Some people will be concerned with the question of what is real and what is actual in existence. Of course, existence itself does not have this problem; they have this embarrassment by speaking of other problems as one and confusing them.
Existence is about the true existence of man - the entity, which is true in the narrow sense of philosophy, and only when the entity further comes to solve a problem of freedom - the good - does the question of ought and actuality arise, that is, ought and actuality is not really a problem of existence, but a problem of moral - law.
Why, then, does the truth of existence make the good exist as a moral contingency? It is because existence is the monistic existence of man, which internalizes the problem of publicness that man must face, i.e., man can only have further self-realization when he has dealt with a public problem that is internalized in himself.
This intrinsic requirement of having to deal with a public problem first is moral contingency, which is the necessary connection between truth and goodness, as well as between philosophy in the narrow sense and philosophy in the broad sense.
This moral contingency is what Mencius called the theory of sexual goodness, but if you do not know the truth of existence, and the support of the truth to the good, you are bound to scoff at the theory of sexual goodness. You don't have to blame the common people, after all, Mencius and others have not been able to speak clearly, if they could speak clearly, philosophy would have been realized.
But at least you can now see the problem of true philosophy of truth and goodness. At the same time, you will also find that Kant's stream, even what is true is wrong, so his first critique of the true, necessarily can not push the second critique of the good, his two critiques are not related to the true philosophy.
Philosophy is really not something you can play with just by reading a few books, it has a "dimension" that you can't see, existence is what you can't see. You know nothing.