Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents a summary interpretation of Kant's philosophy and the developments of subsequent Idealism. This interpretation is built around two coordinates -one conceptual and the other historical - which are here called logic of ideas and logic of history. The first coordinate helps explain the internal, logical factors behind the instability of Kant's theory. Here the correspondence between two notions from the period of the critiques - thing in itself and the I think - with those of the Opus postumum - self-affection and self-positing - is explained. The second coordinate presents the external, historical motives of the instability of Kant's thought: the dispute over the thing in itself. This dispute was favoured by the eruption of a new conception of man and freedom. It drove some of Kant's disciples to flee from dogmatism and eliminate from the origin of representations the thing-in-itself's causal action. The representation is then understood first as a fact of consciousness, and later as an act by which the Subject, having become absolute, identifies itself. The article ends with some reflections on the deeper cause of Idealism, which is linked more to moral philosophy than theory of knowledge.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".