MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171767911 · doi:10.7202/1078048ar

Robert B. Brandom, "A Spirit of Trust: A Reading of Hegel’s Phenomenology."

2021· article· en· W3171767911 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yael Gazit

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophy in Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Philosophy of Evil
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHegelianismPhenomenology (philosophy)PhilosophyEpistemologyReading (process)Linguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robert Brandom's lifelong reading of Hegel reaches full fruition in A Spirit of Trust.In this impressive long book.Brandom presents a meticulous reading of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit that resembles no other; a reading that stands 'substantially apart from the mainstream tradition of Hegel interpretation,' as Brandom writes in one of the few remarks he makes on other readings of Hegel (6).In the first sentence of the book, Brandom states that it presents 'a rational reconstruction' of the Phenomenology (1).This statement, however, is not cashed out, and cannot be fully comprehended for its gravity and importance, until the final chapters of the book.For Brandom's way of reading Hegel-what he terms 'rational reconstruction'-is not simply another hermeneutical method for interpreting texts, but rather a practical commitment to recollective rationality: the very key idea of Hegel's Idealism in Brandom's view.As Brandom shows in detail in the last part of the book, recollective rationality stands at the heart of Hegel's philosophy, it is his most important and novel contribution to philosophy, and understanding and acknowledging it provides no less than the pathway to the third age of Geist: an age of better communities and individuals.To accomplish it one needs to exercise a selective engagement with the past that renders it a history: to construct a tradition or a narrative that shows how a specific view (norm) achieves explicitness over time by finding it implicit in past cases.This rational recollective reconstruction is also what Hegel does in the Phenomenology, according to Brandom, and it is likewise what Brandom does in his own book.Recollective rationality is thus the view that explains and justifies Brandom's hermeneutical choices, and the view that is explained and justified by their outcomes.As Brandom writes in the last sentence of the book: 'A Spirit of Trust exemplifies the process of recollective rationality whose structure it is its business to articulate' (769).To thoroughly understand what is meant by this idea, and to judge whether the circularity it evinces is valid or not, one needs to wait, and follow Brandom's story, for nearly 500 pages.Nevertheless, it is a wait richly worthwhile.The idea of recollective rationality is built on a set of commitments that Brandom attributes to Hegel, but they are also, first and foremost, his own philosophical commitments.Working his way to show how they are implicit in Hegel's work, rationally reconstructing it to make them explicit, Brandom uses his own terminology and philosophical framework: his is a pragmatist semantic reading, guided by a strategy he names 'semantic descent' its vocabulary is Brandomian and Fregean, and its main interlocutors are Wittgenstein, Davidson, and Sellars.Accordingly, most of the lessons Brandom derives from this strategy and setting are those he had articulated in his masterpiece of 1994, Making It Explicit, and later developed throughout his career.However, as he reads them out of, or into, the Phenomenology, these lessons gain further development, clarity, and are sometimes significantly altered.The most important among them is the idea of recollective rationality itself, which Brandom introduced briefly in 2002 as the missing piece in his earlier inferentialism, and now appears to stand at the center of the philosophical system he presents.The second is the model of reciprocal recognition that replaces (or underwrites?)his earlier score-keeping model to account for the structure of the essentially social discursive realm of intersubjective relations.These two ideas are discussed at length in the second and third parts of the book, as Brandom reads the Self-Consciousness, Reason, and Spirit chapters.The first part of the book contains less development of Brandomian themes, but it is nevertheless interestingly rich and important, for it prepares the ground for the social and historical dimensions that follow by taking the earlier chapters of the Phenomenology to lay the foundations of inferentialism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophy in ReviewSame topicTheology and Philosophy of EvilFrench-language works237,207