Karatani Kojin insists that Sakaguchi Ango's works and thoughts should be interpreted according to the dichotomy not between Leftism and Rightism, but between Enlightenment and Romanticism. This viewpoint is epoch making, because if interpreted either as Leftism or Rightism,as many former researchers did, Ango's thoughts lose their potential, which is much larger than many researchers have supposed. Karatani says that Ango grasped that in Western thought, rationality is based on some irrationality, and irrationality is based on rationality. With such deep insight, Ango criticized superficial social and political theories and moral or ethical thoughts in Japan, especially before and during the last war. Ango pointed out that all social or political systems and morality or ethics,whether they are just in thought or real,from the family system to Cosmopolitanism,are all 'automata' ,or 'karakuri' in Japanese, He also pointed out that human beings will necessarily create automata from the personal to the sociai level, and it is the 'reality of a human being',or, what Ango named 'furusato' in Japanese. Karatani calls Ango's thought his 'Radicalism',and in this respect, Karatani says,Ango is equal to great thinkers in the West such as Hobbers, Kant, and Marx,and in Ango's thought,he see the potential to dissolve nation states and to construct a world federation.Karatani's interpretation is a landmark in the study of Ango, and researchers should take account of, or not make light of, Ango's radicalism. I think,however,that Karatani's interpretation is not as radical as Ango's thought itself, but following Karatani's interpretation,we can comprehend Ango's thougyt more radically. I think that Karatani connects Ango's thought somewhat hastily with social or political thoughts, When Ango referred to the reality of a human being, he considered a human being as a person, not as a part of a social or political system. Ango declared that politics is 'a coarse web' and political thought can never grasp a person in the exact meaning, Ango thought that in the reality of human beings, a person is captured in 'a fine web',and this web is a kind of discourse as argued by M.Foucault. Ango also said that in the reality of a human being, a person should inevitably be moral or ethical. In other words, a person is moral or ethical before he constructs some moral or ethical discourse. I think that folllowing Ango's thought, we should not costruct some social, political, moral or ethical discourses, buy should examine whether such discourses are based on the reality of a human being. Ango donates us a kind of 'test' for such examination, and we can call it 'discourse for morality or ethics',not 'discourse of marality or ethics.'