Kant: Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: A Commentary

Description

Kant's Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason is one of the great modern examinations of religion's meaning, function and impact on human affairs. In this volume, the first complete English-language commentary on the work, James J. DiCenso explains the historical context in which the book appeared, including the importance of Kant's conflict with state censorship. He shows how the Religion addresses crucial Kantian themes such as the relationship between freedom and morality, the human propensity to evil, the status of historical traditions in relation to ethical principles, and the interface between individual ethics and social institutions. The major arguments are clearly and precisely explained, and the themes are highlighted and located within Kant's mature critical philosophy, especially his ethics. The commentary will be valuable for all who are interested in the continuing relevance of religion for contemporary inquiries into ethics, public institutions and religious traditions. Review: A Terrific Guide: Clear Precise, and Thought Provoking - Kant's Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason is a complex text. DiCenso has clarified Kant's position in this easy to read commentary, and by doing so dissolves apparent contradictions and makes sense of Kant's difficult arguments. DiCenso highlights the significance of this book for Kant's overall project, and shows how his arguments in Religion relate to, and build upon arguments in his three Critiques. I highly recommend this commentary for anyone who is interested in Kantian thought, or more broadly: ethical Hermeneutics, universal moral law, the relationship between morality and religion, and the limits and advantages of using religious representation. Review: Useless - as if written by someone with no background in either Kant or Theology - Would you like to read page after page just repeating what is in the original text and then time and again being told "it is all just symbolism, heuristic, imagery". DiCenso's work prior to this focused on Derrida, Deconstructionism, etc. and it shows. Hence, it is not written by a Kant specialist, nor it seems someone with training in the history of theology. It neither connects Kant's Religion to the broader Critical corpus nor to the theological debates of Kant's day. It shows no familiarity with Lutheran Pietism or how this shaped Kant's theological discussions. It has almost nothing to say about the contemporary secondary literature on Religion. Overall, it approaches Religion as if it were worthy of its neglect over the centuries & one must then wonder why, given that opinion, DiCenso bothered to write a commentary. Hard to believe that CUP published this.