Kant, Husserl et la question de l’humanité de la connaissance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article interroge la présence, dans la Critique de la raison pure, d’une « clause anthropologique » redoublant le procès de la raison. À partir de la critique formulée par Husserl, selon laquelle Kant se montrerait coupable, en dépit de ses percées transcendantales, d’une forme de relativisme anthropologique, il s’agit plus précisément de clarifier la fonction limitative de l’incise « pour nous hommes » qui ponctue le texte de la première Critique. En dépit des apparences qui ont pu mener Husserl à soutenir que Kant cherche à expliquer par cette clause la validité universelle des jugements synthétiques a priori, mais se trouve par le fait même à limiter cette validité, il est possible de soutenir que l’humanité de notre pouvoir de connaître n’est jamais présupposée par Kant et constitue en réalité une découverte de la raison à son propre sujet.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".