Solitude et souffrance des figures d’exception chez Kierkegaard. Sur la distance, la dissimulation et le silence face à Dieu
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, nous relions la solitude à la souffrance chez Kierkegaard. Nous montrons que la pensée existentielle est un travail de distance, précisément un jeu de dissimulation dont la signification réside dans la capacité à sauvegarder le silence. Le secret de intériorité est intraduisible dans l’extériorité du langage, ce qui isole et fait souffrir, mais ouvre le passage vers le religieux. Dieu seul peut voir les efforts de l’existant dissimulant dialectiquement sa souffrance dans la différence entre l’infini et le fini. Pour illustrer cette thèse, nous approfondissons les cas où Kierkegaard présente la souffrance en recourant à des figures d’exception — des marqueurs de solitude — comme Abraham, Job et le quidam. Nous relisons l’« Histoire de la souffrance » des Stades et le Post-scriptum pour mieux saisir les liens entre la souffrance et la solitude — une idée qui se trouve justifiée dans le Point de vue explicatif — de celui qui se veut, finalement, seul devant Dieu.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".