How important is it for understanding Kant?
>>23620197asking because Baumgarten seems underappreciated and Kant from my understanding was influenced by him
>>23620197it helps and it's kino af. it's a good read in it's own right.
Its good, might as well read it because its significantly easier than Kant and I can see how it influenced him
>>23620197Not at all. People who matter for Kant are Plato, Newton, Leibniz, Euler, Hume. Kant quite explicitly says that he thinks all Leibniz epigones were dumb faggots and distorted Leibniz's true philosophy (he's right).
>>23620639stfu Kant calls Wolf the greatest dogmatic philosopher.>In carrying out the plan which the Critique prescribes, that is, in the future system of metaphysics, we must have recourse to the strict method of the celebrated Wolf, the greatest of all dogmatic philosophers.
>>23620197It's the textbook he taught from as a lecturer. If you want to read Kant's lectures you should have a copy of it.
>>23620664Sure, you could add du Chatelet and Wolff to the list. But Wolff doesn't go beyond Leibniz in any significant way. Kant praises him for his precise deductive method in his textbooks (he wrote a dozen) in the passage you quote. Kant was also fond of Wolff's logic apparently.
>>23620639>>23620761Where to start with Leibniz?
>>23620780Monadology, New Essays, debate with Clarke, debate with Bayle, Discourse on Metaphysics seem the most significant if you want to study the relation of Leibniz to Kant
