system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Is it necessary to read Plato, Aristotle, Aurelius, and other ancient philosophers before reading Kant and Schopenhauer?

I've just started reading Critique of Pure Reason accompanied with reading from plato.stanford.edu. I've almost completed my math degree and think I haven't had difficulty following Kant's philosophy on math. I'd look up terms that I felt need further clarification, such as intuition, on plato.stanford.edu, and then continue on without problem. When I read up on ''a priori'', ''posteriori'' and ''Synthetic a priori'' I felt they made a lot of sense and almost like equivalents to axioms and other math concepts, they felt almost familiar and further clarified my vague ideas of ''the nature of math''.

I'm still impressionable and not that well read, I saw a suggestion somewhere that it's good to read The world as will and idea when one is still impressionable.

I really don't want to misinterpret. Will the following experience I had with reading excerpts from Fear and Trembling about two years ago give some indication of the likelihood I have with misinterpreting philosophy? I remember reading the binding of Isaac and understood it as--there is no earthly reason that could justify killing Isaac because all reasons given are absolutely horrible (I had encountered people giving reasons of why binding of Isaac and Psalm 137:9 were ok and remember thinking them so immoral, which contributed to my going through a rebellious atheist phase). Trying to justify with reason such action is inherently corrupt and thus reasoning must be discarded entirely and hence the leap of faith.


Sorry for my rambling. I really want to consume a broad range of philosophy properly but want to start with Kant and Schopenhauer because my interest is piqued towards them. I don't want to end up a ''bad philosopher'' and feel could easily become as such if not careful.
gpt
I'll never argue against reading the ancients, but to get more out of Kant it is perhaps better to read his more immediate predecessors, who constitute the context in which he was writing (e.g. Hume, Descartes).