Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is the product of a critical engagement that I have orchestrated between Husserl’s phenomenology and Stoic epistemology. I argue that the Stoic theory of knowledge, which is based upon the idea that the individual human being is a logos spermatikos, or “rational seed” of God, precludes any authentic doctrine of freedom, insofar as it enslaves the individual to a constant reference back toward God, as the source of “fundanlent” of all knowledge. However, the similarities between the Stoic theory and the phenomenology of Husserl call us toward a deeper reading, and an asking of the important question: what constitutes freedom? This question can only be answered by thinking beyond both Stoic epistemological schemas and Husserlian intentionality, toward a doctrine of freedom that is best described as demiurgic. Cet article est le produit d’une enterprise critique organisée autour de la phénoménologie husserlienne et de I’épistémologie stoïcienne. Je soutiens que la théorie stoïcienne de la connaissance, fondée sur I’idée qui veut que I’être humain individuel soit un logos spermatikos, un “germe rationnel” de Dieu, exclut toute doctrine authentique de la liberté, dans la mesure où elle contrait I’individu à référer constamment à Dieu en tant que source ou “fondement” de toute connaissance. Toutefois, les similarités entre la théorie stoïcienne et la phénoménologie husserlienne nous poussent à une interprétation plus profonde et à poser I’importante question: qu’est la liberté? Cette question ne peut être répondue qu’en dépassant et les schémes épistémologiques stoïciens, et I’intentionalité husserlienne, vers une doctrine de la liberté qui pourrait être qualtfiée de démiurgique.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".