Similarities: 1. Emphasis on self-restraint over indulgence. 2. Pursuit of universal order and goodness.
Differences: 1. Kant's freedom originates reason itself. Confucius' Li from heavenly principles,traditions, and ethics. 2. The core of Kant's freedom is individual moral autonomy. Confucius's Li is social harmony and order. 3. Kant's freedom is achieved through rational reflection. Confucius' Li is achieved self-cultivation and practice.
教学团队
课程特色
视频(28)
考试(25)
文档(3)
讨论(3)
最新学员
Confucius's Li and Kant's freedom
Some people believe Li or Confucian rationality is 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)? Bear this question in your mind and answer the following questions:
What indeed is freedom? Use Kant’s interpretation (4:50) of freedom as a way to comprehend your understanding of Confucius’s requisites on propriety.
How does 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?
to comprehend your understanding of Confucius’s requisites on propriety.
How does 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?
dom as a way to comprehend your understanding of Confucius’s requisites on propriety.
How does 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?
283 回复
-
-
From a Kantian perspective, the Confucian Junzi achieves a form of autonomy. They are not a slave to their raw emotions ("the free spirit" of unbridled instinct). Instead, they have achieved self-mastery by subjecting their will to the rational, moral structure of Li, which they have internalized and made their own. Their freedom lies in the perfect harmony between their cultivated character (Ren), their actions (Li), and their understanding of the Dao. It is freedom through structure, not freedom from structure.
-
-
Both Confucius and Kant believed that true freedom is “autonomy,” meaning guiding one's actions through reason rather than indulging instincts. Therefore, Confucius's “ritual propriety” is not inhumane, but rather a path of cultivation to achieve moral freedom.
①Kant defined freedom as “autonomy,” meaning the ability to establish and adhere to moral principles through reason. Confucius, however, viewed ‘li’ as an external code of conduct aimed at achieving moral freedom—“acting freely without overstepping boundaries”—through internalization (self-cultivation).
②Kant defined reason as practical reason—the capacity to discern and follow universal moral laws. Confucius, however, saw reason manifested in practical wisdom and appropriateness when navigating concrete interpersonal relationships.
③Confucianism's influence on Chinese culture:
It shaped the Chinese concept of “autonomy within relationships,” integrating personal fulfillment with social responsibility. Emphasizing harmony and moral sentiment, it forged a distinctive cultural character.
④ Similarities and differences between Eastern and Western rationality:
Similarities: Both advocate using reason to restrain desires and pursue morality and order.
Differences: Kant viewed reason as grounded in the independent individual and abstract universal laws. Confucius saw reason as rooted in the individual within social relationships and appropriate conduct in specific contexts.
-
1. Kant's freedom is "self-legislation" (reason governs the will). Confucius's "Li" (propriety) is an active rational norm centered on "Ren" (benevolence), belonging to "morally consistent autonomy" rather than suppression.
2. Kant divides rationality into "theoretical (cognizing nature)" and "practical (making moral laws)"; its core is the ability to transcend instincts and establish universal laws.
3. Confucian rationality is the "ethicalization of practical reason," guiding the Chinese to use reason to construct human relations and cultivate morality, which aligns with Kant's "primacy of practical reason."
4. Chinese and Western rationality share the core of "transcending instincts with reason"; the difference lies in that Western rationality separates theoretical/practical reason and emphasizes individual cognition, while Confucianism focuses solely on practical reason and centers on human relations and society. -
Kant's freedom:Kant defines freedom not as arbitrary choice, but as autonomy—the capacity to act according to a law one gives oneself through reason.“Freedom is the autonomy of the will.”Thus, true freedom is rational self-legislation, not indulgence in desires. It is the ability to resist immediate impulses and act on principles that could be willed as universal laws.
Difference:Confucius regards ritual (li) as inherited tradition that nurtures human affections, thereby eliciting voluntary compliance; its norms vary according to specific relationships. Kant, by contrast, conceives ritual as the universal law legislated by pure practical reason, imposing uniform restraint upon inclination and admitting no exceptions.
-
-
1. What is freedom?
Kant: Freedom = rational self-legislation (autonomy). It is not “doing whatever I want,” but “I can will that the maxim of my action become a universal law.”
Seen through this lens, Confucius’ li: if li is only external ceremony, it looks like a cage; yet Confucius says “to be ren depends on oneself” and “to conquer oneself and return to li” is itself self-restraint and self-completion. Structurally this parallels Kantian autonomy—only Kant tests by universalizability, Confucius tests by the reciprocal heart of ren.
2. Kant’s “rational capacity”
To be human is to be able, through pure practical reason, to give moral law and not be determined by sensible desire.
3. Confucian influence on Chinese humanity
Li cultivates ren, elevating kin affection into public ethics and forming a “differential-mode + extending compassion” social self-regulation system. Instead of seeking rules outside like Western law, it seeks the art of “becoming human” inside, enabling large-scale civilizational cooperation without church or Roman-law tradition.
4. Similarities and differences between the two rationalities
Same: both stress curbing private desire and demand generalizability.
Different:
Western (Kant) → individual-based, formal, a priori imperative;
Confucian (li) → relation-based, contextual, affective cultivation.
One fears that desire will destroy rules; the other fears that unchecked emotion will tear relationships. Thus Kant seeks “right” through legislation, Confucius seeks “ren” through becoming human.
-
Kant defines freedom as acting rationally by moral law rather than impulse, and Confucius’s Li—structured social propriety—aligns with this, as both prioritize rational conduct. Kant views human rational capacity as independent reasoning for autonomy through following moral rules, and Confucian Li nurtures this by fostering virtue-based, socially harmonious behavior as rational coexistence. Western rationality centers on individual autonomy, while Confucian rationality links reason to social roles, though both value rule-governed rational action.
-
Kant defines freedom as the ability to follow your own rational principles, not your desires. From this view, Confucius's "Li" (rituals/propriety) is not about suppressing human nature, but about using social norms to shape and express one's moral reason. This achieves a true freedom where you can follow your heart's desires without overstepping boundaries. So, both thinkers see rational self-discipline as the core of freedom, but Confucius roots this rationality deeply in social relationships.
-
Kant holds that freedom is the autonomy of the will and that rational capacity is the ability to transcend desires and determine actions through reason; from this perspective, Confucian "li" (propriety) is a rationally self-determined norm for the collective good, its influence on Chinese humanity being a rational refinement rather than inhumanity, and while both Chinese and Western rationality aim to regulate instincts, Western rationality focuses on individual abstract autonomy, whereas Confucian rationality emphasizes interpersonal practice and collective order.
-
Both value rationality as a core human capacity to transcend mere instinct. Kant's rationality and Confucian rationality agree that humans should act based on principles rather than blind emotion or desire.
Relation to emotion: Kant's freedom sometimes sets up a sharp contrast between reason and emotion. Confucian rationality integrates emotion and reason: virtues like “Ren” are both rational ideals and rooted in natural human emotions
-
Both Kant's "freedom" and Confucius' "li (ritual)" aim to regulate human behavior and maintain social order, with the core of guiding individuals to act rationally.
Differences
1. Core Focus: Kant's freedom emphasizes the autonomy of the individual will, where one acts based on moral laws out of self-awareness. Confucius' li centers on external social norms and hierarchical order that individuals should abide by.
2. Source of Legitimacy: Kant's freedom derives from the inherent rationality of human beings. Confucius' li originates from traditional ethics and social conventions.
-
Kant defines our core rational capacity as "practical reason"—the ability to act according to universal moral principles derived from reason itself, rather than from desires.
From this view, Confucianism's profound influence was to shape Chinese civilization around practical, moral reason. It cultivated a society where the highest ideal was to be a rational moral agent, prioritizing ethical duties , social harmony, and responsibility within relationships, forming a deeply ethical and collective cultural spirit.
-
For Kant, freedom is autonomy: obeying self-given rational law, not impulse. Confucian propriety (Li) is not external oppression but the social form of this self-cultivation. By internalizing Li, one harmonizes desire with virtue, achieving a similar autonomy where noble action becomes second nature, transcending mere instinct.
-
Understanding Kantian "freedom" as autonomy—self-governance through rational law, not license.Both Eastern and Western rationalities champion governing instinct with rational principles. Their core divergence lies in their foundations: Kantian rationality is abstract and universal, based on the individual will, while Confucian rationality is contextual and relational, embedded in social roles.
-
1：Kant defines freedom as acting per moral law, not instinct. Confucian propriety isn’t restraint but rational norms for virtuous acts, aligning with Kant’s freedom—both guide conduct via reason, not impulse.
2：Kant sees rational capacity as moral reasoning to follow universal laws. Confucianism cultivates rational virtue via rituals, shaping Chinese humanity’s focus on social harmony.
3：Similarity: Both value reason over instinct. Difference: Western rationality emphasizes individual autonomy; Confucian rationality ties reason to social order and relational ethics. -
Freedom, for Kant, is autonomy: the rational self giving itself universal law; Confucian li is not external chains but the self-cultivation that lets one’s inborn ren act autonomously—thus li and Kantian freedom converge in rational self-mastery, and Chinese humanity has been shaped by this same inner reason, not inhumanity.
-
1. Freedom: Kant defines it as will autonomy (acting on moral laws, not inclinations). Confucian li aligns—rational self-mastery via benevolence, not indulgence.
2. Kant’s Rational Capacity: Humans’ unique ability to use practical reason to follow universal moral principles, transcending instincts.
3. Confucian Influence: Nurtures rationality through self-cultivation, refining humanity by linking individual virtue to social harmony.
4. Western vs. Confucian Rationality: Similar—rational instinct control, dignity/moral maturity focus. Different—Western: individual/abstract; Confucian: relational/communal/harmony-
-
What is freedom? From Kant’s perspective (4:50), freedom is not about acting without constraints, but about the ability to follow rational principles and achieve one’s purpose. For Kant, true freedom is self-determined action in accordance with reason. Similarly, Confucian “Li” (propriety) is about following moral norms to promote social harmony. Kant defines human “rational capacity” as the ability to act according to reason, rather than being driven by desires. Confucian rationality, like Kant’s, focuses on self-discipline and moral order, but Confucianism places more emphasis on social responsibility and harmony, while Western rationality often stresses individual autonomy.
-
1. Freedom (Kant) & Confucian Propriety
Kant defines freedom as autonomy (acting by self-given moral laws, Groundwork, 4:50). Confucian "li" (propriety) is not constraint but a rational framework aligning conduct with "ren" (benevolence)—enabling moral autonomy, like Kant’s freedom transcending instinct.
2. Kant’s Rational Capacity & Confucian Influence
Kant’s rationality includes theoretical (understanding the world) and practical (moral guidance) reason. Confucianism’s focus on "rationalizing emotions" and ethical cultivation reflects practical reason, shaping Chinese humanity’s emphasis on moral rationality in behavior and social relations, upholding human dignity as Kant argued.
3. Western vs. Confucian Rationality
Similarities: Prioritize rationality over instinct; use frameworks (categorical imperative/li) for morality.
Differences: Western rationality splits theoretical/practical reason, emphasizes individual autonomy and abstract laws. Confucian rationality is ethical-practical, integrated with emotions, relational (five ethical relations), and oriented toward social harmony
-
1. For Kant, freedom is the will acting on rational laws (like the categorical imperative) independently of sensual desires. Confucius's Li, by guiding people to act rationally in ethics, helps them achieve moral freedom beyond instinct.
2. Kant defines human rational capacity as the ability to think via a priori categories (theoretical) and act on moral laws (practical). Confucian rationality shapes Chinese humanity to value ethical reasoning in social relations.
3. Similarity: Both emphasize rational control over instinct. Difference: Western rationality (Kant) is individual and metaphysical; Confucian rationality is social and practical, centered on Li and Ren.
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：
--
