Negative Positive
Title: same old stuff
Review: Strawson's work reigned as the supreme example of Kant scholarship in English for several decades. It might have been ok for its time, but it offers the typical idealist interpretation of Kant, and attempts to separate the contents of Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic from his Transcendental Analytic, arguing that only the contents of the latter have merit. But the two sections play the similar roles in Kant's revolution and to wholly reject the aesthetic and not the analytic is, I believe, impossible. Strawson does not even take seriously the arguments of Kant's aesthetic, probably because he is English and the English always get nervous around the aesthetic. While one may still have to deal with this book if writing a paper on Kant, as Strawson is still held in fairly high regard, I would recommend this book only for one who is not familiar with the traditional idealist interpretations of Kant.
Is the review positive or negative? 