Matérialisme et unité de l’être humain : le défi du dualisme cartésien chez La Mettrie et d’Holbach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Le présent article se propose de réfléchir sur le rôle que joue la pensée philosophique de Descartes chez deux des principaux philosophes matérialistes du xviiie siècle, Julien Offray de La Mettrie et le baron d’Holbach. Alors que les deux philosophes s’entendent sur le caractère aberrant et inintelligible de la spiritualité de l’âme, l’interprétation qu’ils font de la signification des conséquences du cartésianisme diffère. Tandis que l’auteur de L’homme-machine feint de voir dans le dualisme cartésien une ruse destinée aux théologiens, qui cache un matérialisme souterrain qui ne révélerait sa véritable portée que dans l’analogie de la machine appliquée à l’être humain, l’auteur du Système de la nature élève l’erreur cartésienne au rang d’emblème de l’ignorance philosophique causée par l’autonomisation de l’imagination théorique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".