Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boston College, 2 October 2001 Kearney: They are many similarities be-tween your work, Jean-Luc, and mine: we both owe a great deal of our philosophical formation to phenomenologies of Husserl and Heidegger; we have both en-gaged ourselves in close dialogue with Levinas, Ricoeur, and Derrida. Given these evident similarities, it would be more fruitful and interesting, it seems to me, if we take a look here into some of differences in our respective positions in regards to phe-nomenology of God. One question that would like to put to you, Jean Luc, and which, in fact, have put in a more elaborate form on page 33 of God Who May be is question of hermeneutical status of phenomenon. It seems to me that if there is a difference between us, given all our common readings and assumptions, it is this: would pass from phenomenology to hermeneutics more rapidly than you would. It strikes me that your approach is more strictly phenomenological since for you saturated is fundamentally irregardable, a pure event without horizon or context, without I or agent. As such it appears to defy interpretation. You do of course make some concessions to herme-neutics, as when you say-on very last page of your essay The Saturated Phenom-enon-that this phenomenon is communal and communicable and historic. Here you do seem to acknowledge possibility of a her-meneutic response, but my suspicion, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, is that example you privilege-Revelation-re-quires a pure phenomenology of pure event. Whereas would argue that there is no pure phenomenon as such, that appearing-not matter how iconic or it may be-always already involves an interpreta-tion of some kind. Phenomenological description and intuition, in my account, al-ways implies some degree of hermeneutic reading, albeit that of a pre-reflective pre-understanding or pre-conscious affection for most part. My question, then, would be: how do we interpret-and by extension, how do we judge-the phenomenon without betraying it? Marion: This is an old question. first version of Saturated Phenomenon was written as a paper just after Reduction and Givenness; then a more elaborate version followed as it is now found in Etant Donne. first to raise this question was Jean Grondin, a Gadamer specialist at Univer-sity of Montreal; after him Jean Greisch asked me same question and although am stubborn and narrow-minded, am not completely closed to critical remarks! Let us put aside for a moment question of Chris-tian revelation which is not directly related to phenomenon. phenomenon is a kind of phenomenon that is characterized by a deficit in concept vis-a-vis intuition: such phenomena in-cluded event, idol, flesh, and other. In all these cases, there is a surplus of intuition over intention. It is precisely be-cause of this surplus of intuition, have ar-gued, that we need Why? Be-cause hermeneutics is always an inquiry for further concepts: hermeneutics is generated when we witness an excess rather than a lack of information rather than lack. In Etant Donne where discuss four types of satu-rated phenomena say that icon is the icon of endless hermeneutics. Why an end-less hermeneutics? Precisely because there is there a conceptual deficit. have learned my hermeneutics with Ricoeur and Ricoeur is very clear on this: if we are to have herme-neutics it has to be an endless There, where need of hermeneutics arises, it is completely impossible to imagine that we may get at any moment an adequate, final concept. Subjectivity, history, and question of God-the question of history is very important for our discussion here, for historical event is most simple kind of phenomenon-in all these cases, question of hermeneutics is totally un-avoidable. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".