Indivisible, Inexplicable, and the Center of All Certainty: Herder's Concept of Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE CASE IS INCREASINGLY BEING MADE for the importance of Herder as a ph ilosopher of first rank. However, the range of his production presents any reader approaching his work with the difficulty of arriving at a general characterization of his thought. His authorship is immense and spans a multiplicity of fields, with the result that we are often presented with many versions of Herder depending on which aspect of his work is being focused upon: philosophy, anthropology, theology, linguistics, historicism, and so forth. The interpretative task is to locate a unifying idea that will help us to hold Herder's diverse writings together, and come to an understanding of his overall aim as a thinker. This represents a substantive endeavour, to which this examination aspires to make a contribution by suggesting the central role of Being, which he refers to as “unanalyzable – unproveable – the centre of all certainty” (FHA 1:20; EB, 71). It will explore Herder's very first surviving philosophical work, the Essay on Being, in which he offers a response to Kant's pre-critical consideration of the ontological argument as set out in Der einzig mögliche Beweisgrund.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".