<i>Socializing Minds: Intersubjectivity in Early Modern Philosophy</i> , by Martin Lenz
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sometimes the hardest thing to do in philosophy is to ask a new question—a claim that applies just as much to scholarship in the history of philosophy as it does to contemporary issues. In the case of the history of early modern philosophy, debate was long dominated by epistemological concerns framed in terms of a contrast between rationalists and empiricists. The field became far richer when scholars instead started to investigate how thinkers of this period wrestled with the rise of the new mathematical, mechanical science; or how the Reformation and the ensuing political turmoil changed moral philosophy. More recently, a turn to long-neglected figures in this period—especially women—has enabled a series of ‘new narratives’ to emerge, focusing not just on metaphysics, science, ethics, and politics, but also on the philosophy of education and social philosophy more broadly. Martin Lenz’s great accomplishment in his erudite and thought-provoking book, Socializing Minds: Intersubjectivity in Early Modern Philosophy, is his formulation of a new question by which to investigate the early modern philosophers, in this case, philosophers well within the traditional canon: Benedict Spinoza, John Locke, and David Hume. Lenz examines how each addresses what he calls the contact problem: how do they account for intersubjectivity, or minds’ contact with one another? His answer is that Spinoza offers a metaphysical theory in terms of which minds must dynamically interact with one another to achieve individuation; Locke offers a linguistic theory that requires us to share a language; and Hume offers a physiological theory whereby human beings physically resonate with one another and thus bring their minds into a similar attunement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".