Confucius and Immanuel Kant: The Problem of Virtue and Morality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents the results of a comparative analysis of the basic principles of Confucius and Immanuel Kant ethics, and made an attempt to make a reconstruction of the moral ideal in the context of comparative philosophy of the East - West. Particular attention was paid to the following objectives: - to perform a comparative analysis of the Confucius teachings and Kant's philosophy to recreate the spiritual significance of Confucian and Kantian philosophy in understanding the issues of virtue, moral and spiritual development of man - based on existing research in the field of comparative studies, Confucianism and Kantian ethics to analyze the ontological, anthropological, moral content of these teachings. To reveal the essence of humanistic social and ethical teachings of Confucius and the philosophy of Kant. The philosophical teaching of Confucius had a profound impact on the development of ethical thought in China. In Western philosophical space Immanuel Kant is a significant figure, and developed by him the doctrine of moral categorical imperative and an autonomous morality is the basis of almost all further attempts to build ethical models in the West.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".