Critique of Pure Reason

Before you buy this book, ask your self, have you read Descartes, Hume, Leibniz and Locke? If not, this book is useless for you, no matter how great thinker you assume yourself to be. Kant uses long sentences containing multiple qualifications, definitions, arguments and these can be really hard to follow and swallow. Kant has no intention of being elegant, he wants precision, and this book often feels like a Machine manual rather than a work of philosophy. Honestly this should be picked up last, once you have read the predecessors. Take for example This Spoke Zarathustra, by Nietzsche. You don't jump directly into it, you immerse yourself with Nietzsche first, and build up tho Zarathustra. Similarly, this book should be the last, because one misinterpreted word would send you in a downward spiral of incorrect interpretation.

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

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

One of the most important and impactful work in the history of philosophy. And penguin just never misses, do they?

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

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.

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.

Delivered as promised

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.

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.

Wonderful book. Worth buying.