ADORNO E A CRÍTICA À ONTOLOGIA FUNDAMENTAL DE MARTIN HEIDEGGER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
É propósito deste artigo confrontar criticamente o modo de pensar adorniano expresso na primeira parte da Dialética Negativa, e a ontologia fundamental de Martin Heidegger. Para tanto, iniciamos apresentando o sentido do pensar em Heidegger, que busca, não a explicação das causas, mas as significações do ser. Em seguida discorremos sobre as matrizes fundamentais do pensamento de Theodor Adorno, enquanto desdobramento da tradição marxista, a fim de salientar a fonte principal da posição hegeliano-marxista de Adorno e da escola de Frankfurt. Na sequência, demarcamos a influência do jovem Lukacs para os passos adornianos em prol de uma teoria crítica. Em seguida, apresentamos a filosofia adorniana como crítica às filosofias existentes, especialmente em seu confronto com os conceitos heideggerianos de ser, de existência e de historicidade. O método utilizado foi o hermenêutico das referências: Adorno (1975; 2009; 2003); Heidegger (2002) e comentadores: Lichtheim (1970); Perlini (1975); Rusconi (1968); Stein (1973) e Rocha (2020).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".