I'm interested in reading Kant. What are the required readings

>>9700343
>and was able to grasp Kant no problem
Debatable

You've read Second Alcibiades little faggot? You've read Rival Lovers you piece of shit?

>>9700351
Prove these are by Plato, faggot

>>9700343

I've only read a very scant bit of Kant (the prolegomena) but I did take a university course which /set us up to be able to read Kant/, if that makes any sense. I will reiterate the gist of what the course told us.

What you really need to get Kant are the moderns who come just before him, which fall into two schools: the Rationalists (Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza etc) and the Empiricists (Hume, Locke, Berkeley etc). There is a disagreement between the two strains of thought that the groups represent which goes to epistimology: can you know things /a priori/ (mathematical statements, say), or do you need "real-world experience" of some kind, or something like it. A large part of Kant's project is reconciling these two schools, which is why it's important to know the differences before you go in.

I would suggest that if you read works by a good 3-5 of the above, especially juxtaposing their differing views for your own understanding, then you're in a good position to read some Kant and get something out of it.

>>9700383
Thanks, anon.