A Commentary to Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason'

Rating:
Summary: An ampliative forrest preceeding an analytical exposition.
Review: Anyone who has read this book in its totality is either a hardcore academic, or simply likes taking forty minutes a page. This kind of work is not to be confused with the light and soapy philosophies that we see in company statements, nor the glib employment of the word used by e-xtraverts on their home pages (my philosophy is...). This book looks, through ampliative means, to bridge the erstwhile gap between the ungrounded claims of arch-Rationalists,such as Liebnitz, who enable the possibility of metaphysics devoid of any 'sensible' checks (in Kants sense), and the dry sobriety of Empiricists such as Hume, whose statements regarding such things as the non a-prioricity of cause and effect; the lack of any necessary logical link between two events, leave us in a permanant probabilistic divide between what is, and what must be. However, take heart, the dry but illuminated Kant, puts man back at the centre of his own universe (and something, we know not what, at the center of man). Reading this book is not a passive activity! Knowledge of other positions in Philosophy is also going to ease the way with this volume. If you have the time and the inclination, you may never switch your brain off again! When people see it on your shelf, just say "Ahh, Hmm", then nod slowly. This way you need not back your self into any difficult conversations! (that's how I do it).

Rating:
Summary: Kemp Smith's Obsession
Review: This commentary is extremely poor for a variety of reasons. First, Kemp Smith is one of the most notable translators of Kant's first Critique. One might think that this would add to the quality of his commentary, but in fact, it significantly detracts from it, as Smith spends pages obsessing over terminological minutiae and frequently misses the forrest for the trees. Second, Smith has something like a documentary hypothesis that governs his interpretation of the first Critique. He tends to think that the Critique is a haphazard collection of notes written by Kant during various periods of his philosophical development which were cobbled together only as late as two decades after being written. Accordingly, whenever he encounters any difficulty interpreting the text, he simply chalks it up to Kant's hodge podge text rather than attempting to gain some interesting insight into the material. Third, he tends to find five arguments for every one that Kant presents. His excessive focus on differentiating different lines of argument again distracts him from the larger issues raised by the text. The result is a commentary that provides great insight into the interpretive decisions of a translator, but no insight into the mind of a great philosopher.

Rating:
Summary: Kemp Smith's Obsession
Review: This commentary is extremely poor for a variety of reasons. First, Kemp Smith is one of the most notable translators of Kant's first Critique. One might think that this would add to the quality of his commentary, but in fact, it significantly detracts from it, as Smith spends pages obsessing over terminological minutiae and frequently misses the forrest for the trees. Second, Smith has something like a documentary hypothesis that governs his interpretation of the first Critique. He tends to think that the Critique is a haphazard collection of notes written by Kant during various periods of his philosophical development which were cobbled together only as late as two decades after being written. Accordingly, whenever he encounters any difficulty interpreting the text, he simply chalks it up to Kant's hodge podge text rather than attempting to gain some interesting insight into the material. Third, he tends to find five arguments for every one that Kant presents. His excessive focus on differentiating different lines of argument again distracts him from the larger issues raised by the text. The result is a commentary that provides great insight into the interpretive decisions of a translator, but no insight into the mind of a great philosopher.

Rating:
Summary: best translation available
Review: This is recognized as the best and most thorough of any translation of this particular work of Kant. I also recommend,if you can find, S.Korner, his commentary of the Critique happens to be extremely well written and concise. Both are a must for those whose are Kantian scholars, as well as, the interested in general. The chapters on space and time are excellent.

Rating:
Summary: An ampliative forrest preceeding an analytical exposition.
Review: When this title was offered in paper, I snapped it up. This book was constantly cited by professors at the graduate level, but no students had ever seen a copy....It seemed to be "permanently" checked out by the instructors.