Réduction, construction, destruction. D’un dialogue à trois : Natorp, Husserl, Heidegger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to introduce the question of tbe « given » and of its elaboration with respect to the motifs of reduction, construction and destruction, we take as a point of departure the first courses of Heidegger at the University of Freiburg in the years 1919-1920. Framed by a sustained debate with the different figures of Neokantianism that occupied the forefront of the philosophical scene in Germany, Heidegger’s aim is to take up and to radicalize Husserl’s phenomenological enterprise indexed to intuition of an ultimate givenness, through the question : « Was heißt “gegeben”, “Gegebenheit” — dieses Zauberwort der Phänomenologie und der “Stein des Anstoßes” bei den anderen ? » This project of taking Husserl’s phenomenlogy will lead Heidegger to reopen the ongoing debate between Husserl and Natorp about the method of reconstruction vs. reduction. So we could venture the hypothesis, according to which the Heideggerian theme of Destruktion “destruction” or “deconstruction,” if it does inherit a sense from the Husserlian Abbau (destruction), from the de-sedimentation of accumulated strata that have come to obstruct the grasp of insight (Einsicht), this theme could all the same be understood as the taking up again — in a practical reversal — Rekonstruktion, Natorpian reconstruction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| 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".