D’une réduction phénoménologique pratique. Scheler, Heidegger et l’appel de la conscience1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, je souhaite comprendre comment Max Scheler et Martin Heidegger comprennent les normes sociales pour nos perceptions et nos pratiques quotidiennes, et comment ils décrivent la nécessité d’un dépassement de cette normativité au profit d’une autre, plus « personnelle » ou encore plus « authentique ». Je montre que c’est un appel de la conscience qui rompt la normativité sociale, et qui engage l’être humain à ne plus agir mécaniquement, mais à vivre librement. Cette rupture avec la normativité sociale est une réduction phénoménologique que nous appelons « réduction éthique ». Tout l’enjeu de l’article est de montrer qu’une telle réduction repose en fait sur les normativités sociales en tant qu’elles sont le critère de l’appel, le milieu où un tel appel est possible. De ce point de vue, le sujet réflexif demeure un sujet social.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".