El yo transontologico: la respuesta de nishitani keiji a la subjetividad cartesiana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La presente tesis se propone analizar la relevancia de la critica de Nishitani Keiji (1900-1990) a la concepcion de res cogitans defendida por Rene Descartes (1596-1650). Aunque en la historia de la filosofia diversos pensadores hayan expuesto, desde distintos puntos de vista, los problemas relativos al modelo de subjetividad cartesiana, se pretende demostrar en que medida la propuesta racionalista moderna todavia es un problema por superar. Para ello es imperativo comprobar hasta que punto el analisis critico de Nishitani del concepto cartesiano es acertado. Ademas, sostenemos que la propuesta existencial y religiosa nishitaniana de superacion de la perspectiva de subjetividad moderna significa una critica a la nocion de sustancia. De modo que se pretende comprobar que el problema de la subjetividad en Nishitani no es abordado como una discusion meramente epistemologica, sino que la realizacion del yo autentico es una cuestion ontologica, que desafia las bases de la filosofia europea. Bibliografia principal DESCARTES, Rene. (1964-76). Trad. Adam, C. y Tannery, P. (orgs.). Œuvres de Descartes. 12 vols. Paris: Vrin/CNRS __________. (1975). Entretien avec Burman. Manuscrito de Gottingen. Trad. y notas Ch. Adam. (2 ed.). Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin. __________. (2009). Meditaciones acerca de la Filosofia Primera. Seguidas de las objeciones y respuestas. Trad. Jorge Aurelio Diaz. Bilingue latin-castellano. Bogota: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Facultad de Ciencias Humanas. 348 __________. (2011). “Discurso del metodo”. Trad. y notas Manuel Garcia Morente. En Descartes. Estudio introductorio de Cirilo Florez Miguel. Biblioteca de Grandes Pensadores. Madrid: Gredos, pp. 97-154. __________. (2011a). “Conversacion con Burman”. Trad. y notas Ernesto Lopez y Mercedes Grana. En Descartes. Estudio introductorio de Cirilo Florez Miguel. Biblioteca de Grandes Pensadores. Madrid: Gredos, pp. 415-460. NISHITANI, Keiji. (1960). “The Religious Situation in Present-Day Japan”, Contemporary Religions in japan, vol. 1, pp. 7- 24. __________. (1969a). “On Modernization and Tradition in Japan”. En Kuyama, Y. & Kobayashi, N. (Eds.). Modernization and Tradition in Japan. Nishinomiya: International Institute for Japan Studies, pp. 69-96. __________. (1969b; 2004) “The I-Thou Relation in Zen Buddhism”. Trad. Norman Waddell. The Eastern Buddhist II.2 (1969): pp. 71–87; reimpreso en Frederick Frank (Ed.). The Buddha Eye: An Anthology of the Kyoto School and Its Contemporaries. Bloomington: World Wisdom, 2004: pp. 39–53. 349 __________. (1981). “Ontology and Utterance”. Philosophy East and West, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan.,), pp. 29-43. __________. (1982). Religion and Nothingness. Trad. Jan Van Bragt. University of California Press. __________. (1986). “The Starting Point of My Philosophy.” Trad. Jeff Shore. FAS Society Journal: pp. 24–29. __________. (1990) The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism, trans. Graham Parkes y Setsuko Aihara. Albany: SUNY Press. __________. (1998). “Concerning the Worldview of the New Japan”. En Dilworth, David A.; Viglielmo, Valdo H.; Zavala, Agustin Jacinto (Ed. Trad). Sourcebook for Modern Japanese Philosophy: Selected Documents. Westport, Conn. y London: Greenwood Press, pp. 385-391. __________. (1999). “Emptiness and Sameness” (trad. de “Ku to soku”). En M. Marra (Ed.), Modern Japanese Aesthetics. A Reader. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 179-217. __________. (2006). On Buddhism. Trad. de Seisaku Yamamoto. Albany: State University of New York Press. 350 __________. (2008). “Mon point de depart philosophique”. Trad. Sylvain Isaac. Laval theologique et philosophique, vol. 64, n° 2, pp. 295-303. __________. (2008a). “My views on Overcoming Modernity”. En Calichman, Richard F. (Ed. y trad.). Overcoming modernity: cultural identity in wartime Japan. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 51-63. __________. (2016). “El significado del nihilismo para Japon” En HEISIG, J., KASULIS, T., & MARALDO, J. (Eds.). La filosofia japonesa en sus textos. Trad. coordinada por Raquel Bouso Garcia. Barcelona: Herder, pp.736-743. __________. (2017). La Religion y la Nada. Trad. Raquel Bouso. Chisokudo Publications. Edicion revisada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".