Bibliographic record
Abstract
On n'oublie trop souvent que la querelle du panthéisme, aussi appelée querelle du spinozisme, est l'un des multiples facteurs qui contribuèrent à former l'atmosphère de la philosophie contemporaine.Cette polémique est en effet une critique radicale de ce qui, pour VAufklàrung, est essentiel : le primat de la raison.D'une manière générale, cette étude tentera d'expliquer pourquoi la philosophie de Spinoza a pu conduire le rationalisme au banc des accusés.Nous montrerons plus particulièrement en quoi le spinozisme et le projet de VAufklàrung se ressemblent et nous verrons que l'intervention de Kant au milieu du débat entre Jacobi et Mendelssohn ne fait en fin de compte que sceller la faillite du rationalisme.Mais il nous faut d'abord commencer par exposer les réflexions de Spinoza sur la substance car, bien que cela soit de la haute voltige philosophique, ce sont finalement les conclusions de ces réflexions qui furent considérées comme scandaleuses et qui déclenchèrent la querelle du panthéisme.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".