History, Reason and Hope: A Comparative Study of Kant, Hayek and Habermas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Critique of Practical Reason, Immanuel Kant expressed awe Every human and admiration for "the starred heaven above me and the moral consciousness within me".With reference to the heavens, Kant was struck contains .human insienificance in "the incalculable vastness of worlds universality of ^ , , ^ ., . the moral law ^P^^ worlds, of systems withm systems, over endless ages .Within this sensible order of cosmic proportions, man appeared to be but an "animal-like being", condemned to return to the dust of a planet which itself is "a mere speck in the universe".At the same time, however, Kant believed that every human consciousness contains within itself the universality of the moral law.As intelligible beings, we live "a life independent of animality and even of the entire world of sense".The moral law elevates human existence into "a world ... which can be sensed only by the intellect".Moral self-determination, said Kant, "radiates into the infinite".^Lucien Goldmann's interpretation of Kant emphasizes the need to overcome this division between the sensible and intelligible domains.Kant conceived moral autonomy as an attribute of rational individuals, but he also contemplated a universal community, integrated through the practical Idea of human freedom-an "ethical commonwealth" and a "kingdom of ends".Goldmann argues that the absolute necessity of realizing this totality is "the centre ^
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".