A Study on the Inspiration of the Tao Te Ching on Chinese Cultural Self-Confidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“The Tao Te Ching” is the core representative work of Taoist thought, which has had a profound influence on Chinese culture. In the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, Taoist thought, Confucianism, and Legalism jointly formed a great ideological trend of contention. Since Dong Zhongshu proposed the idea of “abolishing the hundred schools of thought and only respecting Confucianism” in the Han Dynasty, Confucianism has become the mainstream cultural ideology, and Taoist thought exists only as a supplementary tributary ideology. The great collision of Eastern and Western cultures brought about by the Opium War has caused widespread doubts about Chinese mainstream culture represented by Confucian culture. In the face of the fact that the West is ahead, Chinese people have fallen into unprecedented confusion about their own culture. In 2014, Chinese leaders proposed the concept of Chinese cultural self-confidence, and pointed out that the three sources of Chinese cultural self-confidence are excellent traditional Chinese culture, revolutionary culture, and advanced socialist culture. This article argues that the concept proposed by the Chinese government is not comprehensive for building Chinese cultural self-confidence. Revolutionary culture and advanced socialist culture are the summary of China’s own special experience. Other countries do not have similar environments, and traditional culture is dominated by Confucianism. Confucianism cannot even be fully convinced within China. In the era of globalization, if China wants to gain some value recognition in the world to establish confidence, it must propose a doctrine with global value. I believe that the ideas and philosophies contained in the “Tao Te Ching” can effectively communicate between China and the world, help China gain worldwide recognition, and have great significance for enhancing Chinese cultural self-confidence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".