.

Does anyone have any good Kant reading recommendations? I’ve read the very short introduction of Kant and would love something that goes deeper and explains more but I can’t handle the original critique of pure reason yet, I’ve tried over and over and the writing for me at this moment is too opaque.

He'd be a liability tbh, probably be a rat too if he got pinched. The guy was so meticulous about his schedules and routines that you'd know where to find him and if he'd give up a whole operation if questioned

Does anybody have the original text. I'm looking for the one as presented in the Akademie edition:

Kant, Immanuel: Gesammelte Schriften Hrsg.: Bd. 1–22 Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. 23 Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, ab Bd. 24 Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Berlin 1900ff.

So I just joined this group but have been privately making my way through the western and eastern canons of philosophy and I've found the critiques of pure reason and Judgement of Kant's to be the most agreeable in terms of how understanding and judgement arise and act, so-to-speak. One text i find myself coming back to while I read Kant is the Theaetetus of Plato. Lets say you were to set up a class teaching philosophy based on Kant's works and Plato's works, in particular The Theaetetus. How would you go about structuring said class? I ask this because while i find philosophy fascinating as a study in itself, and find lots of useful things to talk with interested friends and family, I have a hard time trying to formulate(for my own sake) why i find these to be important. If this is off topic or whatnot i apologize.

Maybe, probably, I don’t fully understand the idea of a priori but Kant as well as introductory Book I’m reading using it as an example for a priori knowledge, drives me a bit crazy. I think, I’m getting ahead of myself and should just keep on reading but here I am anyway..

A priori knowledge, as knowledge prior to experience. But in order to use any formal system, whether logic or math, you would have to accept its axiomatic framework first, which requires experience of it. Isn’t it a synthetic a priori at best? What am I not getting here?

Thanks in advance.

Let’s say I’m wanting to be a doctor with the aim of helping people (the “end” will be people’s happiness), and in doing so, I’ve effectively treated some people as means (the college’s admission office, my professors, my study friends, and my employer).

Is this act of helping society considered immoral?

I apologize if this offended anyone as I’m still discovering the concept. Thank you for any inputs.

Trying to read Section 3 of the Groundwork for the first time, already stuck on this sentence lol:

"Since the concept of a causality carries with it that of laws in accordance with which must be posited, through that which we call a cause, something else, namely its result; therefore freedom, even though it is not a quality of the will in accordance with natural laws, is not for this reason lawless, but rather it has to be a causality in accordance with unchangeable laws, but of a particular kind; for otherwise a free will would be an impossibility"

What is he saying

I dont understand the concept you can never truly understand the thing in itself. I am trying to understand this concept. Is it because the subject perceives it so we have our limitations? Am I entirely off base? I feel like I am missing a few pieces to truly undertand his philosophy and how it differs from Hume.

Thanks in advance.