>>8053252
That's why you start with the Greeks you dip

i hope you're reading kant solely for academic purposes

if not, you're really dumb and should kill yourself right now

>>8053252
just read the prologema (Idk what I'm talking about)

>>8053252
You just might be a bit of a dumdum m8, sorry.

>>8053261
Utilitarian scum detected

>>8053252
Good job OP
Once you understand Kant it will be easy to btfo plebs for the rest of your life
Your hard work will pay off

>>8053252
Yesss, I'm finishing up my first run through the Greeks, and during Cato's description of stoicism in Cicero's On the Ends I eventually had to start drawing myself flow charts.

Why Kant OP? I'm starting with ancients and existentialists, and next I was gonna do early Christians and German idealists, but it looks pretty impenetrable

>>8053334
i wanted a challenge, and oh law jezuz did i find one

also, i wanted to read Will and Representation and then Wittgenstein later down the road

though i may go back and read descartes

yeah it's one of my favourite things to do and it's worth it to understand concepts and make better arguments/apply them. the more you read and the more you take notes the easier it will become to do both, so your notes will probably be fewer (especially after you get out of the definitions) and you'll come across less-demanding portions

it's refreshing seeing a thread like this rather than 'what should i read first?' threads. someone actually talking about the process of reading

>>8053305
>thinking utilitarianism is bad
how many 14 years?

>>8053307
>Once you understand Kant it will be easy to btfo plebs for the rest of your life

Until you meet an Aristotelian or Thomist

>>8053398
a lot of people start threads like that just to get the ball rolling.

>>8053383
Seconding this. Often the beginning of a text is the toughest, as you're exposed to new definitions and have to settle into a new subject and/or style.

After that the density will expand/contract as you go on. Even then I always read philosophy slowly: at best I could finish maybe 20 pages per hour of Plato, but for some stuff like metaphysics I was down to 7-8 per hour.

tell you what lads I just kant get into this haha

>>8053252
Yep, it's slow going if you're doing it right. And for Kant it's gonna get a lot worse once he gets into the arguments. One thing sometimes worth doing, though, is reading through a decent amount fairly quickly to get a basic idea of where it's going so you know better what to be focussing on.

If you haven't done much philosophy, I wouldn't recommend starting with Kant. Really easy to burn out that way. If you want to get to him soon just read some Descartes and Hume. Or at least Hume (Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding). They're important background for Kant and a lot better writers.

Or, if you're absolutely set on Kant, I'd recommend starting with the Prolegomena. Maybe also skim some SEP articles.
http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=kant
You might want to check out other secondary literature at some point, too. Here are some recommended books to look at when you get stuck on something: Allison's Kant's Transcendental Idealism, Kemp Smith's commentary, Ewing's commentary, Jonathan Bennett's Kant books, Guyer's Kant and the Claims of Knowledge (maybe the recent Routledge book by him too), Strawson's The Bounds of Sense.

>>8053460
haha

>>8053252
Supposedly Kant writes like a dick so don't get too bothered about it.