Book · 1781
Critique of Pure Reason
by Immanuel Kant
The book a supervillain's aide reads for fun in Superman III, and the one r/askphilosophy treats as the actual prerequisite.
What does Reddit think of Critique of Pure Reason?
r/askphilosophy supplies the overwhelming share of the corpus here, and the book functions there as an assumed fact of the discipline, not a recommendation anyone argues for. The Superman III anecdote (↑218), a reviewer of Kant's biography opening with a scene of a supervillain's aide reading Critique of Pure Reason for fun, gets cited as the joke everyone in the field already knows. The 'longest single sentence ever published' claim (↑94) is offered as trivia, not complaint, alongside a warning to avoid whatever's harder in later continental philosophy. One thread (↑118) splits the book into two textures: the preface, readable, diagnosing the 'sorry state of metaphysics,' and the main text, dry and technical once you're past it. A more technical citation (↑120) goes straight at the Paralogisms section and Kant's specific objection to the Cartesian cogito. r/philosophy, a smaller share, treats the tabula rasa argument as settled two centuries late (↑185). Enjoyable isn't a word anyone reaches for. Necessary comes up more than once.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · r/askphilosophy's default hard-text answer
- · preface readable, body dense
- · the Paralogisms versus Descartes' cogito
- · Superman III as an inside joke
Common praise
- + The 'longest sentence ever published' trivia (↑94) is offered with obvious affection, not as a complaint.
- + One commenter (↑118) singles out the preface as genuinely readable, Kant diagnosing 'the sorry state of metaphysics' before the technical grind starts.
- + A technical citation (↑120) engages the Paralogisms section directly, treating Kant's objection to Descartes' cogito as worth arguing with, not just name-dropping.
Common criticism
- − The same preface-praising commenter (↑118) calls everything past the introduction 'dry and technical.'
- − One reader (↑94) recommends avoiding whatever's harder in later continental philosophy, implying this already sits near the ceiling of tolerable difficulty.
Who it's for
Ask r/askphilosophy anything about metaphysics and this comes up as the assumed prerequisite, not an option among several. Want the accessible version first? Read the preface, one commenter says it's the readable part where Kant diagnoses 'the sorry state of metaphysics' before things get technical. Chasing the Descartes-versus-Kant debate specifically? The Paralogisms section is where that argument actually happens, per a citation that goes straight at it. Not a philosophy student? The Superman III joke about a supervillain's aide reading this for fun exists because everyone already knows the reputation.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for Critique of Pure Reason?
The most relevant excerpts across the subreddits where this book is mentioned — opinionated, argued takes first, then top-upvoted mentions. Click through to read the full thread.
“Simon Blackburn (Cambridge) opened a review of Kant: A Biography by commenting on this scene: >There is a scene in the film Superman III in which Lorelei Ambrosia, the blonde bombshell, is secretly reading Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. “But…
“Wait, I thought it was Immanuel Kant that tore down John Locke's tabula rasa with his Critique of Pure Reason in 1700s. You are telling me it took philosophers almost 200 years to accept that view to mainstream?
“This is absolutely normal. You are reading, while learning history of philosophy, week after week, month after month some of the brightest people in history, whose arguments shaped our world. Arguments they developed their whole life. Remember, Kant was 46 and already well known and influential prof…
“> After hearing that and then reading their works, my mind is automatically set on just reading what they say and agreeing with it Part of the problem is that you have been taught to read this way. Primary education is set up to present you with a bunch of narratives about how things work, and you…
“Here's a bit taken from the Introduction to the Cambrdige Edition of the *Critique of Pure Reason*: > The book is complex, however, not just because of the complexity of Kant's own position, but also because he argues on several fronts against several different alternative positions represented in…
“Kant objects to the argument in the _Critique of Pure Reason_’s “Paralogisms”, but the nature of his criticism is pretty obscure. One line of criticism (not sure who it’s due to, though sometimes Kant gets the credit) is that the argument “I think, therefore there is thinking” is valid, but “I thin…
“The preface to the Critique of Pure Reason is much more readable than the meat of the book - he paints a broad picture of what he sees as the sorry state of metaphysics. By the time you get past the introduction, the book it much more dry and technical. Having said that, Kant definitely knows hot t…
“A pretty common answer here is Kant's *Critique of Pure Reason*. The English translations contain the longest single sentence ever published (or, at least did at one point). But I would bet there is some more difficult stuff in later continental philosophy. I just avoid it. If you cannot write in a…
“Critique of Pure Reason is a very challenging ready. But, that doesn’t mean you need to have a background oj philosophy to read it. Give it a shot.
“The Critique of Pure Reason is among the most influential books in the entire history of philosophy, it is absolutely insightful and of huge value. That being said, if you are reading it directly with insufficient context/background knowledge/philosophical education it would be entirely understanda…
“German idealism is the movement of German philosophy which roughly begins with Kant's *Critique of Pure Reason* in 1781, and culminates in the later works of Hegel and Schelling. Kant's work was revolutionary for how it claimed that, while the world does exist objectively and outside of us, the *sub…
“This question is one of the themes of Kant's masterwork Critique of Pure Reason. One of the reasons he made it is because there was a prevailing view in Philosophy that knowledge, as you state in your post, consisted of either empirically tested phenomena or mathematical judgments (look up Hume's th…
“It's most likely ignorance of terminology (Kant's style is EXTREMELY technical). First of all, drop the first Critique and read the Prologomena instead (it's an easier, somewhat abridged version of CPR, which will get you used to his style). Secondly, read his Lectures on Logic. It will clear thin…
“I would add Hegel's Phenomenology of Geist/Spirit (PhG) The Critique of Pure Reason (KrV) has a certain reputation, but at least the first section (The Transcendental Aesthetic, TA) is rather clear and direct. I admit that the following sections are more complicated, but the TA already contains an…
“I'm very excited for you to get acquainted with the phenomenologists. Here would be my process if I could go back and do it all again for the first time: Start with Kant, not because he coined the term (that title goes to Lambert), but because Husserl and Heidegger directly responded to Kant's phil…
Convinced? Pick up Critique of Pure Reason
Readers also mention
Books that share discussion threads with Critique of Pure Reason — counted from the comments, not curated.
Guides featuring Critique of Pure Reason
Ranked best-of lists and editorial guides where this book's tracked mentions place it.
Critique of Pure Reason — frequently asked
Why does Critique of Pure Reason keep coming up in a Superman III joke on Reddit?+
Because a philosopher used it first. The top r/askphilosophy citation (↑218) is from a review of a Kant biography that opens by referencing a scene in Superman III where a character reads Critique of Pure Reason for fun, a joke about the book's reputation for difficulty the subreddit treats as common knowledge.
Is Critique of Pure Reason really that hard to read?+
By reputation, yes. One commenter (↑94) claims the English translations contain 'the longest single sentence ever published,' offered as color rather than complaint. Another (↑118) splits the book in two: an accessible preface, then 'dry and technical' once Kant gets into the actual argument.
Does Critique of Pure Reason directly respond to Descartes?+
In the Paralogisms section, yes. One technical r/askphilosophy answer (↑120) describes Kant's specific objection there to the 'I think, therefore I am' argument, distinguishing valid thinking-in-general from the stronger claim of a persisting self.
Should I read Critique of Pure Reason if I'm new to philosophy?+
The sample doesn't recommend it as a starting point. One commenter (↑125) frames reading it as difficult even for people already deep in the history of philosophy, and another (↑123) argues most readers haven't been taught to read critically enough for it in the first place. Start elsewhere and arrive here later.