Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason

Rating:
Summary: Kant:An equal to Plato
Review: Alfred North Whitehead once remarked that all of Western philosophy was a mere footnote to Plato. Now one can never overestimate Plato's importance,but I think Kant is his equal in the range of questions he considered and the subtlety of his reasoning. Unfortunately,Kant's prose style leaves much to be desired.

Rating:
Summary: like it or not, you must read it
Review: I think this translation is a bit more readable than the Meiklejohn, and it offers some excerpts from the 1st edition not in the Meiklejohn translation. This is due probably to a large degree because of Schopenhauer's criticism that the 2nd edition is not Kant's true thought, as he was trying to cover up the idealism of the 1st edition in the 2nd.
As for Kant's work, I have spent most of my time on the Transcendental Aesthetic, and while this section is often taken less seriously in England and American so I've heard, I think it is far better than the Transcendental Analytic. The arguments of the Aesthetic, while perhaps not proving all Kant thought they did, do show that space and time are at least fundamental to our ability to perceive objects, and some more recent scholars might say that this is all Kant set out to prove in the ist place.
I think that the Transcendental Dialectic is of probably the most significance for the history of philosophy, as Kant's thesis that talk about another realm leads nowhere has been influencial, especially in analytic philosophy. Furthermore, showing that the traditional proofs of God lead nowhere and that God is only valid as a postulate of practical reason has done much damage to theology, as Kant's postulates of practical reason have received little acceptance, and thus it seems difficult to understand how human thoughts can correspond to a transcendent God. I think the Dialectic is probably the most interesting part and is Kant at his best. The reader will be rewarded if only he can make it through the terrible Analytic first.

Rating:
Summary: This is one of the defining texts of Philosophy.........
Review: It is often dense and it is consistently challenging. But this may be the key to Kant and time spent with him is never wasted. Kemp Smith's commentary is available in paper and is extremely helpful. Working through Kant's philosophy can be exhilarating and sharing a bit of his view of the philosophical topography is something no one should deny themselves.

Rating:
Summary: A Balanced View
Review: It would have been nice had Kant used reason in his critique of reason, had used logic to disprove logic, and had used more that linquistics to make his points.

Rating:
Summary: To correct what some consider Balance
Review: Kant has abandoned reason, whatever his supporters may say, for he starts on the premise that the law of Tautology does not apply between metaphysics and epistimology, that they only apply within their own spheres. As a result of this, he has come to the conclusion that there are two types of knowledge, with no relation. First there is knowledge of the world, which can not be validated rationally, then there is logical knowledge, which can not be validated by experience.

You can call that logic, but that would be a mistake.

Based on Kant's epistimological mistake, he then revives the doctrine of the mind/body dichotomy that had been dying since the rennaisance, and ventures into the field of ethics with, what is the logical conclusion of his earlier errors "What you do for yourself is not moral, what you do for others is moral."

Having found that this does not work in practice, he then dismisses the ethical AND the logical as both incompatable with each other and incompatable with the world, and that is his critique of reason.

The quest of philosophy is not to raise questions, but to find answers. Even if those answers are never found, and Kant would say that they could not be, we should ignore Kant's advice and continue to try. Philosophy is not Analysis Alone, and Aristotle would be dismayed at the company in which he is put if compared to Kant on that point.

The logical conclusions of Kant's writings are evident in the various schools of philosophy, such as existentialism, surrealism, and linguistic analysis. How do we know we exist? What do we mean when we say that? Don't bother to analyze, just deal what is in front of you.

A skilled Aristotelian is the best audience for this book, because then this book could get the savage review it deserves.

Rating:
Summary: Read and reflect again
Review: Kant's major work is so often misunderstood and misquoted because of the sheer profoundity of his thought. He proved the fact that by our perception of the world, we change it. This is something that has been abundantly verified by the revolutionary breakthroughs of the twentieth century in quantam mechanics. See the Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav for a pop culture introduction to this concept. He's kind of a dirty hippie, but he makes for an easy read. Nietczhe was brilliant, no one denies it, but he never really understood the point Kant was making.

Rating:
Summary: If it were easy, you'd read it in grade school
Review: Let me start by addressing some misconceptions you'll see as you roam around these reviews.

First of all, there are a couple of low reviews that refer to Kant as being "anti-reason," "anti-truth," a socialist, a collectivist, etc. These are written by Objectivists - followers of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand has about the same relationship to serious philosophy as McDonalds does to good cooking. She hated Kant, but never quite seemed to understand him. No surprise - he's hard.

Which is the second point. This is not an easy book at all. That's why it's most often assigned to graduate students. Even undergrads can easily get a philosophy degree without ever touching this book. It's bloody hard. This is because, well, its ideas are radical and difficult, and because Kant is a careful philosopher.

It is not, and this is my third point, because Kant is a bad writer. Quite the opposite. He's a great writer. The fact of the matter is, though, that his subject matter is not exactly a page-turner. But, I mean, what do you expect. You're reading academic philosophy. There's a handful of academic books that are both worthwhile and fun to read, and that's just a fact of life. Kant, however, is quite clear - indeed, he does the service of going over his points more than once - a luxury you won't get when you advance to Hegel. Furthermore, believe it or not, there are jokes in Kant. The best of them is a footnote, in which he notes that "Deficiancy in judgment is that which is ordinarily referred to as stupidity, and for such a failing their is no remedy."

Unfortunately, it's all too common on Amazon to bash academic books because they're hard, obscure, or poorly written. The fact of the matter is that these books are not for everyone. They're for specialists and scholars, and are written in a language that is appropriately technical to that task. You don't go and bash medical and scientific books for being too hard for you. Give philosophy a break, and recognize this book as what it is - one of the most important contributions to a scholarly field ever.

Rating:
Summary: If it were easy, you'd read it in grade school
Review: Let me start by addressing some misconceptions you'll see as you roam around these reviews.

First of all, there are a couple of low reviews that refer to Kant as being "anti-reason," "anti-truth," a socialist, a collectivist, etc. These are written by Objectivists - followers of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand has about the same relationship to serious philosophy as McDonalds does to good cooking. She hated Kant, but never quite seemed to understand him. No surprise - he's hard.

Which is the second point. This is not an easy book at all. That's why it's most often assigned to graduate students. Even undergrads can easily get a philosophy degree without ever touching this book. It's bloody hard. This is because, well, its ideas are radical and difficult, and because Kant is a careful philosopher.

It is not, and this is my third point, because Kant is a bad writer. Quite the opposite. He's a great writer. The fact of the matter is, though, that his subject matter is not exactly a page-turner. But, I mean, what do you expect. You're reading academic philosophy. There's a handful of academic books that are both worthwhile and fun to read, and that's just a fact of life. Kant, however, is quite clear - indeed, he does the service of going over his points more than once - a luxury you won't get when you advance to Hegel. Furthermore, believe it or not, there are jokes in Kant. The best of them is a footnote, in which he notes that "Deficiancy in judgment is that which is ordinarily referred to as stupidity, and for such a failing their is no remedy."

Unfortunately, it's all too common on Amazon to bash academic books because they're hard, obscure, or poorly written. The fact of the matter is that these books are not for everyone. They're for specialists and scholars, and are written in a language that is appropriately technical to that task. You don't go and bash medical and scientific books for being too hard for you. Give philosophy a break, and recognize this book as what it is - one of the most important contributions to a scholarly field ever.

Rating:
Summary: For Mature Audiences
Review: The Meiklejohn translation of this work has a certain appeal, stylistically. It is, however, somewhat less than reliable, as pointed out by later translators of the same work such as Max Müller and Norman Kemp Smith. Stick with the Müller... and Kemp Smith versions. The new translation by Guyer and Wood is not to be recommended, as their style is very wooden and unnatural, which they think is important to preserve the meaning. This simply is false.

The work itself—well that's a whole different story. The book is intended for mature audiences, and by that I mean that this is not a book for beginners in philosophy or the simply curious. It will take quite some time to learn Kant's terminology and the purpose behind it—which is necessary before one can understand the book. It's very difficult to understand the book without the help of an instructor, though not impossible.

Rating:
Summary: A quest to the Truth
Review: The version I read is Kemp Smith's version, the old folk from Cambridge. I read it because I took a course in late Modern Philosophy. Before I get into this book, I want to give the fellow readers three suggestions.

My first suggestion to the readers is that I do not believe anybody can have a basic comprehension of this book if he/she does not take a course in Kant at the university. So, if you really want to know about Kant, take a Kantian philosophy course.

My second suggestion is that the best version to read is the original text in German. If you do not know any German, just like me, you would have a pretty hard time. The most important thing to do for the readers who read it in English is to crack down the complex sentences of Kant. As Kemp Smith points out, Kant tries to express so many ideas in the fewest sentences that the language allows .

Third, you must read it. As a philosophy major, I find that Kant is the only philosopher who truly convinces me. His Critique of Pure Reason alone gives me hope.

Here I should give you some ideas about the content of the book: All the things we can experience by our sensory faculty (eyes, ears, nerves..etc.) are not the reality of things themselves but their phenomenal appearances that occur in our mind, since all of our knowledge is derived from our experience, and our experience presupposes space and time.

Mathematics, for example, is derived from experience. According to Kant, we do not know "5+7=12" by born, until someone tells us the concepts of "5", "7", "+", "=" and "12". And we learn "5+7" functions to be "12". And we apply this to other numbers.

This experience presupposes space and time. When I tell you the number "5", you, the idea of "5" and me are all in space; when we talk about a thing, the pre-supposition is that it is in space. And in this process, your mind experiences two mental events: "not knowing 5" and "knowing 5". And from the sequence of the two mental events, we derive the idea of time. All our experience presupposes space and time, hence, it follow that we derive all our knowledge from space and time. Therefore, the definitions of space and time, says Kant, is beyond the possibility of our knowledge.

However, Kant opens the possibility that there might be some creatures, such as Martians or other non-carbon-based organisms, having different sensory faculties that are not limited by space and time, and they can truly see the reality of things themselves, when we human beings can not.

Therefore, in phenomenal world, the appearances of world that our sensory faculty is able to perceive, we seemingly do not have free will or evidence of the existence of God. But in noumenal world, that is, the reality of the world, God might exist and we might have free will, even though we can not perceive it in this phenomenal world. And that is how I find the hope of life from Kant. Finally, I must admit that I can only understand about 5% of this book. But you intelligent readers, the people of wisdom and good reason, I believe, will understand more than I do.