant. I started reading the groundworks for the metaphysics of morals but it was confusing. I figure if I read descarte and maybe move up from him to hume and stuff I can understand it I dunno
It depends on what you want to focus on the most. If you want to know about his epistemology and metaphysics, start with the Prolegomena, then read the Critique of Pure Reason (at the very least you should read the first real section, the Transcendental Aesthetic).
If you want to know about his ethical beliefs, start with Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and then move on to the Critique of Practical Reason if you really think you've got it down. If you're too scared of the Critique of Practical Reason, try reading Perpetual Peace and 'On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropic Motives'.
You can read the other stuff in pretty much whatever order you want.
Best secondary source is Paul Guyer's Kant and I heavily suggest reading a summary of Hume's philosophy and also the first two parts of Descartes' Meditations.
>>7683556
you can prolly marathon his books in a couple of hours if you skim the boring parts
>quickest way to read them?
>>7683742
This, most people fail to realize that a majority of what Kant said was in pedantic detail, if you have the meanest intelligence and background OP (and most people in this age already have the necessary background for this book) you can just skim through anything that's boring and finish the most valuable parts of the book in a couple of hours.
Don't even bother reading the Prolegomena, just head to the Critique, the former book is a waste of time, he only wrote it because his colleagues at the time weren't smart enough to understand the Critique on its own.
read hume and maybe even some locke beforehand, otherwise you won't understand it. also thinking that you can 'quickly' read a monolithic philosopher like kant is idiotic
>>7684956
>at the time
>>7683737
This is correct! The Transcendental Aesthetic is difficult to get a handle on at first, but it is infinitely easier to grasp than the Transcendental Analytic. Make to consult secondary sources to make sure you're getting it. CoPR is pretty easy after the Metaphysical Deduction; he just starts taking a shit on Descartes.
Good luck OP!
>>7683556
start with aristotle
>>7686233
Been struggling through the transcendental analytic all day and came on here to take a break - hearing that it gets easier after this is great motivation, thanks anon.
>>7684956
isn't the literal point of philosophy to be pedantic?
