Rating: 
Summary: Kant by Guyer and Wood
Review: This is a solid translation, I feel, that is at least on par with that old standby from N. Kemp Smith. The book has a substantial introduction, exacting footnotes, and a sufficient index. Be advised, this edition contains both A and B editions of the Critique. Kant is a challenge no matter how many times you read him. However, you are no philosopher if you are unfamiliar with his Critique.As help in reading, you should get some rudimentary knowledge of Locke and Leibniz to help you along. Also, have a good understanding of what Newtonian Physics meant to the intellectual world. Nevertheless, this is a very accessible translation. Kant is difficult no matter which translation you use, so even if you are familiar with the N. Kemp Smith version, you would be wise to check out this one as well. Lastly, regarding something a bit more mundane - the typeface in this book is quite readable. I was glancing through the Oxford U. Press texts of Hume and some other texts of Leibniz , and I must say I found the typeface in this book to be far easier to read.
Rating: 
Summary: Best translation
Review: This is the best translation of Kant's first Critique in print.
Rating:
Summary: New translation lacks the clarity of Kemp Smith classic.
Review: This new translation claims that it captures Kant's style better than previous translations, while also correcting certain errors in the older efforts. However, a comparison of this translation with Norman Kemp Smith's suggests that there were very few errors to correct. More significantly, this translation claims that it captures Kant's prose style better than Kemp Smith. It is not explained why this was worth doing -- and the result is to make Kant even more dense than he already is. The notes mainly refer the reader to Kant's collected notes, and so provide little immediate assistance, unless you're writing a book on Kant.
Rating:
Summary: Das Gottvertrauen
Review: We all know where German Idealism leads. Germany's foray into the hubris of vain intellectualism bereft of conscience as displayed during WWII is where. Man is not a machine. Not even a German man. Heidegger understood as much and look what happened to him. No one is superman. Nietzsche, a favorite of mine, was quite insane by the time Syphilis took his life. No wonder Sartre was so disheartened, brave but disheartened nontheless. The French can be so overly melodramatic. I love that about the French, that they are so... Italian. To exist without essence is barren. I try to take my philosophy with a grain of salt. Sincerely, but never seriously. When it comes to philosophy I am reminded of an old Henny Youngman joke about being confused. "Everytime I ask someone what time it is, they tell me something different." So it is with philosophy. Todays Deconstruction will be deconstructed, that sort of thing. It is the nature of words to be circular. Naturally, Wittgenstein comes to mind. A dictionary defines itself, and itself only. But I digress. One should read Kant for a greater understanding of the history of man's philosophic musings. That is all. That is enough. If one does not want to muddle through "Critique" then may I suggest Kant's letter to his good friend Marcus Herz, better known as "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics." Basically a personal and succinct critique of his "Critique of Pure Reason." More easily understood and not nearly as time consuming. The "Critique of Pure Reason" is not high art, it is an essay that can stand to be abridged. Even Kant knew as much.
| 
