The Critique of Practical Reason cover art

The Critique of Practical Reason

Preview

Audible Standard 30-day free trial

Try Standard free
Select 1 audiobook a month from our entire collection.
Listen to your selected audiobooks as long as you're a member.
Get unlimited access to bingeable podcasts.
Standard auto renews for £5.99 a month after 30 days. Cancel anytime.

The Critique of Practical Reason

By: Immanuel Kant
Narrated by: Brian Troxell
Try Standard free

£5.99 a month after 30 days. Cancel anytime.

Buy Now for £12.83

Buy Now for £12.83

About this listen

This seminal text in the history of moral philosophy elaborates the basic themes of Kant's moral theory, gives the most complete statement of his highly original theory of freedom of the will, and develops his practical metaphysics. This new edition, prepared by an acclaimed translator and scholar of Kant's practical philosophy, presents the first new translation of the work to appear for many years, together with a substantial and lucid introduction.

Public Domain (P)2012 Audible, Inc.
Ethics & Morality Philosophy Metaphysical Morality

Editor reviews

Listeners may find themselves nodding along in understanding as they listen to narrator Brian Troxell's emphatic performance of Immanual Kant's seminal text on moral philosophy. Troxell infuses his narration with dynamic energy, and his voice has a familiar quality that makes Kant's theory on morality feel unintimidating. Positioned between the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Judgment, the Critique of Practical Reason aims to prove the truth of Christianity by establishing the immortality of the soul and the existence of God. Its account of the authority of moral principles based on human autonomy provides the key to Kant's philosophical system.

All stars
Most relevant
I went into Critique of Practical Reason expecting something intimidating, dry, and possibly designed to punish me for my sins. Instead I got something surprisingly readable, often elegant, and then gradually more and more strange. I listened with speed set to 0.7.

The first chaoters are genuinely strong. Kant builds a clean argument: if free will exists, it cannot be governed by natural causation, otherwise it would not be free at all. So free will must legislate laws for itself. Moral law, if it is to be moral, must therefore be universal and rational. Happiness, pleasure, inclination, even empathy fail as foundations, because they are subjective, variable, and conflict-prone. Up to this point, everything hangs together. I found myself rewinding sections not because they were unclear, but because I wanted to check whether I really agreed. That’s a good sign.

Then things start to wobble.

Kant becomes obsessed with purity. Moral reason must be completely insulated from the empirical world: time, psychology, emotion. To make this work, he introduces duty and “respect for the moral law,” which he insists is not an emotion, while treating it very much like one, just bleached enough to pass inspection. My eyebrow went up. It stayed there.

From there, God and immortality enter the picture. Not as things Kant claims to prove, but as things we must assume for practical reasons, otherwise morality would lose coherence. He repeats many times that this is not theology. Technically, he’s right. Structurally, it feels like theology sneaking in through the service entrance.
What bothered me most is not that Kant is wrong, but that he solves problems by quarantining them. Morality is saved by removing it from lived human psychology. Reason is made powerful by making it almost mathematical. Anything messy gets pushed into another category. The result is impressive, but brittle. Pure morality survives, but only by becoming strangely inhuman.

I also noticed that he wrestles with the same split that has haunted philosophy for centuries: pure versus empirical, body versus soul, physical versus consciousness. The split is relocated, but it’s still the same split.

That said, I enjoyed this book far more than I expected. Kant is sharp, disciplined, and often genuinely insightful. Disagreeing with him was half the fun. Reading him without prior commentary was especially satisfying. More than once I had to rewind to check whether I followed his long chains of reasoning correctly. Noticing problems on my own before learning that others noticed them too felt like intellectual cardio.

Verdict:
A fascinating, frustrating, often brilliant attempt to make morality as pure as geometry. Worth reading, even if you end up arguing with it while cleaning your bathroom or jogging, as I did. Possibly especially then.

Intresting.

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.