My opinion has been stated in this book no matter it's correct or incorrect.The origin of this book is briefly introduced in the postscript.Here what I want to state is the theoretical motive that drives the author to write this book.
　　l.The Merging of Historical Anthropology and Sociology of Knowledge Habermas thought Rawls has realized \"a pivotal tum on contemporary practical philosophy\"because Rawls acknowledged the existence of \" reasonable pluralism\"， which means that there exists many different but reasonable andcomplete comprehension ways for daily life in the same community life.Thus，in fact，many kinds of corresponding social practices can exist simultaneously.
　　In other words， human knowledge， including experiential knowledge
　�。╳itchcraft and science），moral knowledge(ethic），won't be same in form and content.Therefore，Kant's so-called \"Die transzendentale Asthetik\"，namely，the \"originality\" and entity of knowledge， was perjured.lt also marks that we have to acknowledge human knowledge and scientific knowledge， in principle，are local.And this decides the combination and co-ordination of science (wissenschaftslehre） and anthropology.That is to say，not only the behavior and culture of human，but also knowledge and belief，present a kind of geographical distribution， namely， look like islands from the perspective of anthropology.
　　If all the \"truth\" must establish on the basis of specific ethnic and religious life history， then there is no reason to deny different knowledge and moral insights from \"different culture\".It is the difference between knowledge representation and cultural identity that imposes contemporary pressure on wissenschaftslehre and ethics.This is a fundamental challenge for modern metaphysics Kant standing for， which is the factor that abstract truth is guaranteed by universal reason which can't ignore national custom any more.Thus， knowledge is not inherent but relative to disparate ethnic and religious life history.