Does the categorical imperative add any meaningful insight, or was Kant just a prig whose pretentious pontifications on morality and ethics remains an unquestioned divinity by weak-chinned academics?
I understand how you would feel that Kant’s, and other philosophers’ writings, are obscure and tend to complicate basic and simple ideas. When philosophy becomes a system of language, with its own definitions, based on other definitions in that system itself, it becomes cloudy, plodding, and hair-splitting. The passion that lies behind the questions about the meaning of life, death, and human interactions get lost in quibbling over the exactitude of terms. And then philosophy loses its blood and guts. It becomes an academic exercise that does not speak to the heart.
I sat through many a philosophy class in which the professor would make statements, such as, “That depends on what your definition of “is” is.” The rest of the class would be arguments about definition of terms. Yet behind Kant’s obscurantism, lies the passion of a heart that was burning for answers. He may not have seen that his language creates a smoke screen that is sometimes difficult to penetrate.