| Every attempt has been made to replicate the original as printed. Some typographical errors have been corrected; a list follows the text. The footnotes follow the text. — Contents. Index:A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,Z. (etext transcriber's note) |
A COMMENTARY
TO
K A N T’S ‘C R I T I Q U E O F
P U R E R E A S O N’
BY
NORMAN KEMP SMITH, D.Phil.
McCOSH PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
AUTHOR OF
‘STUDIES IN THE CARTESIAN PHILOSOPHY’
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN’S STREET, LONDON
1918
COPYRIGHT
TO THE MEMORY
OF
ROBERT ADAMSON
WISE IN COUNSEL, IN FRIENDSHIP UNFAILING
GRATEFULLY DEDICATED
PREFACE
The Critique of Pure Reason is more obscure and difficult than even ametaphysical treatise has any right to be. The difficulties are notmerely due to defects of exposition; they multiply rather than diminishupon detailed study; and, as I shall endeavour to show in thisCommentary, are traceable to two main causes, the composite nature ofthe text, written at various dates throughout the period 1772-1780, andthe conflicting tendencies of Kant’s own thinking.
The Commentary is both expository and critical; and in exposition noless than in criticism I have sought to subordinate the treatment oftextual questions and of minor issues to the systematic discussion ofthe central problems. Full use is made of the various selections fromKant’s private papers that have appeared, at intervals, since thepublication of his Lectures on Metaphysics in 1821. Their significancehas not hitherto been generally recognised in English books upon Kant.They seem to me to be of capital importance for the right understandingof the Critique.
Some apology is perhaps required for publishing a work of this characterat the present moment. It was completed, and arr