Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Zhuāngzǐ: Ways of Wandering the Way presents a richly detailed, philosophically informed interpretation of the personal and interpersonal ethics found in the Daoist classic Zhuāngzǐ, introducing a unique Daoist approach to ethics focusing on the concept of a way and our capacity for following ways. Zhuangist thought reframes our relation to our social and natural setting while offering a distinctive, intriguing view of dào, agency, and the structure and grounds for action. At the same time, it embodies an ethical and epistemic modesty that rejects the idea of there being any uniquely privileged form of the good life or any authoritatively correct way to interact with others. The Zhuangist dào is inherently plural, provisional, and protean, and we are likely to find a variety of justifiable ways of wandering along it. Any number of these might contribute to a well-lived, fulfilling life, marked by appropriate social interaction, provided it is pursued with adept responsiveness to our circumstances and awareness of our place in the larger scheme of things. The book examines what prominent threads of discourse in the Zhuāngzǐ have to say about the nature and content of dào, how we might guide our path along dào, the personal training and cultivation involved, and the criteria by which to evaluate our performance. The discussion illustrates how a Zhuangist outlook in metaethics, ethics, moral psychology, and moral epistemology remains relevant to readers today.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".