Peter Weiss's Fluchtpunkt, Language and the Search for Authentic Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between language and reality has intrigued many literati and philosophers, albeit that well into the 19th century, this relationship was still relatively unproblematic. For the enlightened thinker, mankind had access to reality through language, since the act of perception of the world, any intellectual activity, took place concomitantly with the linguistic act, i.e. in verbalizing one's perception. As Wilhelm von Humboldt's Schriften zur Sprachphilosophie show paradigmatically for 19th century German idealism, the structure of language was found to be congruent with reality, which resulted in a stable and perfect harmony between world, language, and the individual. According to Humboldt, language was an entirely logical Zwischenwelt, a mediator between individual and world whose grammatical structure shaped and organized the individual's Weltansicht (Humboldt, Schriften... 434) and to which each generation was able to contribute, for instance by way of semantic alterations and expansion of vocabulary. By the end of the 19th century, Humboldt's idealistic philosophy of language had given way to a growing Sprachskepsis—an erosion of confidence in the language-world congruence—which found early expression in the writings of German naturalist authors such as Arno Holz and Johannes Schlaf. They questioned language's ability to convey precisely and directly the minute and intricate details which naturalist writing, concerned with the painstakingly accurate depiction of the human condition, called for. Their skepticism found a forceful echo in the reflections of writers like Rainer Maria Rilke, both Heinrich and Thomas Mann, and Hugo von Hofmannsthal, whose views on language clearly showed a radical break with the notion of apriority of language in favor of a critical, skeptical, and ultimately pessimistic attitude towards the linguistic act: language was dissected, its nexus to reality scrutinized, resulting in a growing disenchantment with language as it was used, the deterioration and fossilization of words which ultimately rendered them meaningless, and the limitations that language as an historical, diachronic medium – implying semantic stability and linguistic continuity – forced upon what was increasingly
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".