Bibliographic record
Abstract
W hat follows is an effort to demonstrate how Wittgenstein's late thought on religion outlines a unique basis for a thoroughgoing and systematic philosophical critique of religion.1 To this end, it is imperative to isolate and substantiate this key analytical focal point of his writings on and relevant to the subject, which broaches a mode of experiential orientation germane to ordinary language: what, in a broad and non-technical sense, I describe as "inferential."I have not encountered a robust thematic treatment of this topic with express consideration of Wittgenstein's philosophical views on religion; it is accordingly where I seek to intervene in the scholarship.21.By calling this a critique I mean that the resources of the targeted framework are taken up in order to show the limits of what can be meaningfully said and laid licit claim to respective to that framework, as well as to identify what can be termed the "dialectical illusions" embroiled in it, to expressly align this method with Kant's own and the tradition inspired by it.See Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, eds.and trans.Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), A58/B82-A64/B89 [Doctrine of Elements.Pt.II.Transcendental Logic] and A293/B249-A298/B355 [Transcendental Illusion].Cf.Stanley Cavell, "The Availability of Wittgenstein's Later Philosophy," in Must We Mean What We Say?A Book of Essays (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), 60-1.2. I am considering authors that have sought comprehensive elucidations and/or adaptations of Wittgenstein's late philosophy generally, as well as those who have undertaken narrower examinations of his thought on religion in particular.Among the first, I include Stanley Cavell (esp.The Claim of Reason and parts of Must We Mean What We Say?), P.M.S Hacker (esp.Comparisons and Context), and John McDowell (esp.Mind and World and parts of Mind, Value, and Reality).Among the second, I include Religion and Wittgenstein's Legacy, eds.D.Z.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".