![]() ![]() ![]() It differs from most recent commentaries in paying special attention to the structure of the work, the historical context in which it was written, and the views to which Kant was responding. ![]() On the history of this discovery, see Thomas Mautner, “Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: A Note on the Text,” Kant-Studien 72 (1981): 356–9. This book is a comprehensive commentary on Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785). It has long been recognized that the text of The Doctrine of Right is corrupt to the extent that paragraphs 4–8 in §6 do not belong there. Bouterwek's review is included in Volume 20 of the Academy edition. I have also made use of his notes in identifying authors whose works Kant cites. ![]() I have followed Natorp in relegating to notes any substantive emendations that clarify the text. Natorp's decision not to use the “improved” edition of 1803 is based on his conviction that such alterations in the Doctrine of Virtue as are improvements do not justify the use of a text in the production of which Kant was not involved. With two exceptions to be noted later, the present translation is based on the text of The Metaphysics of Morals edited by Paul Natorp in Volume 6 (1907) of the Prussian Academy of the Sciences edition of Kant's works. A more extensively revised edition was published in 1803, during Kant's lifetime but without his cooperation. 6:249) and an appendix in reply to Bouterwek's review of the Doctrine of Right published on February 18, 1797. In the edition of 1798, Kant's revisions to the text were apparently limited to adding a parenthetical explanation of his term Läsion (Ak. The two parts of The Metaphysics of Morals were first published separately, the Doctrine of Right probably in January 1797 and the Doctrine of Virtue in August of that year. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |