Ce qu’enseigne la traduction à la philosophie sur la question du « sens »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, j’examine comment des philosophes tels que Frege, Whitehead, Quine et Wittgenstein recourent, chacun à leur manière, à l’expérience de traduction pour aborder les épineuses questions du sens et de la relation pensée/langage. Alors qu’à partir des xviie et xviiie siècles la philosophie commence à s’écrire dans les langues nationales, rompant avec le « monolinguisme » hérité du logos grec de ses origines, la question du relativisme linguistique ne pouvait que conduire à celle plus cruciale encore du relativisme conceptuel. Je m’attarde tout particulièrement sur la manière dont Quine et Wittgenstein ont tenté de sortir du paradoxe de l’unicité/universalité de la pensée et de la diversité de l’expression de celle-ci. J’indique également ce qui constitue pour moi la spécificité et les exigences de la traduction du texte philosophique.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".