Review of Richard Kearney and Brian Treanor (eds.), Carnal Hermeneutics , New York: Fordham University Press, 2015. 408 pages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The collection is edited and introduced by Richard Kearney and Brian Treanor, whose call for a more "carnal" hermeneutics gives unity and contemporary philoso-phical import to the collection.In the book and in their wider appeal to contemporary philosophers, Kearney and Treanor seek to indicate a "carnal turn" in philosophical hermeneutics, which they hope will serve as a corrective to the "linguistic turn" embraced by Gadamer and Ricoeur in the 20 th century.Their claim is not that the linguistic turn was entirely a mistake, but rather that, in Kearney's words, "the journey from flesh to text often forgot a return ticket" (16).The aim of carnal hermeneutics, then, is to initiate this return journey.And, crucially, this return ticket is itself not one-way; it is an endless roundtrip journey from flesh to text to flesh to text.In his opening essay, Kearney writes that carnal hermeneutics seeks "to restore hermeneutics to phenomenology and vice versa" (17).The basic argument is that there is no interpretation without embodiment (and vice versa).So, hermeneutics' over-emphasis on the text to the detriment of the flesh need not be corrected by a turn away from interpretation altogether; rather, as Kearney argues, the purpose of carnal hermeneutics "is to revisit the deep and inextricable relationship between sensation and interpretation" (17).Thus, where Ricoeur sought to graft the hermeneutic problem onto the
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
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".