Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Boston College, 2 October 2001 Kearney: They are many similarities be-tween your work, Jean-Luc, and mine: we both owe a great deal of our philosophical formation to phenomenologies of Husserl and Heidegger; we have both en-gaged ourselves in close dialogue with Levinas, Ricoeur, and Derrida. Given these evident similarities, it would be more fruitful and interesting, it seems to me, if we take a look here into some of differences in our respective positions in regards to phe-nomenology of God. One question that would like to put to you, Jean Luc, and which, in fact, have put in a more elaborate form on page 33 of God Who May be is question of hermeneutical status of phenomenon. It seems to me that if there is a difference between us, given all our common readings and assumptions, it is this: would pass from phenomenology to hermeneutics more rapidly than you would. It strikes me that your approach is more strictly phenomenological since for you saturated is fundamentally irregardable, a pure event without horizon or context, without I or agent. As such it appears to defy interpretation. You do of course make some concessions to herme-neutics, as when you say-on very last page of your essay The Saturated Phenom-enon-that this phenomenon is communal and communicable and historic. Here you do seem to acknowledge possibility of a her-meneutic response, but my suspicion, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, is that example you privilege-Revelation-re-quires a pure phenomenology of pure event. Whereas would argue that there is no pure phenomenon as such, that appearing-not matter how iconic or it may be-always already involves an interpreta-tion of some kind. Phenomenological description and intuition, in my account, al-ways implies some degree of hermeneutic reading, albeit that of a pre-reflective pre-understanding or pre-conscious affection for most part. My question, then, would be: how do we interpret-and by extension, how do we judge-the phenomenon without betraying it? Marion: This is an old question. first version of Saturated Phenomenon was written as a paper just after Reduction and Givenness; then a more elaborate version followed as it is now found in Etant Donne. first to raise this question was Jean Grondin, a Gadamer specialist at Univer-sity of Montreal; after him Jean Greisch asked me same question and although am stubborn and narrow-minded, am not completely closed to critical remarks! Let us put aside for a moment question of Chris-tian revelation which is not directly related to phenomenon. phenomenon is a kind of phenomenon that is characterized by a deficit in concept vis-a-vis intuition: such phenomena in-cluded event, idol, flesh, and other. In all these cases, there is a surplus of intuition over intention. It is precisely be-cause of this surplus of intuition, have ar-gued, that we need Why? Be-cause hermeneutics is always an inquiry for further concepts: hermeneutics is generated when we witness an excess rather than a lack of information rather than lack. In Etant Donne where discuss four types of satu-rated phenomena say that icon is the icon of endless hermeneutics. Why an end-less hermeneutics? Precisely because there is there a conceptual deficit. have learned my hermeneutics with Ricoeur and Ricoeur is very clear on this: if we are to have herme-neutics it has to be an endless There, where need of hermeneutics arises, it is completely impossible to imagine that we may get at any moment an adequate, final concept. Subjectivity, history, and question of God-the question of history is very important for our discussion here, for historical event is most simple kind of phenomenon-in all these cases, question of hermeneutics is totally un-avoidable. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».