MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366809276 · doi:10.1353/rss.2020.0015

Notes on McTaggart’s Lectures on Lotze

2020· article· de· W4366809276 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bertrand Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Science, and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyMetaphysicsHegelianismMonismEpistemologyClassicsTheologyHumanitiesHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies n.s.  (summer ): – The Bertrand Russell Research Centre, McMaster U. issn –; online – c:\users\ken\documents\rj\type\red\rj   red.docx -- : Documents NOTES ON MCTAGGART’S LECTURES ON LOTZE Bertrand Russell Introduced by Nikolay Milkov Philosophy / U. Paderborn  Paderborn, Germany nikolay.milkov@upb.de Text Edited by Kenneth Blackwell Russell preserved notes he took on McTaggart’s course on Lotze’s major works in . They are published here for the first time. Russell’s abbreviations are expanded and deletions noted. N. Milkov introduces the notes and provides Russell’s biographical and philosophical background. The course on Lotze, on whose philosophy of geometry Russell had already written, was influential in his development away from monism. n the Lent term, , at Cambridge J. McT. E. McTaggart delivered sixteen lectures on Hermann Lotze. Russell took extensive notes on thirteen.1 This conspectus was written at a very important point of his philosophical development. He always insisted that between  and  he was “a full- fledged Hegelian” (MPD, p. ). In fact, however, Russell got acquainted with Hegel only through his tutor McTaggart. He read Hegel (his Logic) for the first time in March  and was deeply disappointed: it didn’t match his 1 Apparently McTaggart lectured on three books of Lotze’s: () Logik (Lectures I– IV—see IV below); () Metaphysik (V–XII below); () Mikrokosmus, Book ix (XIII– XVI below). Book ix, to which Russell refers at the end of his notes on Lecture XII (:  below), discusses what Lotze understood as metaphysics. I Notes on McTaggart’s Lectures on Lotze  c:\users\ken\documents\rj\type\red\rj   red.docx -- : lectures on lotze1 MacTaggart. Lent Term . ogic Book. II. 〈Lecture〉 IV. Disparate sensations: not only in different senses, but red and blue also disparate. Not so of musical notes, according to Lotze: could imagine intermediate notes if had heard two. Cases where comparative terms accurate only: hotter and bigger e.g. Antinomies of motion: Zeno’s arrow destroys rest as well as motion. Therefore leads to scepticism. Argument denies community between 10 moments, which is essential to rest. Fallacy is in regarding time as discrete. In Mathematics, how know of all triangles what proved of one? Not owing to nature of space but because can set aside all irrelevant properties . Lotze here sets aside problem, which is:Why have geometrical propositions this peculiarity? Why is not life of German Emperor essential ? We are à priori certain that it isn’t, which is peculiar to Mathematics . [McT. has no solution to offer]. Probability, says Lotze, subjective: has to do with our rational expectation . No event improbable after it has happened.Therefore don’t 20 need higher cause for what was formerly unlikely, if it happens, than for anything else.This not valuable remark. If double ’s happen often, dice may have been loaded for that purpose, which is different cause, if not higher. Book III. Scepticism: presupposes truth: can’t say you aren’t getting truth, unless there is truth you aren’t getting. Besides scepticism asserts propositions. Can’t say properly we can know nothing, for this is knowledge. But suppose we say all the same that there is truth, but we can’t get it. Why should sceptic believe there is truth? Therefore this modified scepticism also unsound.—Even if what we know are phe- 30 nomena, shouldn’t say we only know phenomena, for this suggests noumena better. 1 Transcribed from a microfilm printout of an unfoliated notebook in the Morrell papers , Ransom Center, Texas (ra Rec. Acq. , box .). Lecture divisions were made uniform and symbols italicized; double underlines became small caps. Square brackets are Russell’s. See K. Blackwell, “Russell’s Personal Shorthand”, Russell  (): –; “G.A.” for “God Almighty” is retained. “affected” was expected at : , :  twice and :  and . “Mier” at :  remains unidentified. Line :  noumena ] written over deleted phen’a L fol.   bertrand russell c:\users\ken\documents\rj\type\red\rj   red.docx -- : What mean by saying a thing real? Lotze objects to Setzung 〈positing 〉 as implying action. Takes Wirklichkeit 〈reality〉. Three stages, Being, Becoming and Validity. These three irreducible to each other. Events real, though can’t...

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell StudiesSame topicPhilosophy, Science, and HistoryFrench-language works237,207