De la métaphysique à la question philosophique de l’animal : avec Heidegger et Derrida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the history of the Western philosophical tradition, the question of the animal is, in a certain sense, central: it is by the flanks that it constantly emerges at the heart of the great reflectionon the boundaries of "humanity". Thus, contrary to a widespread opinion, the philosophical question of the animal is not secondary, but rather perhaps one of the most constant and tenacious thorn in the history of ideas - and of interrogations. Now, if Martin Heidegger has put the philosophical question of the animal back at the center of reflection, Jacques Derrida is perhaps the one who made visible the fragility and the cracks in the great construction of the Western philosophical tradition around the traditional opposition between the human and the animal. The Derridean deconstruction will then open the way to a plurality of thinkers and to a variety of interpretations that will directly insert themselves into these cracks that have weakened the very structure of the edifice. Nevertheless, it is from the texts of Heidegger that Derrida operates a reversal of the question. In Derrida's eyes, it is the whole Western philosophical tradition, in a certain sense, that perseveres in erasing any trace of the animal : a care fully orchestrated oblivion of the animal. In these conditions, by developing a distinction between spectator and listener, our reflection unfolds the question of the animal in such a way as to demonstrate that it is precisely as a listener, the one who stretches his or her ear, not as a spectator, that we must position ourselves before the animal in order not to remain in sensitive to its call: to remove this deafness, to listen attentively to the animal that tries to communicate with us. Let us open ourselves to the animal that tries to establish a dialogue with us: let us listen to it, finally.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".