Quelle sorte d'être est le soi? Les implications ontologiques d'une herméneutique du soi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article vise à dégager les implications ontologiques du projet Ricoeurien d’une herméneutique du soi tel que formulé dans Soi-même comme un autre. L’auteur retrace d’abord la double approche de Ricoeur proposant de penser l’attestation du soi suivant la notion aristotélicienne de l’être-vrai et l’homme capable selon les catégories de l’acte et de la puissance. Soulignant le caractère fragmentaire et insuffisant des analyses de Ricoeur, il explore ensuite une troisième façon de nommer l’être du soi selon la catégorie de la relation, développant ainsi l’idée d’une “ontologie de la relation” sous-jacente à cette herméneutique du soi. This article aims to make explicit the ontological implications of the Ricœurian project of a hermeneutics of self as formulated in Oneself as Another. The author first redraws Ricœur’s double approach proposing to think the attestation of the self following the Aristotelian notion of being-true and the capable man following the categories of actuality and potentiality. Underlining the fragmentary nature and the incompleteness of Ricœur’s analysis, he then explores a third way to speak about the being of the self following the category of relation, thus developing the idea of an underlying “ontology of the relation” implied by this hermeneutics of the self.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".