Is it true that I have to read Hume first before I even dare

I'd say a good 10-pages encyclopedia article about Hume is enough, but /lit/bards are gonna get mad at me for that.

If you decide to read some Hume, the Inquiry into human understanding is probably enough, even if you'll only grasp the relation Hume-Kant through one point of view (causality). There are other relevant points of view (regarding the self, morality, etc.), but the Treatise is long and contains a few brilliant pages among hundreds of other pages that can be skipped (if you mainly aim at reading Kant).

>>9232868
It's not 'strictly' necessary, but it is going to make it quite a bit easier to good into Kant if you know your basic early modern empiricism and rationalism, exemplified in Hume/Locke and Descartes/Leibniz. I would say that Hume's inquiry would be sufficient enough.

>>9232967
>>9233138
Thanks guys. Regarding Leibniz & Descartes: which works are must-reads and which works can be safely skipped?

>>9233315
bump

>>9233315
A lot of their works are natural science/math/geometry and can be skipped. I'd say for Descartes you need to read his Discourse on the Method and Meditations on the First Philosophy.

For Leibniz read his Discourse on Metaphysics and The Monadology

>>9233315

Hmm regarding Descartes the Discourse is enough, skip part 5 (it's only about biology), actually only the parts 1 to 3 are essential.

Leibniz likes to write the same ideas all the time (roughly), the Monadology has most of the essential stuff but it's very dense. An edition with footnotes is recommended (otherwise you'll read it in half an hour and think, "so... that was it ?" without probably realizing how demonstrations were conducted etc.). There's a short essay by Leibniz called "The ultimate origin of things", it's not at all "complete" like the Monadology is (I don't think it contains the a priori proof of God), but it's nicer to read and gives a good insight of both his method and ideas.

>>9233518
>>9233524
Thanks again guys.