I want to read Kant but this is way too high IQ for meIs there some baby version of Kant?
>>25387706No. Every single "Kantian" book absolutely butchers Kant. You also can't read the Prolegomena until after you read the Critique of Pure Reason. Actually, you should not be permitted to read ANY philosophy until after you read the Critique of pure reason.
>>25387706Reading Kant makes me want to fall asleep. Is there a good secondary source around 500 pages long that will cover most of what is relevant from Kant?
>>25387710Please tell me how will durant got it wrong?
>>25387715Beiser's German Idealism is good.It also explains the different interpretations of Kant that dominated. Kant as a subjectivist was popular among British philosophers which might be what >>25387710 is suggesting.
>>25387706Leviticus 19:18 is pretty much all you need to know about Kant condensed to one sentence
>>25387706He's basically saying that things can't be known as themselves which split philosophy into two schools. The analytical team said reason still matters and the continental team said there are structures outside reason. He also throws this deontoligical argument that moral imperatives should be held through duty not obligation/reason.He's ridiculously hard to read like Hagel or Derrida.
