Insistencia y Da-sein. El pensar del Ereignis y la filosofía trascendental
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este trabajo se propone rastrear e identificar las críticas de Heidegger a la filosofía trascendental, tal y como aparecen en los textos póstumos de losaños 1930 y 1940, los llamados tratados del Ereignis, y en los últimos volúmenes publicados de la Obra completa (Gesamtausgabe). Para ello, nos concentraremos mayormente en el tomo 82, publicado en 2018, que contiene toda una serie de notas y relecturas de Heidegger a su propia obra publicada, y que ha recibido menos atención por la investigación reciente. Esta vía de análisis nos permitirá exponer las críticas que hace el autor a su propio tratado Ser y tiempo, y por qué lo cuestiona a posteriori como proyecto de filosofía trascendental. Tras exponer las críticas a toda filosofía y todo sujeto trascendentales, podremos describir la alternativa propuesta en los textos póstumos: la insistencia (Inständigkeit) en el ser. Finalmente, concluiremos destacando las posibles dificultades y límites que entraña la voluntad de romper con la tradición de la filosofía moderna y trascendental, tal y como se deja entrever en el proyecto de una historia del Ser (Geschichte des Seyns) como otro comienzo (andere Anfang) del pensar.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".