康德是近代哲学的重镇，甚至可以说是一个主要的入口。他常被人认为是开启了近代哲学史上的“哥白尼革命”。有人说，在今天的西方，在几乎所有重要大学的哲学系里，差不多都有一个教授在专门研究康德，或至少有人曾长期研究过康德乃至有过专著。其他不专门研究康德的哲学家，也多认真研读过他的著作。要想进入近现代哲学的思想空间，康德绝对是绕不过去的。康德也一直是近现代中国哲学，尤其是中国的道德哲学发展的一个宝贵资源。当代中国哲学界分别长期生活在我国台港和大陆的两位最有哲学思考力和影响力的两位：牟宗三和李泽厚，都有专门的厚重之作来研究康德。

但康德的理论又是一个巨大的、著名“难啃”的思想之果。他横跨哲学的认识论、本体论、伦理学、美学，乃至宗教、法学、人类学、自然科学等诸多领域，而你即便是研究其中一个领域，也不能不旁涉其他领域，尤其是其基本的哲学原理。而他的哲学不仅有一个异常宽广的维度，其纵深的根须也伸展得非常深远和隐秘，其中还包含着许多复杂的悖论或者说可以做多种分析和解读的观点。

这就意味着，一个思想者要真正进入研究康德的领域，必须准备一段长期的时间，一段清冷，很可能是坐冷板凳的时间，必须下决心摈除许多事务性的工作，而专心致志于思想。

康德又绝对是值得热爱思想与智慧的人们这样投入的。一个人如果有过一段专门研究康德的经历，他就可能不会太肤浅了，或者不会太自傲了。而康德的伦理学或者说道德哲学还尤其有意义。或许可以这样通俗地说，近代以来，我们在神学、在哲学本体论和认识论领域中所感受到的失望的火星，经由康德，在实践哲学和伦理学中又重新燃起，又重新化为希望。

所以，兆国从事研究康德伦理学的工作，我以为是一件虽然艰巨，但很有意义的事情。兆国数年前到北京大学哲学系访学，我们一起度过了一些学术分享和交流的时光。他原来是研究孟子的，有很好的中国学问的功底和扎实的文献功夫，又不可遏制地被康德思想吸引，进入西方哲学的殿堂，在这后面，是有一种内在的理路和动力的。他以“明理”与“敬义”来概括和分析康德道德哲学作为一种现代理性主义伦理学和义务论的特征，也是相当中肯的。

在康德那里，这种理性主义又不是僭越的，而是有限的。所以，“明理”即是明“理”的某种绝对性，也是明“理”的某种局限性。而“敬义”也是如此，这里的“义”从性质上说既有某种至高无上的意义而不能不“敬”，又有某种在内容上至为朴实基本的意义而不能不“重”。最近有英美学者对其道德哲学是否属于义务论也还有质疑，但我以为一个基本的对照还是存在的：康德的道德哲学和在他以前占主流的目的论，也和他以后特别流行的功利主义有着截然不同的特征。所以，现代伦理学的义务论与目的论的分野，大致还是可以根据康德的伦理学和与之对峙的理论来作出区分的。

当然，以康德为代表的义务论、以功利主义为代表的目的论或结果论，都深刻反映，或也在某种程度上先导和推动了人类社会进入现代的变化。从其思想资源来说，功利主义从一种精致的自我的快乐主义走向利益的可衡量的普遍化，义务论从过去包含在一种全面和崇高的自我完善论内部而现今走向了一种独立性和普遍化，除了其作为思想本身的意义和逻辑之外，也表征了时代社会向平等的变化，它们也都将多数人纳入了考虑，也就是说，面向了包括过去的少数和多数的所有社会成员。伦理学于此成为了一种真正全社会的伦理，而新的与旧的思想争论和选择也将在这一平台上发生或继续。

对兆国的研究，我还难测其深。虽然我也曾专门研究过康德，甚至可以说，我后来形成的伦理学观点深受康德的影响。但我现在的确有很长的一段时间没有专门做这种研究了。所以，我一直犹豫自己是否有资格写这篇序言，想找出一些时间来重新仔细阅读康德却又因紧迫的任务和精力的有限而一时无法措手，而有感于兆国的诚邀和信任，也不忍让兆国耐心的默默等待无休止地延续下去，最后就只是写了上面这样一些简单的感想性文字，惭愧。

何怀宏

2011年9月30日于褐石

Kant is an important town of modern philosophy, and can even be said to be a major entrance. He is often credited with initiating the "Copernican Revolution" in the history of modern philosophy. Some people say that in the West today, in almost all the philosophy departments of major universities, there is almost one professor who specializes in Kant, or at least someone has studied Kant for a long time or even has a monograph. Other philosophers who did not specialize in Kant also studied his works carefully. If you want to enter the intellectual space of modern philosophy, Kant is absolutely inescapable. Kant has also been a valuable resource for the development of modern Chinese philosophy, especially Chinese moral philosophy. The two most philosophical thinkers and influential in contemporary Chinese philosophical circles who have lived in Taiwan, Hong Kong and the mainland for a long time, Mou Zongsan and Li Zehou, have specialized and heavy works to study Kant. But Kant's theory is the fruit of a huge, famously "difficult" idea. He spans the epistemology, ontology, ethics, aesthetics, and even religion, law, anthropology, and natural sciences of philosophy, and even if you study one of them, you can't help but touch on the others, especially its basic philosophical principles. And his philosophy not only has an unusually broad dimension, but its deep roots are also very deep and secretive, and it also contains many complex paradoxes or views that can be analyzed and interpreted in a variety of ways. This means that in order for a thinker to really enter the field of studying Kant, he must prepare for a long time, a cold, probably cold bench time, and must be determined to abandon many transactional tasks and concentrate on thought. Kant is definitely worthy of such investment by people who love thought and wisdom. If a person has had an experience specializing in Kant, he may not be too superficial or too proud. Kant's ethics, or moral philosophy, is particularly relevant. It may be said in layman's terms that the sparks of disappointment that we have felt in recent times in theology, in the field of philosophical ontology and epistemology, have been rekindled and rekindled into hope in practical philosophy and ethics, through Kant. Therefore, Zhaoguo's work in studying Kantian ethics is a very meaningful thing that I think is difficult. Zhaoguo visited the Department of Philosophy of Peking University a few years ago, and we spent some academic sharing and exchange time together. He originally studied Mencius, had a good foundation in Chinese learning and solid literature, and was irrepressibly attracted by Kant's thought and entered the hall of Western philosophy. It is also quite pertinent that he summarizes and analyzes the characteristics of Kant's moral philosophy as a modern rationalist ethic and deontology in terms of "reason" and "honorific righteousness". In Kant, this rationalism is not trespassive, but limited. Therefore, "reason" is a certain absoluteness of "reason" and a certain limitation of "reason". The same is true of "respect", where "righteousness" has both a certain supreme meaning and cannot but "respect" in nature, and a certain meaning that is simple and basic in content and cannot but be "heavy". Recently, some British scholars have questioned whether his moral philosophy is deontology, but I think a basic contrast still exists: Kant's moral philosophy and teleology, which dominated before him, also have very different characteristics from the utilitarianism that became particularly popular after him. Therefore, the distinction between deontology and teleology in modern ethics can be roughly distinguished according to Kant's ethics and the theory of confrontation with it. Of course, the deontology represented by Kant and the teleology or consequentialism represented by utilitarianism all profoundly reflect, or to some extent, pre-empt and promote the modern changes of human society. In terms of its ideological resources, utilitarianism moves from a refined self-hedonism to a measurable universalization of benefits, and deontology moves from being contained in a comprehensive and sublime self-perfectionism in the past to an independent and universalized one, which, in addition to its meaning and logic as thought itself, also characterizes the changes in the society of the times towards equality, and they all take into account the majority, that is, to all members of society, including the minority and the majority of the past. Ethics has thus become a truly society-wide ethic, and debates and choices between new and old ideas will take place or continue on this platform. I still can't fathom the depth of Zhaoguo's research. Although I also studied Kant specifically, it can even be said that the ethical views I later developed were deeply influenced by Kant. But I did not do this kind of research for a long time now. Therefore, I have been hesitant to write this preface, trying to find some time to read Kant carefully again, but I was caught off guard for a while due to the urgent task and limited energy, and I felt Zhaoguo's sincere invitation and trust, and I could not bear to let Zhaoguo's patient silent waiting to continue endlessly, and finally just wrote some simple sentimental words like the above, ashamed. He Huaihong in brownstone, September 30, 2011（AI翻译）