L’humour comme combinaison des contradictions. Une approche esthétique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay aims to establish that humour is not simply a style or an artistic genre among others, but is, rather, a core philosophical concept that permeates reflections on art from the end of the eighteenth century to the present day. Romantic philosophers were the first to contend that humour marked a new reign of artistic subjectivity. Indeed, the philosophical aesthetics of Jean Paul (Johann Paul Friedrich Richter) and Hegel award humour a paramount role in the aesthetic revolution of the time. Whether they revel in it (Jean Paul) or deplore it (Hegel), they are the first to bring to light the observation that humour allows contradictory realities to coexist without friction and within a single artistic proposition. It is precisely this idea that reappears, roughly a century later, in the techniques of Dadaist assemblage, in which Marcel Duchamp saw a manifestation of the “co-intelligence of the opposites.” Recent writings by Jacques Rancière support the view that Schiller, Schelling, Hegel, among others, were the first philosophers to propose a new form of identification and of perception of art. This “aesthetic regime of art” was no longer based on the laws of mimetic representation, but rather on “the mixing of heterogeneous elements.” Building on this theoretical framework, this essay demonstrates that Rancière nevertheless overlooks the key function that humour plays in romantic aesthetics and for the historical avant-gardes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".