Taking Liang Qichao's introduction of Kant to China as an example, this paper examines how Chinese intellectuals in the early 20th century made use of Japanese literature to understand Western civilization. In 1903, Liang wrote ”The Doctrines of the Greatest Philosopher in Modern Times--Kant” drawing on Nakae Chomin's Japanese translation of the French scholar Alfred Fouillée's Histoire de la philosophie. How did Liang translate Nakae's ”kanto” into ”kangde”? Did he faithfully copy Nakae's image of Kant? Or did he distort it to some extent? Furthermore, how did Liang interpret and evaluate Kant? According to my comparison, Liang's article about Kant is very selective. He did not translate Nakae's discussion of Kant's philosophical method or his discussion of Kant's attitude toward art. In addition, Liang barely touched on Kant’s ideas about God. Liang was especially concerned with Kant's ideas about ethics and politics, which were relevant to his larger nationalistic project. Liang not only introduced Kant’s ideas in his own way, but also linked them with Chinese thought and evaluated them by Chinese standards. From his evaluation of Kant, one can see that Liang affirmed Buddhism, Wang Yangming's Neo-Confucianism, and Tan Sitong's ideas centering around ren (benevolence), but criticized Zhu Xi's and Zhang Zai's philosophical outlook. From Liang's perspective, Kant's strength was that some of his concepts were similar to the Buddhist idea of zhenru (bhutatathata, absolute fundamental reality), Wang Yang-ming's idea of liangzhi (spontaneous moral knowing) and Tan Sitong's idea of ren, and thus on the one hand having the merit of linking metaphysics with moral philosophy, and on the other hand showing the transcendental nature of the ”true self.” Yet for Liang, Kant’s shortcoming was that, although he understood the ”true self,” he failed to understand both the linkage between the ”little self (xiaowo)” and the ”greater self (dawo)” and the ideal of ”saving all living beings” in Buddhist philosophy. Two points can be drawn from the above discussion. 1. To some extent, Liang misunderstood Kant. For example, he equated Kant's ”true self” with Wang Yang-ming's liangzhi and ignored the differences between them. 2. Liang's criticism of Kant from the Buddhist perspective revealed fundamental epistemological differences between himself and Kant. Kant tended toward ”epistemological pessimism,” doubting the possibility of knowing the ultimate nature of things, and emphasizing that the soul is not a known existing entity. Liang, on the other hand, tended toward ”epistemological optimism,” holding that Buddhism provides a full understanding of morality and its ontological basis. Liang's way of discussing Kant indicates that, in Liang's thought, Western, Japanese, and Chinese intellectual elements are ”combined with one another in an unbalanced way.” It is like a mosaic with pieces from Kant, Alfred Fouillée, Nakae Chōmin, and various Buddhist and Confucian thinkers.
