Philosophie de la religion et méthode de corrélation chez Paul Tillich
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On se demande dans cet article ce qu’est devenue la philosophie de la religion chez le Tillich américain, où il en est fort peu mention. On rappelle alors l’histoire de cette discipline. Elle devient indépendante de la théologie au cours des dix-huitième et dix-neuvième siècles, où elle finit par s’identifier à la « religion naturelle ». Elle devient ainsi la cible des virulentes critiques de la théologie néo-orthodoxe inspirée par Karl Barth. Dans sa Théologie systématique, Tillich entend surmonter ce conflit par sa « méthode de corrélation ». Les deux grands problèmes de la philosophie de la religion sont par là pris en compte. Le problème plus théorique des catégories du religieux est repris dans la corrélation de la substance (religieuse) et de la forme (culturelle), tandis que celui, plus existentiel, de la présence et de la perception de l’ultime est traité avec la corrélation de la question et de la réponse.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".