Schelling’s Philosophical Ethnology: History, Mythology and the Question of South America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Kantian attempt to ground knowledge put history in a unique role, one defined by the problem of the mediation of transcendental conditions and empirical agency. Kant’s essay, Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim, in an attempt to express the exoteric core of transcendental critique to a general readership, opens by remarking that however one forms the concept of freedom of the will, human actions are determined by natural law, just like other natural events. History, while concerned with the mere narration of these appearances, which belie the influence of causes that can only properly be understood metaphysically, nevertheless raises the possibility that if considered from a sufficiently broad perspective, regularities might be discovered. In this way, “what meets the eye in individual subjects as confused and irregular,” 1 in the whole species might be viewed as the development of its original capacities in the continuous advance towards a condition of right that will ultimately hold throughout the world. Yet it remains that the relation of nature and freedom cannot, for Kant, in principal at least, be explained; it can only be described. Insofar as human action is determined by a kind of natural necessity, freedom can never be understood as originating in an intelligible cause, and belongs only to the realm of appearances. In other words, if the subject is part of nature there would seem to be no way of explaining how a nature which we can only know as deterministic can give rise to a subject which seems to transcend determinism in its knowing and in its ethical doings. As a result, Kant refused to ground his approach in explicitly transcendental terms, especially when it came to the philosophy of history, and relegated the knowledge of freedom to a practical ideal.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".