MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2093327838 · doi:10.1353/can.0.0139

George Grant: A Guide to His Thought , and: Northern Spirits: John Watson, George Grant, and Charles Taylor; Appropriations of Hegelian Political Thought (review)

2009· article· en· W2093327838 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
William Christian

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Historical Review · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Identity and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWatsonGeorge (robot)PoliticsHegelianismLamentSOCRATESPhilosophyHistoryClassicsSociologyArt historyLawArtTheologyPolitical scienceLiterature

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: George Grant: A Guide to His Thought, and: Northern Spirits: John Watson, George Grant, and Charles Taylor; Appropriations of Hegelian Political Thought William Christian George Grant: A Guide to His Thought. Hugh Donald Forbes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Pp. 200. $60.00 cloth, $27.95 paper Northern Spirits: John Watson, George Grant, and Charles Taylor; Appropriations of Hegelian Political Thought. Robert C. Sibley. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008. Pp. 408. $85.00 cloth, $29.95 paper When George Grant died in 1988, it was not certain how, or even if, he would be remembered. There was little doubt that historians of twentieth-century Canada would record that his little book Lament for a Nation had caused quite a stir in political and intellectual circles when [End Page 190] it appeared in 1965. Although it clearly influenced nationalist thinkers such as Mel Watkins and James Laxer, there might be debate whether it had any practical influence on the nationalist legislation introduced by the Trudeau government in the 1970s. As for Grant as a thinker, how would he be classified? He published five small books, which, including Lament, consisted of philosophical essays. He asked more questions than he answered, and the moment he answered a question, he seemed to put his answer to the test and look at it anew. He lived by the Socratic method and he was often just as frustrating as Socrates. There is a considerable literature on Grant's thought, including six edited books. Other than an early book by Joan O'Donovan, no one tried to tackle Grant's thought as a whole. Instead there has been a progressive deepening of understanding: The profundity of Grant as a thinker is clearer today that it ever was in his lifetime, and his reputation is finally spreading outside Canada. There have recently been conferences held on his thought in India and Russia. What that thought is will, I think, always remain elusive. It had a core concern, which was the soul's relationship to the Eternal, and peripheral interests: What was it in the modern world, in technological civilization, or in Western Christianity that made that relationship problematic? As Donald Forbes points out in his interesting and thought-provoking book, Grant's acceptance of the Eternal came early, as a young man while he was in England during the early stages of the Second World War. Grant sought to make sense of this primal experience, which, in itself, had no intellectual content. Beyond space and time, as he put it, there was order, but that was not a coherent and comprehensive intellectual position. According to Forbes there were a number of problems that Grant thought that the modern world faced. They all came down, as Forbes puts it, to the idea of what is worth doing. In Grant's view, the ancients such as Plato believed that there was a Good that defined us and our actions. We measured ourselves against it. In the modern world, by contrast, it is we, the human beings as doers and makers, who define what is good. Forbes describes his book as a guide to Grant's thought. As a description of the book's structure, it is not clear what that means, since it varies in its level and its intention. At one level, it is possible to describe it as a introduction to Grant's thought, and, if anyone wanted an introduction, this would be as good a place as any to turn. There are biographical details, most of the major developments and influences [End Page 191] on Grant's thought are covered, and the religious, philosophical, and political aspects are all treated. They are not, though, treated in a way that would make Grant fully intelligible to someone who knew nothing about Grant. This is not necessarily a criticism of Forbes. That was not his intention. He meant to write a commentary of a Straussian sort, for those who did know Grant's thought. So this is not really an introduction for beginners, and it is a Straussian book in more ways than one. Grant did respect Strauss but thought that his...

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,327
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,264
Écart entre enseignants0,247 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Historical ReviewMême sujetCanadian Identity and HistoryTravaux en français237 207