Schiller versus Fichte: estetización y moralización de lo político en el origen del idealismo alemán
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The philosophical disagreement between Schiller and Fichte goes beyond what is commonly known as the Horen Dispute. For the central point in this dispute is the confrontation between two ways of conceiving the dialectics of life and thought: on the one hand, a dialectic of identity (Fichte) and on the other a dialectic of difference (Schiller). These logical devices develop from very different, even contradictory, postulates. While Schiller starts from the primacy of aesthetic reason, Fichte starts from a radicalization of what Kant called the primacy of practical reason.In this article I will offer an analysis of both dialectical devices and the conceptions of recognition, moral and political intersubjectivity, and of the role of the State they offer. As a conclusion, I will briefly outline certain parallelisms between Schiller and Fichte's proposals and two central issues of contemporary democracy: on the one hand, the resignation and/or disenchantment with politics and on the other the anger and distrust of politics and politicians that allows populist (or radical democracy) discourses to gain persuasive force in our societies.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it