What should I read from Hume before reading The Critique

His short most famous work

>>9111665
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

>>9111665
enquiry concerning human nature is more concise and clearer than treatise but treatise is more comprehensive. I'm actually reading critique of pure reason right now and refer back to hume frequently, so it's not like you'll be finished with him regardless. I'd also recommend at the very least the first twenty or so pages of prolegomena because kant really summarizes his project well including the whole synthetic/analytic distinctions.

>>9111665
Nobody should bother reading that fat fuck

File: 30th-january-1649-the-execution-of-charles-i-king-of-great-britain-in-picture-id51242795.jpg (827KB, 1024x783px) Image search: [Google]

827KB, 1024x783px

>>9111665
History of Great Britain

>>9111665
desu you should also really read Descartes, Locke, and Leibniz before reading Hume if you haven't.

I've decided to read Aristotle instead. Fuck all of these modern faggots.

>>9111900
aristotle is impossible to understand. just fyi

>>9111900
thomas carlyle is the only scttish philosopher worth his salt

>>9111904
only if you're stupid

>>9111665
>reading bong philosophers

Just the SEP article. Fucking skip Hume altogether and read you some good ol' fashion Aristotle and Scholastic theology. Then make sure you start with Kant's PROLEGOMENON.

Descartes

>>9112410
Never post advice again, you insuferable blockhead. Hume is THE philosopher to study closely if you desire to make sense of either the prolegomenon or the cpr. Any reader of average intelligence who actually read one or both works must notice this.