La lectura kantiana sobre la obra de Descartes, antes que evidenciar un conocimiento detallado del planteamiento cartesiano, muestra los pretextos claros para que Kant realice precisiones a su sistema. ¿Cuál es el peso y el lugar del "yo pienso" en la filosofía kantiana?, ¿qué se puede derivar de la existencia de las cosas en relación con su conocimiento?, ¿cómo combina Kant el realismo empírico con el idealismo trascendental?, ¿cuáles son los límites del yo pienso trascendente, frente al yo pienso trascendental? (...) En este artículo, el análisis de las diferencias entre la Crítica de 1781 y la de 1787, pasando por los Prolegómenos de 1783, ofrece precisiones sobre las preocupaciones de Kant provocadas por autores como Descartes y, en menor medida, Berkeley. The Kantian reading of Descartes is the pretext for Kant to make clarifications on his system, rather than demonstrate a detailed knowledge of the Cartesian approach. What is the role of the proposition "I think" in the kantian Philosophy? Is it possible to derive the existence of things from their knowledge? Does Kant mix the empirical realism with the transcendental realism? Which are the limits of the transcendent "I think" in confrontation with the transcendental "I think"? In this article, it is analyze the differences between the two editions of the Critique of the Pure Reason and the Prolegomena to any future metaphysic in order to suggest how the disagreement between Kant and Descartes let him to be more accurate with his Philosophy. (shrink)

Like Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, we now have both an A- and a substantially revised B-edition of Henry Allison's commentary to and defence of that work: Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense . Unlike Kant's Critique, however, Allison's first edition is unlikely to persist as an occasional rival to the second, since reviewers rightly consider the second to have superseded the landmark scholarship of the first. Nevertheless, before Allison's first edition is entirely supplanted, I would like to save (...) a neglected insight from its treatment of the B-deduction that is not retained in the second edition. (shrink)