Commentary to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason [Hardcover]

Norman Kemp Smith (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: November 1991

Of all major philosophical works, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is one of the most rewarding, yet one of the most difficult. Norman Kemp Smith's Commentary elucidates not only textual questions and minor issues, but also the central problems which arise, he contends, from the conflicting tendencies of Kant's own thinking. This standard work is reissued to meet a continuing demand.

--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"It is a classic translation: easier to read than its competitors and less cluttered with superfluous notes. An ideal translation for teaching undergraduates." -- Dr. Gary Banham, Manchester Metropolitan University

--This text refers to the Paperback edition.

About the Author

Norman Kemp Smith (1872-1958) lectured at Princeton and was Professor of Logic and Metaphysics at the University of Edinburgh.

Sebastian Gardner is with the Department of Philosophy, Univeristy College London.

--This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 651 pages
• Publisher: Humanity Books; 2 Revised edition (November 1991)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1573924822
• ISBN-13: 978-1573924825
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.3 x 1.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 2.5 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #5,052,437 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

10 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Kemp Smith's Obsession, October 22, 2005

By 

Robert Slade "Rob Slade" (Liverpool, England) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: A Commentary to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (Paperback)

Based on Chris Limmek's review Norman Kemp Smith's commentary must be excellent! Because with Kant (and all difficult works) you need to spend pages "obsessing over terminological minutiae" and you need to focus on "differentiating different lines of argument" (etc)

13 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Legendary among grad students......, March 2, 1999

By 

John A. Cheng "A Reader" (USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Commentary to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (Paperback)

When this title was offered in paper, I snapped it up. This book was constantly cited by professors at the graduate level, but no students had ever seen a copy....It seemed to be "permanently" checked out by the instructors.

It's a classic commentary on one of the seminal books of western philosophy.

21 of 35 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Kemp Smith's Obsession, May 8, 2002

By 

Chris Klimmek (Berkeley, CA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Commentary to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (Paperback)

This commentary is extremely poor for a variety of reasons. First, Kemp Smith is one of the most notable translators of Kant's first Critique. One might think that this would add to the quality of his commentary, but in fact, it significantly detracts from it, as Smith spends pages obsessing over terminological minutiae and frequently misses the forrest for the trees. Second, Smith has something like a documentary hypothesis that governs his interpretation of the first Critique. He tends to think that the Critique is a haphazard collection of notes written by Kant during various periods of his philosophical development which were cobbled together only as late as two decades after being written. Accordingly, whenever he encounters any difficulty interpreting the text, he simply chalks it up to Kant's hodge podge text rather than attempting to gain some interesting insight into the material. Third, he tends to find five arguments for every one that Kant presents. His excessive focus on differentiating different lines of argument again distracts him from the larger issues raised by the text. The result is a commentary that provides great insight into the interpretive decisions of a translator, but no insight into the mind of a great philosopher.