Critique of Pure Reason

kant, with this book, did to me what hume did to him— woke him from his dogmatic slumber

Publisher: Classy Publishing Translation by: JMD Meiklejohn (6/10) Paper: 10/10 Print: 10/10 Cover photo: 8/10 Pages: 370 I'm totally surprised. To be honest, this is far better than Penguin's Critique of Pure Reason (CPR) as far as paper and print goes. Buy without hesitation! No comment on Kant, though. But let me say something about this translator in the words of our contemporary philosopher Prof. A. C. Grayling (from his popular 2019 best seller 'The History of Philosophy'), "... Kant’s first translator into English was a Scottish teenager called John Meikeljohn, a prodigy at languages but nowhere near equipped to render the Critique into something intelligible. His practically unintelligible version was published in 1855. When at last a good translation was effected by Norman Kemp-Smith in 1929 – for a long time afterwards it was the standard English text – it was (relatively speaking) so clear that German students used it rather than reading the original." That should be enough. Though, I would encourage you to buy Meiklejohn version of the CPR because, frankly, I've not found it unintelligible as such, for almost every Western philosophy classic is as intelligible. I would also strongly encourage you to buy the Norman Kemp-Smith version. Believe me, studying these two, as if you were doing a comparative study of the two, would render your reading speed far higher than the case where you had to read mere Penguin's edition. It's always an efficient technique to keep two different translations side by side of the same philosophy classic while endeavouring to finish the classic. Good luck.

Considering the price, page, paper are excellent. Cover should have been a bit thick.

Delivered as promised

First of all, it's not an easy book to read. It's very long and almost unreadable due to its dry prose and complex terminology. That's something you should always expect when you're reading a high-end philosophy book. Anyway, there are a few terms you need to understand before I come to the core ideas of this book. 1. Synthetic a posteriori knowledge, that is, the knowledge we gain from our experiences. 2. Analytic a priori knowledge, that is, the universal knowledge which is independent of experience, such as our knowledge of mathematics. These two ideas are found in the earlier empiricist philosophers such as John Locke and David Hume as well as in rationalist philosophers such as G.Wilhelm. In the "Critique of Pure Reasons" Kant argues that "Synthetic A priori" Judgement is also possible. And for this, Kant gave the Newtonian example of (7 + 5 = 12). Here, no amount of analysis will find 12 in either 7 or 5. Thus Kant concludes that all pure mathematics is synthetic through a priori, the number 7 is seven and the number 5 is five, and the number 12 is twelve, In other words, they are universal and necessary. The entire Kant's philosophy can be understood within the three transcendental critiques, or approaches. 1. Transcendental Aesthetics (Sensibility) 2. Transcendental Analytic (Understanding) 3. Transcendental Dialectic (Reason) Human thinking faculty is divided into two aspects on which we understand things around us. Understanding, that is, Transcendental Aesthetics and Reason, that is, Transcendental Dialectic ( Note: Kant keeps Reason at a slightly higher domain. Reasons tell us about the limitations of our Understandings. And the Transcendental Dialectic that is according to Kant will free us from the Transcendental illusion or the Metaphysical illusions He also gave the concept of Noumena and phenomena world. Noumena: Reality as we see it, experience it, and which are given to us in one experience which is known as phenomena world. And then there is noumena world which can be understood as things in themselves. Its existence is never doubted. Just because we do not experience it, we can not know about it. It's preconditioning and without that, we can not know anything with certainty about matters of facts. God, Freedom, Immortality, these are transcendental concepts, that is, a metaphysical concept, But philosottendstities. The most fundamental concepts which later Kant would call them " Idea of Pure Reason" Soul ( unitary and substantial) Cosmos (infinite world process as a unity) God (the totality of existence ) For more book reviews you can follow me on Instagram at @ravishratnesh

Just marvelous. Never go for this if you haven't had any basic philosophical knowledge. Kant uses the type of jargon which is so unorthodox which made me to do a bunch of glossary before getting to start his work. The way he interpreted the noumenon and phenomenon world were just awesome. Though transcendental idealism comes with some flaws. But I'm not a guy who believes in noumenon world. The way he interpreted how we see receive the external world through spacial temporal, I was blown away. This book will be go to for academic students. Overall a time consuming, but worth it. One needs a lot of patience and passion to get on sticking with each and every page. Happy reading.👍

I don't know whether Penguin Books have started to print books with lower quality paper or simply it is a pirated version, but the quality is really poor. It's as much thin that I fear to turn pages. The pages also do not have the yellowish charm which often other books persist(even with Penguin). They are like greyish white. It might be a result of using recycled paper but if you ask me about that great feeling when you hold a book in hand to go through.... Ughhh... It doesn't give you that feel. Also, previously the same thing happened with "Invisible Man", so I retured it. But I guess, they have started to print books as it simply is so I'm going to keep this one for now.

With this work, Kant proudly asserted that he had accomplished a Copernican revolution in philosophy. Just as the founder of modern astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus, had explained the apparent movements of the stars by ascribing them partly to the movement of the observers, so Kant had accounted for the application of the mind’s a priori principles to objects by demonstrating that the objects conform to the mind: in knowing, it is not the mind that conforms to things but instead things that conform to the mind. So act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle in a giving of universal law.

The importance of the Critique of Pure Reason is well-established and requires no reviews. It is not a book one is likely to stumble across and think, "this looks interesting", if for no other reason (pure or otherwise) than that a quick dip into the book shows it to be dense and difficult. The key question is: which translation makes this dense and difficult book most clear now I have decided to tackle the most important philosophical thinker since Aristotle? The Cambridge edition (1998) is one of the most up to date and is, perhaps, set to become the standard. But Norman Kemp Smith's translation (1929) is still the standard used for reference, even though this Cambridge version is probably better. There is also the free version of Meiklejohn; venerable and old fashioned and not recommended. Pluhar is widely used in the USA and has its fans. And finally there is the Penguin 2007 translation, by Weigelt based on the Max Muller version, which has an attractive layout and style; to me this seems a more naturally flowing style. Compared to Kemp Smith the Penguin is clearer as the active voice is used more than the passive and key terms are set in bold. The difference between translations in their use of words is not the only difference. The Critique was published in two editions and it is usual to combine the two and here's the difficulty: each translation orders the paragraphs from the two editions (A and B) in a slightly ways, as it seems to me. So to compare Guyer and Smith Kemp's translations is not so easy as they each choose the sequence of combining the two editions that seems to them most comprehensible. Weigelt uses italics to differentiate the first editions (A) from the second (B). As I wrote in the previous paragraph, the standard is still Kemp Smith, meaning that reference works will refer to his paragraph numbering. Over time the newer Cambridge translation will become the reference point; in the meantime expect to see Kemp Smith's paragraph numbering as usual reference in commentaries. So, although choosing this edition has many attractions, following the text in some commentaries may be problematic. This Cambridge edition has academic weight - it's part of a whole project covering Kant's work - and is the one I reckon is that reflects most up to date academic thinking. Added to that are the recommendations of Guyer's translation by most academics. All that said, Weigelt has had the benefit of reading the Guyer version and no doubt considering what it makes clearer compared to Kemp Smith. Incidentally, he considers Guyer has made some mistakes in translation, and although he is not an academic of the standing of Guyer, there is no doubting his understanding of his subject as demonstrated by his lengthy and insightful introduction. Students will probably be advised to buy the version their lecturer is using, but for those with the freedom to choose (see what Kant has to say on this topic) then a more modern translation is probably best, and for that Guyer is the most academically respectable; but if you can afford it buy the Penguin as well; it does seem to me to be more readable. At the same time as buying the book you will need a guide. It is quite impossible to understand the book without one, not least because the arguments Kant puts forward address philosophical debates current when he wrote and which will not be apparent.I consider Sebastian Gardner's book to be quite brilliant. Also read the Prolegomena before reading the Critique. Andrew Stephenson's diagram is very useful in summarising the overall architecture of Kant's book. http://nebula.wsimg.com/72e5f4d1fd8e675801ad578eba2fe8e4?AccessKeyId=A9004B8B795F6CE7B9FA&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 Finally, and not to miss the opportunity for praising Kant, reading this book will give you an insight into quite a remarkable mind as it works its way through some fundamental questions about our experience of reality, or do I mean the appearance of reality? All that said, I do think Kant would have benefited from an editor who could have helped clarify and standardise some of the terms used and reduce some of the repetition. If you are not confused by Kant you are either a genius or you have not been paying sufficient attention. It's a maddening book that requires effort.

Kant e Hegel são os clássicos da filosofia eurocêntrica. Então, ainda são importantes para quem tentar compreender as dinâmicas transfenomrnais do pensamento ocidental.

First of all, yes, this is a difficult read. If you're fairly new to philosophy, then Kant is not the place to start. What makes the Critique such a dense read is the simple fact that it assumes prior knowledge (no pun intended) of particular epistemological issues that had been hotly debated in the West up to that point (a period of roughly 2000 years). So, to jump into philosophy with Kant would be like walking into a room in the middle of a conversation that's already been going on for hours on end; you're going to be fairly lost. A basic familiarity with Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes and at least one Empiricist (either Locke or Hume) is greatly helpful in establishing the context of the Critique and helps the reader follow the general line of Kant's thought. Also helpful is a reading of Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics before the much larger Critique. Just as it's nearly impossible to understand Kant without some general knowledge of philosophy up to his time, it's even more so to understand philosophy up to our time without reading Kant. His work was that influential. And while, as Bertrand Russell pointed out, the advent of non-Euclidean geometry and non-Aristotelian logic have rendered Kant's application of his theory to human knowledge and experience obsolete, Kant's general agenda is still very much the agenda of modern philosophy. We are still concerned with what constitutes consciousness, the structure of our faculties of knowledge and understanding (both practical and theoretical), and the nature of objective experience. In short, there's no avoiding Kant if you want to move on to any of the later philosophical movements. Which is where a good translation of the Critique comes in for the English-speaking reader. The translation in this edition is up-to-date and in line with the most recent scholarship, and it has the added benefit of being eminently affordable. Extensive endnotes help clear up certain obscurities in the text owing to difficulties of rendering Kant's German into English; they also explain the frequent references to Scholastic concepts for the non-Latinate. I also like the manner in which this edition presents comparative passages of Kant's own different redactions of the work. It allows the reader to look at passages from both the earlier and later redactions or simply ignore the earlier redaction, which is often admittedly incomprehensible in spots. The introduction provides a decent enough biographical sketch of the man himself. No doubt there are more scholarly editions out there, but if you want a decent edition of the Critique for very little money, then this is your best bet.

Scholar Select’s edition is plain awful, you can barely read it. Looks as a bad quality photocopy

Ive read Schopenhauer, Principles of Sufficeint Reason, just. The reason why I am reading this. At the beginning so it would be unfair to provide a critique. Both books to date are interesting if one analytically seeks truth.