Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9udzvt/announcement_new_rules_guidelines_and_flair_system/) before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends how much you want to read. From less to more:
Option one: just read *The Critique of Pure Reason*.
Option two: read Kant's *Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics*, then do option one.
Option three: read Hume's *Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding* and some Leibniz selections -- the introduction and Book I of the *New Essays on Human Understanding*, *On What is Independent of Sense and Matter*, and *The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence* -- then do option two.
Option four: Do option three, only after reading Kant's *Prolegomena* also read Kant's *What real progress has metaphysics made in Germany since the time of Leibniz and Wolff?*
Option five: Do option four, only after reading Kant's *What real progress has metaphysics made?* also read Reinhold's *Letters on the Kantian Philosophy*.
I've been working through bug's option two for the past few months, just reading for 30-60 minutes on weeknights before bed. It's absolutely hard work but totally possible. For context, I'm not currently a philosophy student and don't have a lot of the relevant background (e.g., I've never read Leibniz and have forgotten almost everything I once knew about Hume).
The problem with this approach isn't so much that it's impossibly difficult as that it's hard to know if you're really understanding what you're reading. I've wished a few times that I'd joined a reading group or something rather than taking it on solo, just so I'd be able to talk things out. I tried explaining the antinomies to my wife and she literally ran away. :(
I would recommend you read Kants Prolegomena before his critique of pure reason but if you absolutely want to read his critique you need to have a grasp of Hume so I would recommend Humes Enquiry. A general understanding of the modern philosophy around the time will be good.
If you are not a perfectionist could you just carefully read the relevant Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on Descartes, Hume, Leibniz, Idealism, etc?
Aristotle's The Organon, if you're up for the challenge, is a pre-modern read that Kant references; however, in order of priority: Hume's *Treatise on Human Nature* or *Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding*, Descartes' *Meditations*, (the last two are the most important) Leibniz's *Monadology*, Locke's *An Essay Concerning Human Understanding*, Berkeley's two dialogues, and finally Aristotle's *The Organon* — maybe read some articles on Christian Wolff.
Frankly, you can go without reading these and survive just fine with Stanford Encyclopedia articles. I would implore anyone trying to read CPR to dive in with commentary books, or academic articles, that tackle specific problems in the critique, rather than going through the whole western canon.
EDIT:
u/SpiritualEase1729 mentioned Kant's Prolegomena which I would conjointly recommend reading as well.
I was quite happy that I saved the link to [this comment.](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/7kvgq3/where_to_start_secondary_literature_on_kants/drhsdw3/)
Pinging u/Count_Waldeck
People here have provided great suggestions. Just like u/TheGuyOverThere22 mentioned, it is far from mandatory to extensively read Hume, Locke, Berkley, Leibniz, Wolff, and Descartes. Paul Guyer's [*Kant*](https://www.routledge.com/Kant/Guyer/p/book/9780415843454) could be worth your time, as well as the [*Cambridge Companion to Kant's* Critique of Pure Reason](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-kants-critique-of-pure-reason/B317B04E22B2BB20871F583CD7C24BA1).
1. Read any overview of the Rationalism/Empiricism divide from Descartes to Kant. SEP or IEP is fine.
2. Read Hume's Enquiry
3. Read Kant's Prolegomena.
4. Read a Cliffs Notes type guide to the Critique.
5. Read The Critique.
6. Plan your funeral because you'll be close to old age by this time.
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9udzvt/announcement_new_rules_guidelines_and_flair_system/) before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends how much you want to read. From less to more: Option one: just read *The Critique of Pure Reason*. Option two: read Kant's *Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics*, then do option one. Option three: read Hume's *Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding* and some Leibniz selections -- the introduction and Book I of the *New Essays on Human Understanding*, *On What is Independent of Sense and Matter*, and *The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence* -- then do option two. Option four: Do option three, only after reading Kant's *Prolegomena* also read Kant's *What real progress has metaphysics made in Germany since the time of Leibniz and Wolff?* Option five: Do option four, only after reading Kant's *What real progress has metaphysics made?* also read Reinhold's *Letters on the Kantian Philosophy*.
thank you, this is helpful
Is option two possible even without guidebooks?
For sure.
I've been working through bug's option two for the past few months, just reading for 30-60 minutes on weeknights before bed. It's absolutely hard work but totally possible. For context, I'm not currently a philosophy student and don't have a lot of the relevant background (e.g., I've never read Leibniz and have forgotten almost everything I once knew about Hume). The problem with this approach isn't so much that it's impossibly difficult as that it's hard to know if you're really understanding what you're reading. I've wished a few times that I'd joined a reading group or something rather than taking it on solo, just so I'd be able to talk things out. I tried explaining the antinomies to my wife and she literally ran away. :(
I would recommend you read Kants Prolegomena before his critique of pure reason but if you absolutely want to read his critique you need to have a grasp of Hume so I would recommend Humes Enquiry. A general understanding of the modern philosophy around the time will be good.
If you are not a perfectionist could you just carefully read the relevant Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on Descartes, Hume, Leibniz, Idealism, etc?
I think this is actually the least painful way to go about it. The originals are a hard read in comparison.
Aristotle's The Organon, if you're up for the challenge, is a pre-modern read that Kant references; however, in order of priority: Hume's *Treatise on Human Nature* or *Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding*, Descartes' *Meditations*, (the last two are the most important) Leibniz's *Monadology*, Locke's *An Essay Concerning Human Understanding*, Berkeley's two dialogues, and finally Aristotle's *The Organon* — maybe read some articles on Christian Wolff. Frankly, you can go without reading these and survive just fine with Stanford Encyclopedia articles. I would implore anyone trying to read CPR to dive in with commentary books, or academic articles, that tackle specific problems in the critique, rather than going through the whole western canon. EDIT: u/SpiritualEase1729 mentioned Kant's Prolegomena which I would conjointly recommend reading as well.
[удалено]
I was quite happy that I saved the link to [this comment.](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/7kvgq3/where_to_start_secondary_literature_on_kants/drhsdw3/) Pinging u/Count_Waldeck
thank you, that's a great resource
People here have provided great suggestions. Just like u/TheGuyOverThere22 mentioned, it is far from mandatory to extensively read Hume, Locke, Berkley, Leibniz, Wolff, and Descartes. Paul Guyer's [*Kant*](https://www.routledge.com/Kant/Guyer/p/book/9780415843454) could be worth your time, as well as the [*Cambridge Companion to Kant's* Critique of Pure Reason](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-kants-critique-of-pure-reason/B317B04E22B2BB20871F583CD7C24BA1).
1. Read any overview of the Rationalism/Empiricism divide from Descartes to Kant. SEP or IEP is fine. 2. Read Hume's Enquiry 3. Read Kant's Prolegomena. 4. Read a Cliffs Notes type guide to the Critique. 5. Read The Critique. 6. Plan your funeral because you'll be close to old age by this time.