As for transcendent enlightenment and spiritual understanding, according to the standards of Chinese learning, Kant is not particularly outstanding, nor is he very mature. But he has strict and astute speculation, a grand and far-reaching understanding, and a serious and lofty sense of morality and sacredness. These three form the scale of Kant's philosophy and its scale. Because he has strict and shrewd thinking (i.e., logical interpretation), his words are legal and his reasoning is stable. Because he has a grand and far-reaching knowledge, he can establish the limits of knowledge and "knowledge stops at its place." I don’t know”; because he has a serious and noble sense of morality and holiness, he can reveal the subject of value outside the intellectual subject, cover up the theology of external theoretical speculation, and establish a moral theology. It is indeed not easy to understand Kant's philosophy on such a scale. If a person who talks about Kant does not have the method of speculation, then his academic ability is not up to par; if he does not have knowledge and moral sense, then he is not as clever as he is. If these three things cannot be obeyed by the heart, and if there is something happening all the time, and the mind understands it, it will never be possible to understand it; even if there are many words to say, it is just learning to talk, and it will never be able to respond. My friend Mr. Lao Siguang recently wrote "Essentials of Kant's Theory of Knowledge", which is clear, definite and appropriately corresponding, which is unprecedented. In his "Introduction", he pertinently pointed out that the "fundamental question" that forms the entire theoretical system of Kant's philosophy is whether knowledge of ontology is possible. This is said after integrating all of Kant's philosophy. It is also based on Kant's meaning of "all objects are divided into noumenon and phenomena." This is a general program of Kant's philosophy. It is certainly pertinent to use this as the basis for the question. The so-called "whether knowledge of ontology is possible" is not a direct question, but a positive face-to-face approach to both internal and external knowledge, and must be systematically and truly established from scratch. Inherent in knowledge is to dissect the formation of knowledge, as well as its nature and scope, systematically and definitely. This difficult and lengthy work was done in the "Transcendental Analysis" part of "Critique of Pure Reason". External knowledge means to clarify why concepts in the noumenal world are not objects of knowledge and how they are possible. These must be answered systematically and definitely. This difficult and lengthy work was done in the "Dialectic of Transcendence" in the "Critique of Pure Reason", and it needs to be involved in the "Critique of Practical Reason". The question "whether knowledge of ontology is possible" is only a summary and joint of the entire system. If our minds can no longer actively face and deal with both internal and external knowledge, and only regard the question as a direct question and answer, we will not be able to correspond to Kant's spirit. But if we grasp that general joint, we will have an eye for understanding Kant's philosophy. Therefore, the raising of this origin question indicates that the author is consistent with Kant's understanding. Kant's achievement of this definite form of critical philosophy was not achieved by a moment of wisdom and inspiration, but a long-term process of incubation and training. Therefore, the author of this book provides another overview of Kant's early thoughts in Criticism. This chapter is very important. People who usually talk about Kant's philosophy mostly ignore this development. Therefore, their understanding of Kant is often abrupt, and they cannot see traces of its development, and they have no sense of gradual integration. Readers can see Kant's shrewd thinking from this chapter. Although the system of principles is immature, its method of thinking about each concept is very methodical. What is shown here are some basic principles for training Western philosophy. For the establishment of a concept, we should not only ask about its "formal possibility", but also its "real possibility". This way of interpretation enabled Kant to break away from Woolf's rationalism and incorporate empiricism. After further development, critical philosophy emerged. In this way, after summarizing the early thoughts of the Critique, the author then proceeds to present an analytical presentation of the entire system of "Critique of Pure Reason". Through this book, readers can get a glimpse of the whole picture of Kant's philosophy.

Usually, many people who talk about Kant cannot match Kant's knowledge. They often only follow the "Introduction" in "Critique of Pure Reason" which talks about "how is a priori synthetic judgment possible" and "how is mathematics possible" "How is natural science possible?" "How is metaphysics possible?" The main crux is generally that there is no positive awareness of the noumenal world outside knowledge, or there is no insight at all (this is the so-called ignorance). It is completely empty in this aspect, and its mind cannot reach it, so it completely retreats into the scope of knowledge.

Internally in the intellectual world, but also attracted by the difficult and long journey of "Transcendental Analysis" in "Critique of Pure Reason", I looked at it step by step and explained it step by step, and then I felt that the road was stuck, there were doubts everywhere, and my mind could not He is open-minded and does not admit that his academic ability and knowledge are not up to par. Instead, he thinks that Kant is fundamentally fallacious and incomprehensible. What people don't believe in him is mainly his "transcendentalism" and "subjectivism". Especially in recent times, scholars tend to think downward and externally, and these two points cannot be reconciled at all. However, we must admit that without considerable knowledge and academic ability, it is difficult to achieve these two points without making several deviations and twists and turns on the principles. According to my personal experience and the criticisms against Kant that I have come across, directly or indirectly, I feel that the main crux is this: modern people cannot have a serious understanding of the division between knowledge and superknowledge, and the noumenal realm , The value world cannot have a positive meaning or have no insight at all. This does not mean that having a positive and serious awareness of this aspect requires accepting all of Kant's philosophy. But I believe that if there is a positive and solemn awareness of this aspect, and a definite and thorough understanding of the formation of knowledge and its nature and scope, then Kant’s approach is inevitable and unmovable. Transcendentalism and subjectivity Doctrine is bound to be perfected. The word "subjectivism" is unpleasant to see. In fact, the so-called "subjective" here is not subjective in the psychological sense, but only reveals the prior and universal laws from the "subject" aspect. It is still objective and is not the subject as commonly imagined. Therefore, this word is best translated as "subjectivism". At this point, I don’t want to say anything more about Kant’s philosophy. The author of this book will dissect it for the readers. I just want to briefly talk about my personal experience, which may help readers understand Kant. My experience of approaching Kant is very loose and off-topic, and is not tied to the main text of Kant's philosophy. It is generally difficult for modern people or beginners of philosophy to understand Kant's subjective theory of time and space and his theory of transcendental categories. I am a hard-working person, so of course I am no exception. But I once had the opportunity to read about the "non-corresponding Dharma" in Buddhism, which is also called "the false Dharma of division". I suddenly thought of Kant's theory of time, space and categories, and I understood why these things are subjective. Under the meaning of "subjective", Buddhism calls it the false method of division, while Kant, because he faces knowledge squarely, calls it the universal law, formal condition, or form of intuition revealed from the subjective aspect. The meanings of the two sides are of course very different. However, the teachings in Buddhism can bring us closer to Kant’s proposition. Why does Buddhism say that time and space, cause and effect, one and more, sameness and difference, etc., are non-corresponding dharma, or false dharma of division? It is precisely because he has the ultimate reality (true truth or ontological world) of transcendent knowledge (comparison or conventional truth). There are many concepts in the ontological world, and their explanations are also different. In Kant, it focuses on God, the immortal soul and the freedom of will; in Taoism, it is said to be the inexplicable "Tao"; in Confucianism, it is said to be the popularity of benevolence, and it is said to be sincerity, god, and justice; in Buddhism, it is said to be Reality, nirvana. No matter how you say it, it always belongs to the noumenal realm, and it is not the realm where knowledge is practiced, that is, it is not the object of knowledge. Therefore, anything that is a condition for successful knowledge cannot be used here. On the contrary, all knowledge must have its formal conditions, and formal conditions can only be applied to phenomena and not to ontology. In China, no matter Confucianism, Buddhism or Taoism, there are no different words for this. However, in terms of Chinese Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, they only focus on the transcendent enlightenment of the noumenon and cannot face knowledge (because there is no science). Therefore, the formation, nature and scope of knowledge cannot be systematically and definitely dissected, but only a general concept. Kant, on the other hand, was able to face up to knowledge and actively dissect it because of his different cultural heritage. This not only reflects Kant's knowledge, but also his ability to learn from others and reach higher levels. Mencius said: "The best is due to your strength; the other is not your strength." This is exactly the issue of strength and knowledge. In terms of knowledge, the three Chinese schools of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism are not powerful enough, but Kant is. As for super knowledge, although Kant is not as sophisticated as the three Chinese schools of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, he is still able to achieve it. This is the so-called knowledge. Therefore, if we do not have a positive and solemn awareness of the noumenal world, we will never have a corresponding understanding of Kant's philosophy. And here, I can also tell readers: To understand Kant, you must go deep into his theory, but do not get stuck and get bored by it. When you don't understand, you have to let it go, jump out, relax, and think about it, and you will always have enlightenment.

? I came close to and understood Kant's proposition through the concept of "false divisions" in Buddhism. Therefore, I am very happy that I also understood what Kant said about time and space in "Transcendental Perception". "Beyond conceptuality" and "empirical reality", and what he said about time and space are only the intuitive form of the limited existence of human beings. As for other limited existences or infinite existences, this form is not required or has this form. These words seemed to be idle talk, and no one paid much attention to them. In fact, this is where the big joints and big eyes are. If these words that express boundaries can be seen clearly, then the entire system of Kant's philosophy, both what is said by knowledge internally and what is said externally by knowledge, can be understood without distinction. Therefore, to read Kant's philosophy, one must have knowledge and academic ability. If it is not enough, it must be cultivated in order to reach higher levels. Vain analysis and superficial observation are of no use. It is doubtful, but it is not allowed to ridicule. A little doubt leads to a small enlightenment, a great doubt leads to a great enlightenment, and no doubt leads to no enlightenment. Therefore it is doubtful. However, if you are stagnant and self-proclaimed, often taking your own position, and your door is limited, you cannot talk about reaching the top. I am deeply grateful that Mr. Lao's work has been carefully reviewed and properly reviewed, and will benefit scholars. Therefore, do not assume that it is solid and crude, but do it reluctantly.