So /lit/, how can i get into Kant? I really want to dig in but i feel like a certain bagage is needed.
holy shit why is /lit/ like 50% people who just need to attend an introductory philosophy class
you think you're too smart to just do the primitive stuff, but if you just browsed your college's lecture catalog and visited half the lectures, you'd be twice as smart as you are now
just stop looking for ways to get something for nothing
>>7969040
how much you guys wanna bet this pathetic faggot hasn't even read Kant?
>>7969046
I really just want to get into Kant. It is like a trigger to /lit/
>>7969040
>Kant
>introductory
Also, your post makes no sense
WHY DONT YOU FAGGOTS GO TO A PHILOSOPHY SCHOOL INSTEAD OF DOING THESE DUMB QUESTIONS EVERYDAY
>>7969014
Read this: http://uwch-4.humanities.washington.edu/Tautegory/EBOOKS/KANT/CAMBRIDGE-EDITION/Secondary/Kant's%20Transcentendal%20Idealism_An%20Interpretation%20and%20Defense%20(YUP%202004)%20-%20H.E.%20Allison.pdf
Start with the Greeks. Seriously. Then work your way up until you reach Kant. All of this is gonna take an assload of time, and even then Kant will still be confusing.
Kant is a famously dry and hard read, you're better off reading stuff about Kant, rather than Kant himself.
>>7969208
>and even then Kant will still be confusing.
nah yur just stoopid :p
Try this
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub
Kant: A Guide For the Perplexed, pirateable on libgen
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#Rel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc9Q3TBFMFs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7n9Vs6m-fA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV6mArm3LPY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pssT4ggyF20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR-syCO7kCU
http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantview/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/kandmind/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantaest/
For context you'll want to know
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/
>>7969254
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.
>>7969014
Read:
Aristotle
Descartes
Spinoza
Leibniz
Locke
Berkeley
Hume
Reid
then Kant
>>7969254
Not OP, but this YouTube series seems amazing. Thanks man.
>>7969591
No Plato?
>>7969620
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
>>7969636
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
>>7969645
All right, in that case I'll probably just go through it whimsically rather than chronologically.
>>7969160
I don't know how you're reading the post, but Kant was never implied to be introductory.
>>7969014
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
>>7969014
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.
>>7969014
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.
>>7970065
Jesus Christ what the fuck
>>7969014
https://www.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.
>>7970792
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.
>>7970536
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.
