Univocity and Analogy: A Comparative Study of Gilbert Ryle and Martin Heidegger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The work of Gilbert Ryle maintains a notable proximity to the philosophical disposition assumed by the phenomenology of Martin Heidegger. This is due largely to their critiques of the Cartesian tradition of philosophical anthropology. By employing the metaphysical positions of univocity and analogy as a hermeneutical device, this study attempts to draw out the fundamental differences between the projects of Ryle and Heidegger. It is my contention that Ryle is not a phenomenologist precisely because he affirms the Scotist doctrine of the univocity of being. In contrast, Heidegger is a phenomenologist precisely because he disaffirms univocity in favor of a modified version of Thomistic analogy. By recalling this important debate in medieval metaphysics, it is possible to gain important resources for debate between the “analytic” and “continental” camps – at least insofar as those labels correspond to the figures of Ryle and Heidegger in a meaningful way.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".