MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911885696 · doi:10.3138/tjt.2018-0105

What Is Experience of God? A Hegelian Approach

2018· article· en· W2911885696 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
sj Terrance Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy and Historical Thought
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterintuitiveHegelianismPhenomenology (philosophy)EpistemologyPhilosophyConsciousnessReligious experienceObject (grammar)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Figure: see text] I will consider the problem of the experience of God in light of the fact that God is not present to consciousness as a phenomenal object. I will present Hegel’s conception of experience in The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) as a valuable attempt to overcome the restrictions placed upon religious experience by Kant’s definition of experience as “empirical knowledge.” My counterintuitive thesis is that a certain way of thinking about the concept of God constitutes experience of God. Experience of the concept of God has the same status as any other experience of knowing. The concept can be thought and evaluated, and, above all, it can be true—that is, true to itself, to its essence, as a concept.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicPhilosophy and Historical ThoughtFrench-language works237,207