This book is very clearly written and I like Kaplansky's style.
On the other hand, it provides no motivation at all and no connection to geometric ideas. It also gives hardly a single example. This is a perspective that is still very strange to me: why would someone write a book about rings without actually mentioning any rings? Surely one will fairly often need to give a counterexample to an obvious conjecture, or want to illustrate the application of a theorem in a concrete case, or what have you... but not here.