What is prerequisite reading before starting adventure with Kant?

I'm attempting it right now and while I can't point to any one thing I read, it became about 5x easier once everything that Kant is responding against finally clicked in my mind

So many passages were orders of magnitude more obtuse before I realised that the reason he seems to be harping on some aspect of his argumentation so repetitively is that it's completely contrary to Hume and Locke, or to contemporary assumptions. It was a tangible difference. Before, I felt like I was constantly groping, but not it's relatively easy, aside from the parts where he's notoriously obscure and even the commentaries are at a loss sometimes.

Like I said I can't point to any one thing. But definitely do your background reading. Not to the point of killing though either, because then it becomes too monolithic and you end up dropping it.

>>8411978
Sorry for the ironic incoherence of this post.

>not it's relatively easy = now it's relatively easy
>not to the point of killing though = not to the point of killing yourself though

The main thing really is that he's incredibly repetitive and often entire sections of the Critique will leave you wondering how they tie in. As long as you can always get your bearings, like "okay he's railing against the impossibility of concept-formation by mere association of perceptions AGAIN!", it goes a lot smoother.

Hume - you can read the treatise or the enquiry concerning human understanding
Descartes - Meditations

you can pretty much get by with just that; Kant defines all the special terms he uses so it's not an impossible task to follow him with not much precursors, you just want to get an idea of the sort of traditions of thought he's responding to.

Hume mostly. Obviously the Geeks.