Is it as hard as they say, /lit/?
I think it's a bit dumb for so many people to sing Kant's praises in regards to Western Philosophy, yet never to have read his work or studied his philosophy.
I plan to do just that.
>>8203254
I think Schopenhauer said that so long as you haven't read Kant, you are confined to intellectual infancy.
So you should probably give it a shot.
Is there any necessary prior reading for Kant?
>>8203254
>Is it as hard as they say, /lit/?
No, Kant just couldn't write for shit.
You'll probably have to labour over paragraphs, and even whole pages at a time, to find the kernel of whatever he was trying to say within.
Nor is this a minor undertaking. You don't just say, "I'll spend a week on Kant and his philosophy." Realistically you need weeks/months and, as any serious student of philosophy knows, philosophy is a lifelong pursuit.
>>8203264
Plato, at a stretch.
Otherwise no. By all means, there's plenty of subsequent reading you can do to supplement it; but realistically, the lion's share of Western philosophy merely rides on Plato's/Kant's coattails.
Read Schopenhauer after, then Nietzsche.
I've heard that the Oxford Reader's Companion is really useful if you're having trouble, so maybe pick that up, idk.
>>8203271
>Hume and maybe a bit from Descartes Meditations.
Superfluous.
>>8203274
>if you're having trouble
Shouldn't happen if you have a triple-digit IQ.
>>8203274
Oxford reader isn't very good in this case as it's mostly a collection of articles over topics the critique covers and assumes familiarity with the critique already.
This is better https://www.amazon.com/Kants-Transcendental-Idealism-Interpretation-Defense/dp/0300102666
>>8203276
>Superfluous
He writes directly in response to Hume's ideas most of the time and his conception on the "I" relies heavily on Descartes.
Don't listen to these other guys.
Schopenhauer, in his preface to The World as Will and Representation, specifically warns against any and all second-hand presentations of Kant's ideas - namely on account of all those perfidious Hegelians.
You'll just have to actually do the work yourself.
>>8203265
>No, Kant just couldn't write for shit.
This. Finnegans Wake is more comprehensible than Critique of Pure Reason, as times.
