Kant's idea of freedom emphasizes autonomy, the idea that individual actions should be based on universal moral laws that reason itself has established. On the other hand, the Confucian "li" more reflects a heteronomy, that is, the norms of behavior are derived from social and cultural traditions, and emphasize the role and responsibility of individuals in society. Although "ritual" also contains internalized moral requirements in Confucianism, its external form and traditional nature make it in contrast to Kant's concept of self-discipline.
教学团队
课程特色
视频(28)
考试(25)
文档(3)
讨论(3)
最新学员
A discussion on Li with a comparitive view of Kant's interpretation of "freedom"
Some people believe Li or rituals are about organizing and structuring social and personal behaviors, and thus seem to conflict with human emotional instinct and free spirit. Then, can we draw the conclusion that Confucius is in line with inhumanity (as suggested by Bertrand Russel on page 54)? Bear this question in your mind and answer the following questions:
–a) What indeed is freedom? Use Kant’s interpretation of freedom as a way to comprehend your understanding of Confucius’s requisites on propriety. In what way are Confucius’s idea of propriety comparable with Kant’s idea of imperative duty?
–b) How does the German philosopher Kant define human’s “rational capacity”? From this perspective, how should we look at Confucian's influence on Chinese humanity? How is western rationality similar and different from Confucian rationality?
341 回复
-
-
-
Kant defines freedom as acting according to one's rational will, independent of external influences, aligning with moral laws self-imposed through reason. This resonates with Confucius’s emphasis on propriety (Li), which is not merely about adhering to societal norms but involves a deep, internalized sense of moral duty and respect for others. Both philosophers advocate for actions guided by an inner moral compass rather than external compulsion, reflecting a form of autonomy. However, while Kant’s rationality is rooted in abstract, universal principles, Confucian rationality is more context-dependent, emphasizing relational duties and harmonious social interactions. This suggests that Confucianism fosters a communal sense of humanity, whereas Western rationality often prioritizes individual rights and freedoms. Despite these differences, both traditions aim to cultivate virtuous individuals who contribute positively to society.
-
a) Freedom, in Kant's interpretation, is the ability to act according to universal moral laws, which are self-imposed through reason. This aligns with Confucius's view of propriety (Li), which is not just external ritual but an internal moral compass guiding behavior. Both Kant's imperative duty and Confucius's Li emphasize the importance of self-regulation and the moral autonomy of the individual. Confucius's Li is comparable to Kant's duty in that both require individuals to act in accordance with a set of moral principles that contribute to the greater good of society and personal virtue .
b) Kant defines "rational capacity" as the ability to act according to reason and universal laws, which is central to his concept of autonomy and moral agency. From this perspective, Confucianism's influence on Chinese humanity can be seen as promoting rationality through social harmony and personal virtue, which is similar to Kant's emphasis on rational autonomy. However, Confucian rationality is often more communal and relationship-oriented, focusing on the individual's role within the social order, whereas Western rationality, as seen in Kant's philosophy, tends to emphasize individual autonomy and the moral law within the individual .
-
Li emphasizes achieving individual virtue and social harmony through adherence to traditional rituals and social norms, whereas Kant's concept of "freedom" focuses on moral autonomy guided by reason, asserting that true freedom is realized in following universal moral laws. Both perspectives provide guidance on norms and behavior, but Li places more emphasis on social and cultural practices, while Kant highlights individual rationality and moral self-governance.
-
Fei Xiaotong's concept of "differential benevolence," rooted in Confucian ethics, posits that affection and duty extend outwards from the self, strongest within the family and decreasing with distance. Yet, it advocates a hierarchical yet expansive view of love, beginning intimately and widening to include broader society. Central to Confucianism is *ren*—benevolence—that starts with family love and ideally expands to encompass all humanity, acknowledging relational differences while promoting a sense of justice and propriety. Confucian teachings emphasize broadening one's sphere of moral concern, balancing personal and communal interests, encouraging the cultivation of virtue and the extension of kindness universally, fostering a harmonious society that respects familial loyalty alongside global citizenship.
-
- Differences: Kant's freedom is more centered on the individual's rational capacity to create and follow universal moral laws independently, emphasizing the separation from the deterministic natural world. In contrast, Li in Confucianism is more about integrating individuals into the social fabric through following established norms and achieving freedom within that social context, with a focus on the cultivation of inner virtues in relation to social harmony.
- Similarities: Both concepts ultimately aim at the moral betterment of individuals. Whether it's Kant's idea of acting according to the categorical imperative or the Confucian practice of adhering to Li to cultivate virtues, they both see freedom as related to the ability to make moral choices and live a life that is worthy and in line with certain ethical ideals. They also both recognize that true freedom is not just doing whatever one wants but is about having a higher guiding principle for one's actions, be it rational moral laws in Kant's case or the moral and social norms in the case of Confucian Li.
In conclusion, while Kant and the Confucian understanding of concepts related to freedom have different starting points and emphases, they do share some common ground in their pursuit of a moral and fulfilling life as the manifestation of freedom.
-
a)Kant's interpretation of freedom is fundamentally about autonomy and respect for the moral law.He believed that true freedom lies in the ability to act according to the categorical imperative,which is a universal moral law that reason prescribes。Confucius's concept of propriety(礼),while seemingly focused on social norms and rituals,is also deeply moral,guiding individuals to act in ways that maintain social harmony and respect。Kant's categorical imperative and Confucius's propriety both require individuals to act not out of personal desire but out of a sense of duty and respect for a higher moral order.In this way,Confucius's idea of propriety can be seen as a form of imperative duty,similar to Kant's moral law,where individuals are compelled to act in a manner that upholds the greater good and respects the moral framework of society。
b)Kant defines human's"rational capacity"as the ability to reason and act according to universal moral principles,which is the foundation of his moral philosophy。From this perspective,Confucianism's influence on Chinese humanity can be viewed as an emphasis on moral character and the cultivation of virtues,which aligns with Kant's view of rationality as a moral guide。Western rationality,as represented by Kant,often emphasizes individual autonomy and the importance of reason in determining moral action,while Confucian rationality places a stronger emphasis on the relational context and the importance of social harmony。Both traditions value rationality,but they differ in their focus:Western rationality tends to prioritize individual reason and autonomy,whereas Confucian rationality is more concerned with the collective and the maintenance of social order through propriety and virtue。However,both philosophies recognize the importance of rationality in guiding human behavior and moral development,with Kant's rationality being more abstract and universal,and Confucian rationality being more contextual and relational。
-
In synthesis, Kant’s portrayal of freedom as autonomous rationality and Confucius’ articulation of 'Li' as ethical compliance illustrate two facets of human liberation. One espouses individual moral agency, while the other champions communal accord. Both, however, advocate for ethical conduct as foundational to realizing freedom. This dichotomy invites us to embrace a nuanced understanding of freedom that reconciles individual liberty with social responsibility, demonstrating that true freedom resides in the balance between self-determination and communal harmony. The dialogue between these philosophical giants illuminates the complexity and universality of the quest for freedom, urging a holistic perspective that honors both personal autonomy and collective unity in the pursuit of a just and ethical society.
-
a) According to Kant, freedom is the ability to act independently while following moral laws. Confucius' emphasis on propriety is not against human instincts and freedom. It's similar to Kant's imperative for a harmonious society, not restricting freedom.
b) Kant defined human "rational ability" as acting by intrinsic and universal moral principles. From this view, Confucianism guides Chinese nature. The rationality of the West and Confucianism has some similarities and differences in culture and emphasis. -
a) Freedom, in Kant’s view, is the ability to act according to universal moral laws rather than being driven by desires or external forces. Confucius’s concept of propriety (Li) shares similarities with Kant’s categorical imperative in that both emphasize the importance of moral conduct and social norms that guide individuals in society. Confucius saw propriety as a means to maintain social harmony, while Kant saw duty as a moral obligation that respects the autonomy of individuals.
b) Kant defines “rational capacity” as the ability to reason and make decisions independently, which is essential for moral behavior and self-governance. Confucianism’s influence on Chinese humanity can be seen in its emphasis on social harmony and moral virtues, which aligns with Kant’s view on rationality guiding moral actions. Western rationality often focuses on individual autonomy and rights, whereas Confucian rationality emphasizes social roles and responsibilities. Both stress the importance of reason in moral decision-making, but they differ in their approach to the individual’s place within society. -
（a) Kant believes that freedom is to conform to one's own condition, or even to serve oneself. In fact, I think this is similar to Confucius's saying, "Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you." It means that if you don't want to do it, don't force others. But in fact, there is another meaning here, that is, don't force yourself to do what you don't want to do.
（b)Kant believes that man's rational ability is to satisfy himself. From this point of view, I think Confucianism also tells us to accept ourselves and be consistent with ourselves
-
Kant defines freedom as the ability to act autonomously according to moral laws. This means that a person is free when they act out of a sense of duty and respect for the moral law.
In comparison, the concept of Li may involve following certain social norms and traditions. While Li may not be directly comparable to Kant's freedom in the same sense, it can be seen as a set of guidelines that govern behavior within a particular cultural context.
However, the two concepts also have some differences. Kant's freedom is more individualistic and emphasizes the autonomy of the individual in making moral decisions. Li, on the other hand, is often more community-oriented and emphasizes the importance of conforming to social expectations.
-
Kant's view of freedom emphasizes the importance of autonomy and moral self-discipline, believing that true freedom is based on the rational principles of the individual themselves. This viewpoint contrasts sharply with the views of liberals and also resonates with Martin Luther's views. Although Kant's view of freedom has profound philosophical significance in theory, it still faces certain challenges and criticisms in practical applications.
-
(a)The concept of freedom, when explored through the lens of Immanuel Kant and Confucius, reveals a rich tapestry of philosophical thought that intertwines individual autonomy with societal norms and moral duties.
Comparison: Kant’s Imperative Duty and Confucius’s Propriety
Moral Law and Universal Principles:
Kant: Kant’s categorical imperative is a universal moral law that transcends individual desires and cultural contexts. It is based on the principle of treating humanity, whether in oneself or in others, always as an end and never as a means only.
Confucius: While Confucius did not articulate a single, universal moral law, his concept of propriety (Li) serves a similar function. Propriety is a set of guidelines that, when followed, ensure that individuals act in ways that are respectful, harmonious, and beneficial to the community. It is a practical application of moral principles that are deeply rooted in the Confucian values of benevolence, righteousness, and wisdom.
(b) Kant's Definition of Rational Capacity
Kant defines human rational capacity as:
1. **Autonomy**: The ability to act according to self-imposed laws.
2. **Universalizability**: Actions should be based on principles that can be universalized as laws for everyone.
3. **Practical Reason**: The ability to guide actions and decisions according to moral principles.
4. **Critique and Reflection**: The capacity to question and evaluate one's beliefs and actions.
Confucian Influence on Chinese Humanity
Confucianism has profoundly influenced Chinese society and culture through:
1. **Propriety : Emphasis on appropriate behavior and rituals to maintain social order and respect.
2. **Virtue : Cultivation of virtues such as benevolence , righteousness , and wisdom.
3. **Filial Piety : Respect for parents and ancestors to foster strong family ties and social cohesion.
4. **Education and Self-Cultivation**: Importance of education and continuous self-improvement to become a morally upright person.
Western Rationality vs. Confucian Rationality
Similarities
1. **Moral Guidance**: Both aim to guide ethical behavior and decision-making.
2. **Critical Thinking**: Both value the ability to critically assess beliefs and actions.
3. **Social Responsibility**: Both emphasize contributing positively to society and maintaining social order.
Differences
1. **Individual vs. Communal Focus**:
- **Western Rationality**: Emphasizes individual autonomy and rights.
- **Confucian Rationality**: Emphasizes communal harmony and the roles individuals play in the family and society.
2. **Universal vs. Contextual Principles**:
- **Western Rationality**: Seeks universal principles applicable across different contexts.
- **Confucian Rationality**: More context-dependent, with principles and behaviors tailored to specific social situations and relationships.
-
a)Kant views freedom as autonomy under moral law,which aligns with Confucius's emphasis on propriety as a moral guide,akin to Kant's duty-based ethics.
b)Kant's"rational capacity"highlights the universal law-following ability.Confucianism's influence in China parallels this by stressing social harmony and roles,differing from Western individualism.While both value rationality,Western thought prioritizes individual rights,whereas Confucianism focuses on social order and moral conduct.
-
a.Kant sees freedom as acting according to self-given moral laws. Confucius' propriety ——Li isn't against freedom. It guides harmonious social and personal behaviors. Similar to Kant's categorical imperative, it emphasizes self-restraint and following principles for social and moral order.
b.- Kant's definition of rational capacity: Kant believes that human rational capacity is the ability to use reason to understand and follow moral laws. From this perspective, Confucianism has had a far - reaching positive impact on Chinese humanity. Confucianism encourages people to think about the moral and ethical implications of their actions through self - cultivation and learning. Western rationality emphasizes more on logical deduction and the pursuit of objective truth, while Confucian rationality focuses more on moral and ethical wisdom and the pursuit of harmonious human relations. However, they also have similarities.
-
One major difference is that "Li" is more externally imposed in the sense that it is a set of established social norms that individuals are expected to follow. In contrast, Kant's freedom is centered on the internal autonomy of the individual.
However, both "Li" and Kant's freedom have a moral dimension. "Li" is aimed at promoting moral behavior and social harmony, while Kant's freedom is grounded in moral laws.
Another aspect to consider is that while "Li" may sometimes seem to limit individual expression for the sake of social order, Kant's freedom also has its limitations in that individuals are bound by the moral law.
-
Kant's Concept of Freedom:• Kant regards freedom as the core of his philosophical system, considering freedom as the manifestation of reason. Kant distinguishes between "Willkür" (free choice) and "Wille" (free will). Free choice refers to the will that is free from empirical and emotional constraints, independent of all materialistic criteria; whereas free will is the will that submits to the moral law, that is, autonomy. Kant's concept of freedom emphasizes the self-legislation of reason, that is, rational autonomy.
-
Li is not a negation of freedom, but a guidance and regulation of freedom. The existence of Li is to help people better understand and realize freedom, restrain their behavior through social moral laws, and thus achieve a more harmonious life in the society. Therefore, Kant's conception of freedom and Li are not opposed to each other, but promote and depend on each other.
-
A discussion on "Li" (a concept that can have various meanings in Chinese philosophy, often translated as "righteousness," "morality," or "principle") with a comparative view of Kant's interpretation of "freedom" is an intriguing topic that brings together Eastern and Western philosophical perspectives.
In Chinese philosophy, "Li" often refers to the moral principles or norms that govern human behavior. It embodies the values of righteousness, propriety, and harmony in social relationships. The concept of "Li" emphasizes the importance of individual virtue and the maintenance of social order through adherence to moral norms.
On the other hand, Kant's interpretation of "freedom" in Western philosophy is deeply rooted in his ethical theory. Kant saw freedom as a fundamental aspect of human nature, distinct from both nature's determinism and mere instinct. For Kant, freedom of the will was not determined by external causes or by one's desires and passions. Instead, it was the ability to act autonomously, in accordance with rational principles that one has set for oneself—what Kant called the moral law or categorical imperative.
In Kant's view, true freedom lay in the ability to act autonomously and in accordance with one's own rational principles, rather than being driven by external forces or desires. This freedom of the will was seen as the basis for moral responsibility, as only a free will could be held accountable for its actions.
When comparing the two concepts, we can see that both "Li" and Kant's freedom emphasize the importance of moral principles in guiding human behavior. However, they differ in their understanding of the source and nature of these principles. In Chinese philosophy, "Li" is often seen as an inherent aspect of the cosmos or social order, whereas Kant saw the moral law as a rational principle that individuals must set for themselves.
Furthermore, while "Li" emphasizes the harmony and order in social relationships, Kant's freedom focuses on the autonomy and rationality of the individual will. These differences reflect the distinct cultural and philosophical backgrounds of Eastern and Western thought.
In conclusion, a discussion on "Li" with a comparative view of Kant's interpretation of "freedom" highlights the rich diversity of philosophical perspectives on morality and human nature. It also underscores the importance of cross-cultural dialogue in understanding and appreciating the nuances of different philosophical traditions.
-
The "ritual" in Confucian philosophy emphasizes social order and harmony, and focuses more on the behavioral norms and role-playing of individuals in society. Confucianism believes that individual freedom is achieved on the premise of complying with social norms and moral standards, and this freedom is relative because it is limited by social and cultural backgrounds. In contrast, Kant's concept of freedom emphasizes the individual's self-discipline and the inherent nature of moral laws. Kant believed that true freedom is the individual's ability to autonomously follow universal moral laws, and this freedom is absolute because it does not depend on external conditions or social norms.
-
In Chinese philosophy, especially in Confucianism, Li represents the fundamental principles that govern the universe and human society. It's a comprehensive concept that encompasses morality, ethics, and the natural order of things. For Confucius and his followers, living in accordance with Li means following the right path, being virtuous, and maintaining harmony in society.
Now, let's switch to Kant's perspective. Kant, a prominent German philosopher, believed in the power of reason and rationality. He thought that humans should act based on universal moral principles, which he called the "Categorical Imperative." According to Kant, our actions should be guided by what is right and just, regardless of the consequences or personal desires.
When comparing Li with Kant's Categorical Imperative, we can see some similarities and differences. Both concepts emphasize the importance of moral principles and the need to act rationally. However, Li is more rooted in the context of Chinese culture and society, while Kant's ideas are more focused on individual reasoning and moral autonomy.
-
Kant's Interpretation of "Freedom"
1. Autonomy and the Moral Law: For Kant, freedom is intrinsically linked to autonomy. Autonomy means that rational beings are capable of giving themselves the moral law, independent of external coercion or desires. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he argues that the categorical imperative, such as "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law," is the product of pure practical reason. True freedom lies in choosing to act in accordance with this self-imposed moral law, not being swayed by inclinations like pleasure or self-interest. A person is free when they resist the pull of immediate desires and follow the dictates of reason for the sake of moral duty. For instance, if one is tempted to lie to gain an advantage but refrains because lying cannot be universalized as a moral principle according to the categorical imperative, they are exercising their freedom in the Kantian sense.
2. Transcendental Freedom: Kant also posits a notion of transcendental freedom in his Critique of Pure Reason. This is a metaphysical concept that suggests freedom exists beyond the deterministic causal chain of the phenomenal world. While empirical phenomena seem to be governed by cause and effect, the human will, as a noumenal entity, has the capacity for free choice. This freedom is what enables moral responsibility; without it, if all our actions were merely the result of prior causes, we could not be held accountable for our deeds morally.
-
a) For Kant, freedom is the ability to act according to self - given moral laws. Confucius' propriety is a set of norms to guide behavior. It's similar to Kant's categorical imperative in that they both provide moral guidance. Propriety is a way to achieve harmonious social order, like Kant's moral law guiding actions for the good of all.
b) Kant defines the rational capacity as the ability to think and act according to principles. Confucianism shapes Chinese humanity by instilling values through propriety. Western rationality emphasizes individual reasoning and objective laws, while Confucian rationality focuses more on social harmony and moral duties within relationships. But both aim to achieve a moral and orderly state.
-
Kant's interpretation of "freedom" is centered around the idea of moral autonomy. For Kant, freedom is the ability to act in accordance with moral law that one gives to oneself out of reason.When comparing "Li" with Kant's "freedom," one aspect to consider is the source of moral guidance. In the case of "Li," it is often deeply rooted in the cultural and social traditions of Chinese society.
-
-
Freedom is an essentially unrestricted right and an essential attribute of human beings. He defined freedom as "autonomy", the capacity for free will, which is the basis for human beings to have the ability to act, an inner strength that is not influenced by external factors. In Kant's view, man's free will is undisturbed by any external factors and is the untouchable core that exists deep in man's heart. The essence of freedom is the ability of human beings themselves, not the rights given by others or governments. Kant emphasized that any restriction of freedom is contrary to human nature and immoral, and that only on the basis of protecting everyone's freedom can human beings achieve true moral and social progress.
-
a) Kant views freedom as acting according to rational principles, which aligns with Confucius’s emphasis on propriety as a moral guide. Both stress the importance of moral norms in individual conduct.
b) Kant defines rational capacity as the ability to act based on universal laws. Confucianism’s influence on Chinese humanity highlights moral cultivation and social duty, similar to Kant’s emphasis on reason guiding behavior. Western rationality tends to focus on individual autonomy, while Confucian rationality emphasizes social harmony and collective well-being.
-
a) Freedom, in Kant's view, is autonomy under moral law. Confucius' propriety, like Kant's imperative duty, guides behavior for a moral social state. It's a framework for proper interaction, not a freedom restraint but a positive guide.
b) Kant defines “rational capacity” as understanding and following moral principles via reason. Confucianism shapes Chinese values. Western rationality stresses individual rights and laws; Confucian rationality focuses on relationships and self-cultivation. They both seek moral behavior through thought and discipline but differ in value foci and manifestations. Russell's view of Confucius as inhumane is incorrect; Confucian thought promotes harmonious relations and moral growth.
添加回复
您确定给 “0” 位老师发送协议吗？
UMOOCS用户服务协议
问题分类：
--
4008987008