system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What are some philosophers that you can approach cold?

Was learning about Kant and kept getting frustrated, so i tried to use supplementary material; but reading on, they say that to understand Kant, you have to understand Leibniz, Locke, and Hume. Reading on some more, to understand them you have to understand Bacon, Descartes, or Spinoza. And to understand them you need to understand Aristotle and the Scholastics, and so on. What philosophy/philosophies can I approach without any need of foundational material? Looking for atypical answers, so not Plato, Marcus Aurelius, or Camus.

Sorry for the very pedestrian question, just curious.

Edit: You guys have been awesome!! I’ve got a pretty good reading list here and a little more confidence to try and keep reading. I appreciate it. And just so it’s here, I reframed the question in the comments; what’s a philosophy where I don’t need to have a specialized taxonomy to engage with it?
gpt
> Was learning about Kant and kept getting frustrated, so i tried to use supplementary material; but reading on, they say that to understand Kant, you have to understand Leibniz, Locke, and Hume. Reading on some more, to understand them you have to understand Bacon, Descartes, or Spinoza. And to understand them you need to understand Aristotle and the Scholastics, and so on.

None of this is true. Just ignore anyone who tells you this.

If you want to read any of these philosophers, read them. If you're looking for natural ways to begin with a particular philosopher, in terms of what to read and what secondary sources might be helpful, just pick the philosopher you want to read and ask about them.