Kants ideas are best delivered by philosophy professors that spend years pouring over his work not just because its deep but because it’s impossible to understand. Hours of reading and rereading may leave you more confused than where you started. Do your self a favor and have some alternative materials like spark notes open on the side.

Wow, this is dense. I'm laughing because I remember several television shows where Immanuel Kant's name was thrown around like everyone was reading pretentious philosophy books in their spare time and ::stares directly at the camera:: after reading this, I can tell you they were not. As far as this work is concerned, the first chapter about knowledge is super boring. Once I got further into the book, it was a little easier to parse. I can't say this will be a favorite of the year, but I gave it a shot and am happy I did.

I can’t give this less than a three, because the ideologies in this book are foundational to almost any kind of modern thought (whether they’re born out of alliance with or opposition to Kant).
However, I don’t know if it’s a translation I read or Kant himself, but some of this is unreadable until you sit with it for a while. That could be considered good or bad depending on what you think philosophical writing should do to the reader, but personally I’m miffed about it and I’m going to be pouty since Kant can’t do anything about it.
And as the categorical imperative would suggest, you ought not berate me unless you’re feeling up to a bit of berating yourself

I found this to be a pretty accessible first reading of Kant. The ideas are complex but he approaches them in a straightforward way. It contains some of the more well-known bits from Kant’s moral philosophy. Namely, the multiple categorical imperatives he believes provide the ground for all moral action. Some of the things I found most interesting were his ideas about rational beings laying down universal law through their actions. I may be way off base but I do wonder if those concepts could be used in an anarchic political philosophy. But I will have to think more on that.

It was funny reading this book after reading Deleuze and Guattari’s “What Is Philosophy”. I feel like I understand a little better what they mean in their distinction between immanent and transcendent planes.

3.5/5

3.5 stars. This is definitely a book you need to read twice to understand it, and I only had the patience to get through it once. The parts I understood were great though and there's a reason Kant's writings are still relevant today.

A more accessible piece of philosophy. Mostly moral philosophy, Deontological (moral law, moral duty), formulates categorical imperative something is moral if it can be universally applied. An action is moral only if every one should follow its precepts namely any permissible action or obligation is that applies to everyone. It is rather simple and opposed by the utilitarian camp. I don't know moral philosophy is my least favorite branch of philosophy and not my strong suit. I kind of muddle through and feel an affront of moral imposition from moral philosophy. Dude don't try to manipulate me into an action I don't want to do.