MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365457516 · doi:10.1111/ejop.12855

R. MatthewShockey, The bounds of self: An essay on Heidegger's Being and Time. New York, NY: Routledge. 2021. p. 224. £130 (hbk.)

2023· article· en· W4365457516 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Philosophy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhenomenology and Existential Philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeorge (robot)CitationLibrary scienceSociologyMedia studiesArt historyHistoryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does phenomenology bear on the question of how to live?Does it require us to step back from life, or is it compatible with active engagement in it?Is Being and Time properly understood as "existentialist"?Shockey's answers to these questions in The Bounds of Self will likely be surprising to many readers, but they are developed on the basis of a thoroughly worked-out reading of Heidegger as following in Augustine and Descartes's meditative footsteps. Shockey's aim inThe Bounds of Self is to develop a systematic interpretation of Heidegger's views in (and around) Being and Time.Shockey supplements his reading of Being and Time with interpretations of a handful of other works by Heidegger from the 1920s, especially Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics with its treatment of time and the imagination, some published lecture courses, and a few choice quotes from later works.Shockey makes a persuasive case for important, and underappreciated, continuities between Heidegger's approach to ontology in Being and Time, and Descartes's in the Meditations.Heidegger's book shares the latter book's two-step movement: "inward" to develop an understanding of one's own being, and "outward" again toward the ways of being that characterize the rest of the world.This movement is meditational in that it requires its practitioners to perform it for themselves in the first-person, with the aim of achieving clarity about self and world via careful attention and self-conscious discipline to the essential forms that self and world take.Shockey's title plays on the title of P. F. Strawson's book on Kant's First Critique, The Bounds of Sense, and pursues a similar mission and method.What Strawson's book did for Kant, Shockey's book aims to do for Heidegger, underscoring the relevance of the issues and questions that animate Heidegger's way of doing philosophy for a contemporary audience not enmeshed in the specific historical debates from which Heidegger's work emerged.Like Strawson, Shockey is concerned with producing a systematic reading of his target: the focus is more on the issues that animate the work, rather than its historical context, and the aim is to highlight what is (and, at times, what is not) persuasive in it.The overarching result is an account of how what is most persuasive might best fit together.Shockey does a good job of translating Heidegger's jargon into other terms, and of relating Heidegger to other thinkers who are likely more familiar to a contemporary reader.All of this work of translation, explanation, and relation is carried out in a way that keeps us fairly close to Heidegger's way of talking about things, but not so close that we are lost in the jargon.In this respect, Shockey's book resembles Hubert Dreyfus's Being-in-the-world, in providing a synoptic introduction to Being and Time.Shockey's introduction to Heidegger improves on Dreyfus's by highlighting Heidegger's treatment of temporality and its ontological significance in Division Two of Being and Time.Shockey's book belongs to what one might think of as a "second generation" of English-language Heidegger scholarship, after

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.279
Teacher spread0.236 · 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