Horizontes compartidos: El proyecto de la superación de la epistemología de Charles Taylor y la concepción heideggeriana del conocimiento en Ser y tiempo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEl presente articulo vincula el proyecto de superacion de la epistemologia, del filosofo canadiense Charles Taylor, con la critica a la forma tradicional de entender el conocimiento, que Heidegger presenta fundamentalmente en el §13 de Ser y tiempo. En este apartado, se muestra el conocimiento como una mas de las multiples formas de ser del Dasein, cuestionando con ello su caracter paradigmatico y las nociones modernas de sujeto y objeto. Consideramos crucial la manera heideggeriana de entender el conocimiento, como un modo de ser derivado y menos frecuente, para contrarrestar la imagen antropologica del sujeto desvinculado, denunciada por Taylor, que surge de la manera moderna de comprender el conocimiento. Esto tiene consecuencias a nivel etico, social y politico. EnglishThis article links the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor's project to overcoming epistemology with the critique of the traditional way of understanding knowledge, which Heidegger fundamentally presents in §13 of Being and Time. In this section, knowledge is presented as one of the multiple ways of being of Dasein, thereby questioning its paradigmatic nature and the modern notions of subject and object. We consider the Heideggerian way of understanding knowledge to be crucial, as a derivative and less frequent way of being, to counteract the anthropological image of the disengaged subject, which Taylor denounces, that emerges from the modern way of understanding knowledge. This has ethical, social and political consequences.
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 | 0.024 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".