Page:Philosophical Review Volume 3.djvu/217



Since the first volume of this Commentary appeared (1881-82) before the time of the, and, consequently, has not been hitherto described, it seems to me not inappropriate first of all to say a few words regarding the plan of the entire work. Vaihinger proposes for himself two distinct undertakings: (1) to furnish a continuous interpretation and an exhaustive analysis as well as a criticism of the text, and (2) to take account also of the entire exegetical and critico-polemical literature.

The performance of the first undertaking had at length become an absolute necessity, as every reader of Kant will have often felt. My edition of the Kritik (1889) shows to how small a compass a continuous analysis of this sort—confining itself, of course, to the most essential points—may be reduced. And even to perform this task exhaustively only one volume, not excessively large, would have been required. And in this a fairly complete account of the Kant literature might also be included.

But the matter assumes quite different proportions when the first of these undertakings is connected with the second. Vaihinger hopes to be able to carry out his plan in four volumes. But if the same degree of thoroughness is maintained throughout, I should judge that six volumes will be scarcely sufficient. And if he undertakes to treat at all of the problems of moral philosophy and theology of which the Methodenlehre gives a short sketch, a still further volume might be necessary. Instead of taking account of the entire literature as he had planned, the author has been compelled in this second volume to confine himself more strictly to that which is most important. This can only be a matter of congratulation, for only with this limitation can the performance of the second task which the author has undertaken be regarded as useful and as desirable. If one should attempt absolute exhaustiveness, and give on every point all the opinions which have ever been promulgated, and should