![]() ![]() It is easily said that there cannot be too many commentaries on a book as important and difficult as the Groundwork but, of course, there can be too many, to wit, those that have nothing new to say or say mostly things that are blatantly false or ignorant of the ongoing research (and we have seen commentaries and articles like these over the last decade or so). What do they, from my perspective, get right? And what do they get wrong? I believe that much of what Henry Allison says about Kant's Groundwork is dubitable at the same time, I believe that his commentary is the best ever written on the Groundwork: comprehensive, historical, original, argumentatively clear and sharp-witted, critical, very well informed about the ongoing research (though some literature is not reflected), stimulating, patient and (mostly) even rather close to the text. ![]() ![]() And as I see it, one of the most fascinating things in philosophy is to read how other people read a text that I read myself. On the other hand, as a historian of philosophy, I'm very much interested in what Kant's texts mean. I'm not sure exactly what a Kantian is, but I'm sure I'm not one of these creatures (likewise I'm not sure what an Alpha Centaurian would be, but I'm sure I'm not one myself). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |