When my generation was a student in the early forties, Kant's introductory book was "Critique of Pure Reason" as usual, and I read the English version of Meiklejohn or Max Mueller. In addition, see A.K. Smith's Critique of Pure Reason as a guide. Sometimes I feel a little confused when I look at it, and I don't even know what is constructive and what is adjustable. Moreover, it seems that there are so many argumentation styles of scholasticism in Critique of Pure Reason, which makes people feel bored. I once sighed to my old friend Wang Hao: Kant's book can't even be read by Wang Guowei, so I'm afraid it's hopeless. He said: you can't say that. Our support is better than that of Wang Guowei. Wang Guowei doesn't understand modern science, so he can't understand Kant either. Indeed, Kant himself made it clear that his thoughts mainly came from two sources, Newton's about nature and Rousseau's about the human world. After reading Newton and Rousseau's books, I really feel that Kant is not as difficult to understand as I thought.
When I started reading Kant, I also heard that Kant's thought focused on his criticism of practical reason, not on his criticism of pure reason. In any case, his book Critique of Practical Reason seems to be better than his book Critique of Pure Reason, which seems to further enlighten readers' understanding that philosophical judgment can only be in pure form, because only pure form judgment can be universally effective. At that time, I knew that Mr. Mou Zongsan wanted to introduce Kant into Confucianism. However, due to the long-term closed door, Mr. Mou and other overseas neo-Confucians could not get in touch with it. I remember only once chatting with Mr. He Lin (Zhao Zi) about past philosophical stories. Mr. He mentioned that Mr. Mou was a student in Mr. He's class in Peking University in the early 1930s. As students in their early forties, most of us have never been exposed to Kant's third criticism and the so-called fourth criticism.
During the 20 years from liberation to the Cultural Revolution, the philosophical circle took Stalin's Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism (actually a passage from Lian's History of the Party) as the standard, and any philosophy should use this scale to examine it: idealism or materialism? Metaphysics or dialectics? Only by identifying the predecessors according to this standard can it be considered as research, and the results are limited to this. I remember that as soon as I finished translating Pensées by B.Pascal, I wrote a preface, which was handed over to an expert for examination and approval by the publishing house. After reading it, the expert said with great dissatisfaction: such an article didn't even say idealistic materialism! In the fifties and sixties, the main task of the philosophical circle seemed to be to arrange a queue for the predecessors. The attribution of every thought is thus settled. However, it is difficult to discuss the philosophical problem itself in depth. Thanks to the classic works of Marx and Engels, Kant made a conclusion, so Kant survived being killed by a stick, although he did not get the attention he deserved. For a long time, it seems that the academic circles only study the history of philosophy, but not the philosophical problems themselves. The so-called philosophical research generally uses textual research and annotation to replace the discussion of meaning. In recent twenty years, only Criticism of Practical Reason translated by Mr. (), Exploration of Moral Metaphysics retranslated by Mr. () and Criticism of Judgment jointly translated by Zong Baihua and Wei Zhuomin are related to Kant. Some of Wei's translations claim to be from the original text, but in fact they are all translated from the English version. Even the mistakes in the English version are wrong, which makes people reluctant to read them. This book is enough to represent Kant's mature system in his later years, and retranslation is really necessary. Moreover, after 20 years of reform and opening up, there is no readable translation so far, which is regrettable.
Since 1966, the "Cultural Revolution" storm has swept across China, and it seems that there is no reading, let alone research, but in fact it is not entirely true. I know more than one example. My friend brother Li Zehou's book Critique of Philosophy is a typical example. In the early days of the "Cultural Revolution", Brother Zehou was lucky enough to avoid getting involved in contradictions. Later, I finished this book in the cadre school. It is not only a monograph of China's Kant's philosophy, but also a valuable one, which expresses the thoughts of a truly thoughtful thinker. For a long time, there seems to be no thinker in domestic academic circles. Only one thinker with his own thoughts stood out among scholars. Until then, it was really gratifying. After all, China's ideological circle is still full of fresh vitality, not just a mess. Since then, a series of his works have come out one after another, almost leading the way, and they are popular in Chinese mainland. A person's thoughts are always restricted by the background of his own times. No matter whether he agrees or disagrees with his ideas or arguments, no one can deny the great value, influence and significance of his works in the history of China's academic thought.
Twenty years after the reform, Kant's works have a new translation of Critique of Practical Reason by Mr. Han Shuifa, and he gave me a book. After reading it, I also gave him some advice. At the end of the book, the well-known sentence (that is, heaven is in heaven, and virtue is in the heart) is about the moral law in people's hearts. The original text is "immer neuer". Guan's translation is called "everyday renovation", but the word "renovation" is often used as "fancy renovation" in Chinese, which is quite derogatory; Korean translation is "always fresh and growing", which seems a bit wasteful. I think it is more appropriate to use the old saying "new day, new day, new day" and the simple "new day, new day". The translation of Kant's Metaphysical Principles of Law by Shen Shuping was also published at the same time. This book is the last book of Shen Shuping's life. Mr. Qi Jiliang is an old teacher who devoted his life to Kant. A few years ago, Mr. Qi abruptly returned to Daoshan. Unfortunately, his translation of Critique of Pure Reason has not yet been published. In addition, it is quite surprising that during the Cultural Revolution, Kant's A General History of Nature and the Theory of Celestial Bodies was published in Chinese (the Chinese version is Introduction to the Development of the Universe, Shanghai, 1972), perhaps because Engels' Dialectics of Nature gave it a high evaluation. None of the above translations is as clear, fluent and easy to understand as some people require. There are both content problems and stylistic problems. The first condition of translation is to be faithful to the original, not only in words but also in style. /kloc-the style of writing of thinkers in the 0 th and 8 th centuries is often cumbersome and clumsy, and its strength lies in this stubborn and heavy style. After all, academic and ideological works are not children's books or popular books, and often carry a long list of inferences. If translation is simple and clear, it is best not to read academic works, popular books or children's literature. Imagine if Kant, Hegel and even Marx are fluent in translation, are they still Kant, Hegel or Marx? We shouldn't ask for such a translation. In addition, the older generation of scholars Feng () and Shen Youding () have also made extensive and profound research on Kant. I'm sorry that Mr. Feng never wrote it in his life. Mr. Shen wrote very little and never mentioned Kant. He has hardly written any articles for several years. The older generation of scholars respect themselves so much, which is far beyond the reach of today's trend leaders. It is easy for them to exaggerate a thousand words for their abilities.
At the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, I didn't devote myself to sports. I would like to be a bard. I spent two years in my humble room at home, secretly reading Kant's three major criticisms and three minor criticisms (namely introduction, book exploration and investigation). I felt that I had a better life when I was young, so I went directly to see what he called the "fourth criticism" in his later years. In Kant's thoughts in his later years, his interest center obviously tends to turn to humanities (politics and history). At that time, he was over 70 years old, and it was not impossible to write a complete fourth criticism if he could take the time. But these words handed down from generation to generation are enough to form the embryonic form of the fourth criticism, so Cahill directly called it "historical rational criticism." As it turns out, it was at the beginning of the "Cultural Revolution" turmoil that I was destined to read these important words of his. At that time, I felt that the future was bright and suddenly enlightened; Some historical philosophy works I have read in the past are not as profound and clear as these. For example, Rousseau once lamented that it is so difficult to legislate for a country, and it must be an angel nation. On the other hand, Kant expanded his meaning, saying: It doesn't need an angel country. Even a group of demons can do it, as long as they have wisdom. What brilliant wisdom this argument shows! Rousseau speaks for angels, other philosophers speak for some people, and Kant speaks for all beings including the devil. Rousseau wanted to force people to be free (they were "everywhere in chains"), but Kant went one step further and turned the devil into an angel. This leap of thought is really a brainwave, but ice is colder than water. What we see here is the face of18th century philosophers who like to call it "Weltburger". Truth is universally applicable, and the transcendental nature of Kant's philosophy seems to ensure that it will be immortal and will not be confused. As a reader, in a mood that seems enlightened, I deeply realized Goethe's famous saying: "Everyone can have his own truth, but the truth is still one." (Cassirer's Rousseau, Kant, Goethe, Princeton, 1963, p. 97) So I began to translate it secretly. At that time, I just escaped from emptiness and chatted for myself. I never dreamed that it would be published one day. Later, the propaganda team went in, and I was locked in the bullpen, so I had to stop playing. Three years later, when Nixon visited China, Reference News published an article saying that Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Rousseau's Theory of Social Contract were published in Xinhua Bookstore, which showed that China would not abandon the classics of human civilization. Lv Shuyuan is a clumsy translator. Inspired by this news, after I came back from the ultra-leftwing, I re-proofread and sorted out all eight papers of Kant, and sent them to the publishing house, titled Critique of Historical Reason. However, the publishing house thought that this was not Kant's original name, so it changed its name to Collected Works of Criticism of Historical Reason. However, it took another 15 years, and it was not released until 1990, which is really a long way to go. Since then, I have translated Kant's early Investigation of Aesthetic Feeling and Sublime (translated as On Aesthetic Feeling and Sublime), which has been six years now or will be published soon. A few days ago, I had to meet my brother Wang Jiuxing on the 90th anniversary of Tsinghua University. I was asked about six volumes of Kant's collected works edited by him. According to him, the first three volumes went well, and he translated the book Critique of Pure Reason. This is a scholar who devoted his life to the study of German classical philosophy. His work is not only a deep personal reward, but also a great contribution to the academic circles in China. What I said above is limited to the mainland. I know little about Taiwan Province Province, except that there are people who study Kant, and Mr. Zhu Gaozheng is one of them.
If pure reason does not undergo some self-criticism, the knowledge it obtains can only be arbitrary metaphysics; Similarly, practical rationality, judgment rationality and historical rationality are all the same. However, in the history of thought, no one has ever made a self-critical test of historical rationality. Yes, it should be said that it started with Kant. Naturally, he also left many problems, some of which are fundamental (such as the effectiveness of historical understanding) and have not been solved. Some conclusions are also difficult for later readers to agree with. However, this kind of self-criticism work is an indispensable prelude to historical rational understanding. Kant laid a philosophical system with a big body and a fine mind, and human thought and culture can only advance on the basis laid by predecessors. If all the old culture and ideas are completely shattered, mankind will have to go back to the primitive state of ignorance. Marx's theory of proletarian dictatorship refers to political dictatorship, not ideological dictatorship. Ideological dictatorship is actually impossible and unreasonable in theory. Is it possible for you to make everyone think your way?
All thoughts can only stand on the shoulders of predecessors and move on. However, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is really not very good to read. I often think that if we can read Kant in a different order, not first, second, third and fourth, but in the opposite direction, from fourth to third and from second to first, it may be easier to understand the essence of Kant's philosophy. Today, I saw Four Lectures on Kant written by Mr. Gao Zheng, with the emphasis on commenting on Kant's fourth criticism. Quite a few people agree with my contempt. Therefore, I deeply feel that although they are facing each other across the sea, they are psychologically the same, and they are quite happy to "escape from emptiness and hear people's footsteps." Mr. Gao Zheng's book is rigorous and simple, and I believe readers can learn a more authentic, complete and understandable Kant. This should be said to be a matter of infinite merit.