Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adorno ventured the claim that the entire programme of Western philosophy consists in self-reflection: “philosophy in general has been the implementation of just this νóησις υοήσεως that he [Aristotle] ascribes to the divine principle as the primal image of all philosophy” ( MCP 94–5). He repeats this claim in his lectures on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason : “philosophy is really a matter of ‘thinking on thinking’, as Aristotle defined it” ( KCPR 82). But if self-reflection has been the lifeblood of philosophy, Adorno insists that it is not an end in itself. Denouncing Western reason because it effectively condemns thought to thinking itself, he argued that, to escape the sphere of immanence, of narcissistic navel-gazing, thought must become self-critical. He stressed the need for critical self-reflection throughout his work, and dignified it with the name “metaphysics”. Metaphysics should not limit itself to the “self-reflection of thought and of the pure forms of thought”. As self-critical, metaphysics must question the tacit, unexamined “thesis of the whole metaphysical tradition”, namely “whether thought and its constitutive forms are in fact the absolute” ( MCP 99). Metaphysics must question whether, and to what extent, thought can transcend the sphere of concepts to grasp objects. Although philosophy's confidence in its ability to transcend concepts is as “doubtful as ever”, it is both one of philosophy's “inalienable features and part of the naïveté that ails it”.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".