LOL, I agree BTW. You probaby shouldn’t read Kant if you already have LW, unless you are interested in the history of philosophy for its own sake.
But Kant isn’t meaningless. The guy really was quite competent, and well read. And if nothing else, it is to his credit that he nearly created boolean logic in his formal terminology for logic. Read Kant’s logic, and you will find almost every inference you can derive from boole, and rules for how to combine these inferences. His logic is the closest thing I’ve seen to formal logic before formal logic, and that was about a century before boole; that’s at least worth mention.
Public service announcement: don’t read Kant.
Implicit in your statement is that Kant can be read.
LOL, I agree BTW. You probaby shouldn’t read Kant if you already have LW, unless you are interested in the history of philosophy for its own sake.
But Kant isn’t meaningless. The guy really was quite competent, and well read. And if nothing else, it is to his credit that he nearly created boolean logic in his formal terminology for logic. Read Kant’s logic, and you will find almost every inference you can derive from boole, and rules for how to combine these inferences. His logic is the closest thing I’ve seen to formal logic before formal logic, and that was about a century before boole; that’s at least worth mention.