Kant's Critique of Pure Reason: An Introduction and Interpretation

by James R. O'Shea

"Kant's Critique of Pure Reason" remains one of the landmark works of Western philosophy. Most philosophy students encounter it at some point in their studies but at nearly 700 pages of detailed and complex argument it is also a demanding and intimidating read. James O'Shea's short introduction to "CPR" aims to make it less so. Aimed at students coming to the book for the first time, it provides step by step analysis in clear, unambiguous prose. The conceptual problems Kant sought to resolve are outlined, and his conclusions concerning the nature of the faculty of human knowledge and possibility of metaphysics, and the arguments for those conclusions, are explored. In addition he shows how the "Critique" fits into the history of modern philosophy and how transcendental idealism affected the course of philosophy. Key concepts are explained throughout and the student is provided with an excellent route map through the various parts of the text.

Genres: Philosophy

248 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 2011

Reviews

[Cesar · Rating 4 out of 5]

My introduction to Kant's thought and the ideas which would later spawn the German Idealists and the Analytical Philosophers. James O'Shea makes his thought very legible for people who lack the proper background to make sense of the content, such as myself who had a relatively cursory knowledge of early modern philosophy, by explaining the history which lead to Kant's writing the Critique and the various readings of it James O'Shea considers incorrect in light of the textual criticism.

[Mavaddat · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started reading this book to come to grips with Kant's ideas and terminology (a thinker to whom I had dedicated a whole semester in my undergraduate philosophical career studying) with the hope of that accomplishment being useful for understanding Hegel's ideas and terminology. I was not disappointed. O'Shea's presentation is lucid and concise but also aware of potential pitfalls that the student might face in assimilating the ideas. I finally feel like I understand how Kant was trying to argue and why he insists on using terms that were so bizarrely out of step with his predecessors.