Who's works should I read before reading Kant,Hume, Spinoza

I'm not Deleuze's most dutiful scholar, but I think it's safe to say to advise you not to go through all of this effort just to read Deleuze's thoughts on art in their "proper framework".
Just read them now and enjoy/understand what you can and want, then work, methodically and in your own time, through everything you find to be connected to the man's name, then read them again.

Rather you should read backwards, read Deleuze then Spinoza.

>>9373126
>Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation
I tried reading it from a layman's perspective. One of the hardest books i've ever read. I went back to Robert Hughes and Andrew Dixon within 2 days.

You should read the Bible.

>>9373151

thanks!

I should have maybe prefaced my post by saying, aside from the long term goal, I wouldn't mind reading some of the big boys just for fun/understanding. i.e I wouldn't mind getting into philosophy a little bit out of interest

Besides, I know that my upper level theory courses will be touching upon post-structuralism and I wouldn't mind some pre-coursers.

>>9373185
Wasn't trying to discourage you mate, I'm more than happy about people wanting to get into philosophy - I was just a bit perplexed about the itinerary you proposed for yourself, given your aim of reading his writings on art. If you mean to read more on more on the topic and/or subject in general, do please go ahead and read Spinoza and Nietzsche, at least. As much as you can indict their philosophies of lifestyle-ism, I can hardly think of authors that made me live better and, which is more important, feel like I have an ever-changing, always evolving grasp of that ephemeral network of relationships that is life/reality/the world.

If you read them, I also recommend Carlos Castaned on the side

>>9373216

oh no I'm a total philosophy virgin so any advice, no matter how grim, is totally cool. Can I just pick up Spinoza and Nietzsche or are their authors I should tackle first?

>>9373242
Well, you could (and probably profit from the venture) but your effort would probably be solipsistic in the end - without a passing knowledge of the conceptual and socio-cultural framework in which those authors operated, the ideas of those who influenced them, etc., you would probably be left with a few (admittedly, very persuasive) "self-help"-ish scraps and a very vague idea of why those people and writings mattered as much as they did and do.

For what's worth, I'd recommend following a course on the history of philosophy (even the most basic one) and/or reading a textbook on the subject, alongside reading whatever catches your attention in the field. Don't worry about "spoiling yourself" by reading a Renaissance text now rather than after the Scholastics, you'll always have the chance to come back to it - perhaps, with the added bonus on reflecting on the changes to your intepretation of it. Good luck in your endeavours, anon!

>>9373297

ok thanks for the advice. I don't really have space in my course list to take philosophy but I'll go to the library and pick up some survey books on philosophy.

Almost sounds like you're gently implying that I should "start with the greeks" hahaha

>>9373323
I am, though it's more because of my high school (Italy, we had Latin, Ancient Greek and Philosophy as core courses) than because of a cogent necessity - if we don't look at timelines, that is.

Anyway, do with the subject whatever you want! If you don't feel like reading a textbook, jump to what catches your attention instead, than work your way organically around the text/topic. Memes are memes for a reason, not because they're worthwhile guides to existence and knowledge.