Confucian freedom is found through mastering Li—social rituals and duties—to achieve harmony. Kant defines freedom as autonomy: acting by self-given moral law from reason, not desire.
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
-
-
Kant defines freedom (in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 4:50) as the will’s capacity to act in accordance with self-given rational laws (the categorical imperative), rather than being determined by external desires or impulses—it is not “doing whatever one wants,” but acting autonomously out of reason.
-
1. For Kant, freedom is the will’s autonomy to legislate for itself through pure reason, free from sensual desires. Confucius’s Li, as rational propriety, guides people to act ethically, which is a rational self-discipline similar to Kantian freedom.
2. Kant defines human “rational capacity” as the ability to think both theoretically (to cognize nature) and practically (to establish universal moral laws), transcending sensory experience.
3. Confucianism, via Li, shapes Chinese humanity to value ethical responsibility and social harmony, which is not inhumane but a rational pursuit of “Ren”.
4. Similarity: Both rely on reason for moral/behavioral guidance. Difference: Western rationality (Kant) emphasizes individual rational autonomy, while Confucian rationality focuses on rational order in social relationships and the pursuit of “Ren”.
-
-
-
Kant defines freedom as autonomy under self-legislated moral laws, with rationality as humans’ ability to transcend instincts for universal principles. Confucian "li" is no suppression of freedom or humanity but a Kantian-aligned rational framework: it integrates emotions with responsibilities to realize "ren" (benevolence) in interpersonal contexts, elevating human nature. Western rationality is abstract and individualistic, Confucian rationality contextual and relational, yet both use reason to ground morality and dignity—making Russell’s "Confucian inhumanity" claim untenable.
-
1. Kant's freedom is rational autonomy (acting in accordance with the moral law); Confucius's "Li" is the rational regulation of behavior to achieve moral self-consciousness. It does not suppress freedom but is autonomy guided by reason.
2. Kant defines human "rational capacity" as theoretical reason (legislating for nature) and practical reason (legislating for moral action, the basis of freedom).
3. Confucian "Li" cultivates moral emotion and social responsibility through rational norms, shaping the ethical-oriented human nature of the Chinese.
4. Similarity: Both guide behavior with reason and pursue self-consciousness beyond sensibility.
Difference: Western reason (Kant) emphasizes pure autonomy and separates theoretical and practical reason; Confucian reason integrates "Li" and "Ren", focusing on human relationships and moral emotion cultivation.
-
Kantdefines freedom as the will’s ability to act by self-made rational laws ，not by external desires.
This aligns with Confucius’ "Li" : "Li" is not rigid restraint, but a rational framework rooted in "Ren" . Just as Kant’s free will follows universal moral laws, "Li" guides people to act rationally in relationships to restrain selfishness and achieve meaningful freedom
回
-
Kant’s "rational capacity"：Split into theoretical reason (cognize the world) and practical reason (moral self-legislation, human’s core trait).
Confucian li & Kantian freedom：Li = rational, ren-rooted norms; following it voluntarily is reason-based autonomy (matches Kant’s freedom, not inhumane).
-
Kant defines freedom as autonomy: acting on self-give Kant’s "rational capacity":The ability to transcend desires, formulate universal moral laws, and act on reason (not instinct).Confucius’s influence on Chinese humanity (Kant’s lens):
Li fosters rational autonomy: it guides people to act morally via conscious reason, shaping a culture of ethical self-discipline (not "inhumanity").
Western vs. Confucian rationality: Similarity: Both prioritize reason over instinct to govern behavior.
- Difference: Western rationality (Kant) emphasizes universal moral laws; Confucian rationality ties reason to social roles/benevolence
-
Freedom is the self-discipline from a rational perspective, that is to make laws for ourselves and obey them. Confucius's Li is mainly demonstrated in the practical performance, or say, is the tool to achieve self-discipline.
-
For Kant, true freedom is not the ability to do whatever we want . Instead, it is the power to act according to reason independently of our desires and inclinations. This is a profound and radical idea.
For Confucius,*Li is far more than just formal ceremonies or etiquette. It is the entire framework of social norms, customs, manners, and rituals that structure human relationships and create a harmonious society.
While they come from vastly different traditions, both philosophers reject the idea that freedom is simply following one's desires. For Kant, true freedom is rational self-governance; for Confucius, the path to a truly human and free life is through the cultivated practice of social propriety (Li).
-
The Convergence between Kant's View of Freedom and Confucius' "Li": Kant defined freedom as the autonomy of a rational subject, that is, obedience to the self-legislated moral law, rather than being enslaved by sensory impulses. Confucius emphasized that "to subdue oneself and return to propriety is perfect virtue," requiring the restraint of desires and emotions through li (propriety). This is precisely the realization of moral autonomy through rational norms, aligning with the core of Kant's "positive freedom"—freedom is not indulgence, but self-transcendence guided by reason.
-
For Kant, freedom is obeying moral laws from reason, not emotions. Confucius's "Li" (rituals) similarly uses social rules to discipline oneself. Both see rationality as controlling base instincts. Their key difference: Kant's reason is internal, while Confucian rationality is learned through external social traditions.
-
If we look at Confucianism from the perspective of Kant's practical rationality, similarities: Confucianism also emphasizes that people can restrain their selfish desires with rationality and realize moral self-discipline. Differences: Confucianism pays more attention to the practice of rationality in specific human relations, while Kant's rationality is abstract and universal. Evaluation: Confucianism has shaped moral consciousness and social harmony in China culture through ethics, but it may also suppress individuality by overemphasizing norms, which is the source of Russell's criticism. But from Kant's view of freedom, if the ceremony is internalized and observed voluntarily, it is not repression, but educating human nature to achieve higher freedom.
-
-
Confucius’s li (ritual) and Kant’s freedom share rational self-discipline: li (rooted in ren) demands voluntary moral adherence; Kant frames freedom as autonomy (reason-led, not desire-driven). Both reject "unrestrained whims" as true freedom. Difference: li ties to social harmony; Kant’s freedom centers on universal rational laws. Li isn’t oppression—it’s Confucian autonomy, matching Kant’s "free yet rule-abiding" ideal.
-
Confucius' "li" (ritual propriety) and Kant's "freedom" differ yet resonate. Confucius saw "li" as the path to social harmony and moral cultivation—acting with reverence to fulfill one’s role. Kant defined freedom as autonomy, obeying self-given moral laws rather than external coercion. Both reject lawlessness: "li" guides conduct through tradition, while Kant’s freedom elevates it via reason, uniting duty and inner governance.
-
1. Freedom & Confucian "Li" (Kant’s View)
Kant defines freedom as will’s autonomy (acting on self-made rational laws). Confucian "Li" is not restraint but rational self-legislation via "Ren"—acting by Li is rational emotional expression, matching Kant’s freedom from instinct.
2. Kant’s Rational Capacity & Confucian Influence
• Kant: Core is practical reason—humans act on universal moral laws (e.g., Categorical Imperative), defining humanity.
• Confucian Influence: "Ren-centered rationality" fosters moral self-discipline, shaping Chinese focus on benevolence and social responsibility.
3. Western vs. Confucian Rationality
• Similarities: Both take reason as human essence and moral foundation, rejecting blind instinct.
• Differences: Western (Kantian): abstract, universal logic; Confucian: concrete, contextual, tied to "Ren" and social ethics.
-
Both Confucius and Kant tried to establish a connection between reason and freedom: Kant realized freedom through moral self-discipline, while Confucius achieved social and personal harmony through the unity of "courtesy" and "benevolence". Although their cultural backgrounds and philosophical paths are different, they have profound resonance on the point that "people achieve moral freedom through rational self-legislation".
-
一、
1. Kant's View of Freedom According to Kant's theory, freedom is not doing whatever one wants but self-discipline.
2. From Kant's perspective, Confucius' "Li" is not a restraint on human nature but a way to achieve rational self-discipline and social freedom. "Li" as a Rational Law: The "Li" advocated by Confucius is not an empty and rigid ritual but a set of objective behavioral norms formulated by sages (highly rational individuals) aimed at promoting social harmony and mutual respect among people. It is similar to the rational laws mentioned by Kant, being external and objective norms.二、
1.Kant divided human rational capacity into two main uses:
Theoretical rationality: It is used for understanding the world, acquiring knowledge, conducting logical thinking and making scientific judgments.
Practical rationality: This is the core of Kant's ethics. It refers to the ability of reason to directly determine will and behavior.2.From the perspective of Kant's practical reason, Confucianism profoundly shaped the understanding of "humanity" in Chinese culture: it emphasized the moral autonomy of human beings and established a social order centered on morality.
三、
Core similarities: Both advocate the use of reason to restrain desires, and believe that reason is the foundation of morality and the essence of being human.
Core differences:
Objectives differ: Confucian rationality seeks social harmony and "appropriateness" in relationships; Western (Kantian) rationality aims for individual self-discipline and universal truth.
Methods differ: Confucian rationality is contextual and integrates reason and emotion; Western rationality is formal and emphasizes the strict separation of reason and emotion. -
Freedom for Kant is the will's autonomy to act on universal moral laws derived from human rational capacity, which, similar to Confucius's Li, guides behavior toward rational order—yet Western rationality emphasizes individual universal principles while Confucian rationality embeds in relational ethical harmony.
-
Kant's freedom: "Self discipline is freedom" refers to the moral freedom of human beings to break free from the constraints of sensory desires and actively follow reason to legislate for themselves, with the core being the self domination of will. Confucius' freedom is to "follow one's heart and not exceed the norm". After long-term practice of propriety and righteousness, and reaching moral consciousness, one's behavior naturally conforms to the realm of norms, and the core is the harmonious unity with social order.
-
-
Kant sees true freedom as rational self-governance,not following impulses.Similarly, Confucius's "Li"uses social rules to cultivate moral character, not suppress humanity. Both value using reason to achieve ethical freedom, but Confucianism focuses more on social harmony than individual autonomy.
-
1."doing whatever one wants" , but "acting in accordance with the rational law one gives oneself" .
2.Kant holds that human "rational capacity" has Theoretical rationality: The ability to cognize the objective world (e.g., understanding natural laws through logic and experience), which is limited to the realm of "phenomena" .
3.Similarities: Both take "rationality" as the core to distinguish humans from animals, and oppose being dominated by instinctive desires—Western rationality (especially Kant’s) pursues "rational moral self-legislation", while Confucian rationality pursues "rational regulation of human relations", and their essence is "using reason to realize human value".
-
From the perspective of Kant's view of self-legislating freedom, Confucius' thought is not "inhumane", but rather it aims to cultivate rational self-legislation through the observance of rituals. This is not necessarily in conflict with human emotions and the spirit of freedom, but rather seeks a higher moral integration. Russell's criticism might have overlooked the humanizing dimension within the rationality of Confucianism.
-
Kant’s freedom is obeying self-made rational moral laws (not instinct). Confucius’ Li is similar: it’s a rational rule that, when followed consciously, lets people act freely without violating morality.
It’s the ability to rise above sensory desires and create universal moral principles (like “act as if your action’s rule could be a universal law”).
-
1. Freedom is not the ability to do what we want, but the ability to act according to self-given rational law，independent of our desires and instincts.
2. Kant defines human rational capacity as the ability to act based on principles and universal laws, rather than being determined by sensory impulses or desires.
3. Similarity & Difference
Similarity: Both require using reason to transcend selfish desires.
Difference: Kant's reason is abstract, universal, and rule-based. Confucian reason is concrete, situational, and relationship-centered.
-
1. True Freedom and Confucius's "Li": Kant holds that freedom is the ability of reason to legislate for itself and act in accordance with moral laws, rather than being dominated by desires; Confucius's "Li" (propriety) is not a restraint on freedom, but a guide for people to use reason to restrain selfish desires and achieve moral self-awareness. Essentially, both are "autonomous pursuit of goodness under the guidance of reason".
2. Kant's "Rational Capacity": Refers to human beings' ability to distinguish between good and evil, formulate universal moral laws, and act in accordance with these laws free from instincts. It is the core of human nature.
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：
--
