Critique of Pure Reason (Penguin Classics)

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.

Book is thought provoking dealing with philosophy and reasoning.Its definitely a slow read to be enjoyed and appreciated

One could argue that the Critique of Pure Reason is the first modern Theory of Everything (ToE). This term, coined in the twentieth century, describes a so far undiscovered body of equations that would describe the behavior of everything in the universe, from the birth of stars to the peculiarly strong sense of consciousness in Homo Sapiens. While there is reason to read Kant beyond the validity of his ToE, he was arguably the first modern who thought he had come up with such a theory. In essence, he held that the human mind has a common way of experiencing the world that results in universally valid laws of matter. The world, as it is in itself, is for ever unknown. In this sense, one could say it is a theory of nothing. But we now can account for the fact that mathematics and science yield laws that are universally agreed upon. Subjects, however, like metaphysics, not subject to human experience, remain forever mired in controversy. The corresponding architecture of this mind and the reformed sciences is then fully detailed in the Critique. And while it’s easy to poke holes in the theory It can still be argued as the way the human mind naturally groks the world. For example, Kant held that space and time are imposed on the world by the mind distinctly. We now know that space and time have to be considered together to account for the effects of special relativity. But, how many physicists, fully conscious of the unity of space and time, make use of this union in their day to day life? As a former physics major I can assure one it is not many. Beyond the Uber-theory of how the mind must be constructed for math and science to be held in common, Kant can also be credited with forever shaping the terms of the idealist/realist debate in philosophy. The highly creative construct of such ideas as analytic/synthetic and a posteriori/a priori, while not wholly due to Kant, led to a permanent modification in their meaning. Moreover, Kant can be acclaimed for getting the mind/world duality partially right. While little is still known about precisely how the brain works, we do know that it evolved for survival purposes and that its intuitions are accordingly sometimes incorrect. We intuit that a cat some type of essential catness. But a cat does not possess an essence that determines its kind. Its kind is determined by the DNA it inherits. Similarly, a table is not completely solid but consists mostly of an electron cloud filled space around a small nucleus. It is our eyes and sense of touch that make the table appear solid, not its underlying reality. So even now we have to admit that our mind imposes certain ways of perceiving upon the world and does not merely take in reality, raw and unfiltered. As the first transcendental philosopher, Kant can be accredited for his early perception of this. For better or worse, he has come up with a proto Theory of Everything. Difficult, boring at times, but absolutely essential reading in the history of modern civilization. In brief, highly recommended.

We are in 1781, Kant is defining the bounds of human reason. He uses concepts from physics (space and time) and the existence of a supreme being (god) to highlight the upper bound of pure reason. He even constructed three proofs ontological, cartesian and cosmological to show that the existence of a creator cannot be discussed using the system of pure reason. The most thrilling part is the comparison of reasoning tools used by mathematics and philosophy. But he is mostly boring and prolix; Voltaire and Nietzsche were rebelling from this prolix tradition? Anyway, this book will test both your persistence and reasoning capabilities to their limits.

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.

Best quality

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

Slight tear on the back, neglidgeble but still detactable.