Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a major figure in contemporary Neo-Confucianism, Mou Zongsan (1909-1995) is unique in attempting to reconstruct Confucian ethics with the help of Kant's moral philosophy.In attaining his goal, Mou Zongsan argues for an identity between Kant's ethics and that of the School of Mind as represented by Lu Xiangshan and Wang Yangming.But at the same time, he develops a critique of Kant's ethics from a Confucian standpoint. 1 Given the complexity of Mou's critique, in this article, I will mainly concentrate on two topics: (i) the limitation of Kant's theory of moral feeling and (ii) the extension of Kant's theory of the typic.I will argue that in the first place, like Kant, Mou suffers from a lack of the conception of pure feeling as the determining ground of morality; in the second place, Mou's introduction of the concept of noumenal action in effect eliminates Kant's theory of the typic.This might jeopardize his attempt to synthesize Confucian and Kant's ethics.In particular, Mou's claim about the autonomy of Confucian ethics can hardly be justified.Historically, in opposition to Hume's approach in grounding ethics upon human emotion, Kant seeks to found the possibility of morality exclusively upon reason.As Kant points out in Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, it is mainly because "feelings, which naturally differ infinitely in degree, cannot furnish a uniform standard of good and evil, nor has anyone a right to form judgments for others by his own feelings."2 For Kant, all feelings, including moral feeling, are sensuous.3 In general, the rise of sensuous feeling is due to the external effect.The possibility of moral feeling is finally grounded in the "particular constitution of human nature." 4 Methodologically, as an empirical, a posteriori concept, "moral feeling" cannot be a ground for the possibility of general laws.To found the possibility of morals upon human feelings would therefore fail to account for the universality and necessity of moral laws.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".