Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason (Routledge Philosophy GuideBooks)

The nice thing about this book is that the reader feels like the author is "reading the critique" with the reader herself. Major argumentative difficulties are taken up as they occur, and Gardner analyses Kant's support for his framework keenly.Another pleasant aspect of Gardner's reading is his attempt to show how Kant's transcendental idealism is systematic, that is, how the first Critique is not merely a compendium of conveniently assembled arguments (as some great interpreters like P.F. Strawson have claimed). Rather, by viewing Kant's project as a "metaphysics of experience" in light of the "Copernican revolution" (in which objects must conform, in some way, to the subjects who know them), Gardner unapologetically reviews the plausibility of Kant's views as a system, not as a list of claims that are supported via analytic argumentation.At times, I found Gardner's criticism of Kant's arguments somewhat dense and over-compressed. That said, this is not surprising for such a guide, and the most important arguments/developments in the book, like the Refutation of Idealism and the Transcendental Deduction, are given a full, critical, and clear treatment.For those looking to catch the Kant's overall meaning in the Critique, this book is highly recommended. Its brevity is also laudable. The guide is accessible to those with a basic knowledge of modern philosophy, though not for complete philosophy novices.

I am really enjoying this as a guide and companion as I make my way through CPR. It explains some of the key concepts and also some of the main questions that come up. Taking an early example, the book goes into the question of what impact it has on Kant's framework that geometry (in physics at least) is now understood to be empirical.

I read the whole of Sebastian Gardner's 'Guidebook' to Kant and understood most of it. On the whole I would recommend this as making Kant more accessible. But I think he could have made the subject easier by avoiding the use of some words and phrases to seemingly impress the reader and the frequent use of parenthesis (the latter like Kant himself)For example...(page 311)"There must therefore be - if morality is not to be a chimera - some principle of action which is a priori and constrains all rational agents irrespective of their contingent empirical constitution" (page 311)Avoing the use of the split infinitive and "therefore" both of which are unnecessary and do not improve the meaning I think the above could have been better expressed as follows..."If morality is not to be a chimera there must be some a priori principle of action which constrains all rational agents irrespective of their circumstances (or character perhaps)"

Correctly assessing the argument in Kant's first Critique is one of the most difficult exercises in philosophy and often overly stylized summaries induce illusions of clarity, when the real argument is in the background, almost too arcane to be grasped, and leaving one in the distressing condition of realizing one hasn't understood a thing. This account has to be the best of the lot, attempting without compromises to survey the whole majestic range. Good job.

An excellent, very clear, introduction to Kant's philosophy

Outstanding. An invaluable introduction and commentary.

Exactly what I wanted. I buy books for instructors who forgot to order on time or ones that are out of print.

A very uneven work. There is a lot that is useful for reading CPR and understand it. Thus, on a positive side, this guide provides great historical and philosophical context of where Kant falls in the argument among the main philosophical schools that defined the Age of Reason. However, because the author supports every idea in the CPR with a comparison to these other ideas (those of Hume, Leibniz, Locke, Newton, etc.), it slows down the flow of the narrative and takes the reader on tangents he did not necessarily asked for. These tangents can be very distracting and take away from the explanation of Kant's ideas. Also, for a guide that tries to elucidate very abstract and confusing ideas and terminology that Kant uses, the author uses very abstract and complex language (not always, but often, when he gets to the more abstract concepts such as transcendental unity of apperception, subject-object relations, etc.). There are other explanations that do better job at making these concepts clearer. In short, I believe it is that desire to compare Kant's ideas with those of his predecessors and contemporaries that tend to complicate things unnecessarily.