“Can the radical other be operationalized?” A commentary to Heinz Streib’s article “Wisdom and the Other: Responsiveness in development between the egocentric and xenocentric style”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this commentary to Heinz Streib’s article “Wisdom and the Other,” I provide a different reading of Bernhard Waldenfels’ responsive phenomenology. In contrast to the author, I stress the relationality of Waldenfels’ conception of the radical Other which can only appear experientially by withdrawing from a meaning-bestowing, ordering response. It is only indirectly, through the inevitable insufficiency of our responses that the Other or alien presents itself. The intertwinement of alienness and order, I argue, leads to a responsive ethics in which morality und amorality must be distinguished contextually and situationally, not in absolute, timeless terms. This is problematic for Streib’s attempt to operationalize the radical Other in wisdom research, in at least two respects. For one, to integrate the radical Other as an evidential object into psychological models of wisdom goes against the alienness of the Other in Waldenfels. Secondly, from the perspective of a relational responsive ethics, wisdom cannot be defined by certain psychological and ethical traits. This second point is illustrated by Waldenfels’ understanding of Socrates which deviates significantly from the one presented in the article.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".