Where to start with Kant? I have only rudimentary knowledge of

>>8596359
Kant a shit. Nietzsche too. Just go for 'Hauer.

But if you wanna have some light Kant, go with Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime, and you'lle see why Kant a shit.

As for 'Hauer, I'd say Parerga and Paralipomena is his most important work.

And if you wanna go through Nietzsche... well, I guess we all go through that phase. It's universally understood that, when it comes to Nietzsche, you start with Zarathustra.

Use Stanford Encyclopedia and the IEP instead of Wikipedia

Read Guyer's introduction to the new Cambridge authoritative translation of the first Critique

Read up on Humean and Lockean epistemology a little, or just read their actual essays

Read up a little (Guyer's introduction will help) on Kant's earlier work, especially Leibniz

The real key to understanding Kant well is having the "click" moment of understanding his problematic, and having some training wheels to guide you through his odd language and the odd way he sets up his enterprise. The latter is always tricky and clunky, and there are many points at which Kant is simply contentious or vague even today, but if you have that "click" of at least understanding what he's trying to do, you have firm ground to stand on.

In addition to Guyer's books there are some good books on how to approach Kant. I think in the same series as Guyer there is a Cambridge Companion to Kant, plus a Cambridge Companion to the first critique, broken up into separate essays. I'd start with the introduction and the Stanford+IEP articles, and see if you feel confident.

>>8596381
I don't read translations I am German and speak German English and I can read Latin and ancient Greek at least I used too.
I meant the /lit/ wiki but I will check the Stanford Encyclopedia out.
Thank you

>>8596386
The technique that Guyer uses for collating the A and B texts of the first Critique is actually a German innovation, but there are many more German editions. You might want to do a bit of research into which German edition is authoritative.

No idea what the best intro stuff would be in German tho. Probably lots more of it, but lots more redundancy as well.

>>8596374
kys

>>8596464
lmao

>>8596374
You need an understanding of Kant to appreciate what Schopenhauer is doing, dummy.

>>8596359
why read kant when you've only read the greeks? At least read some romans, then try some enlightenment thinkers, then the empiricists, and then you can get to the 18th century for kant

>>8596374
>'Hauer
...That's not how it works.

>>8596374
>Kant a shit. Nietzsche too. Just go for 'Hauer.

Jesus christ. This is what happens when people treat philosophers like memes. Kant is fundamental to modern philosphy, you can't just skip him. You can of course disagree with Kant but to be in a position to do that, you need to read a LOT of kant.

To OP, there's a short essay "what is enlightment" - it gives some historical context on his work and is a good primer. Then I recommend the groundwork of the metyphysics of morals, it's less abstract than some of his other work and the categorical imperative is something that will probably be familiar to you since it's so ingrained in our culture.

>>8597114
To add, since you are german "Kant leicht gemacht" is pretty good. I recommend just diving in the primary texts though to get a feel for his weird language and way of arguing, you're going to have to read him multiple times anyways.

>>8596464
no kog ban hehe xd

>>8596359
What you are asking is a bit like asking what Platonic dialogs you should read in the original Greek if you don't already read Greek. What I mean is, you need to get a background rudimentary education in phenomenology and metaphysics before you try to read Kant. Once you do that, I would start with the Critique of Pure Reason. Companion texts are always helpful, but don't just get one.

>>8596359
>Reading Kant without reading Hume

Don't even bother, mate.