From a Ladder to a mere Rung: The Functions of the Phenomenology of Spirit within or without the Encyclopedia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I explore the distinct functions that Hegel assigns to the Jena Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) and to the Encyclopedia’s ‘Phenomenology of Spirit’. Whereas the 1807 Phenomenology can be seen as a ladder bringing natural consciousness up to the level of philosophical knowledge, the Encyclopedia Phenomenology seems demoted to a mere rung, a mere step or a subsection within Hegel’s definitive system, stuck between the sections on Anthropology and Psychology. Does that entail that what was once (in 1807) conceived as the first part of Hegel’s system of science has become secondary in importance in regards to the Logic which constitutes the first part of Hegel’s Encyclopedia? I argue against such a view that it is important to distinguish the Jena Phenomenology from the Encyclopedia’s, in order to understand how they both serve different purposes which remained to the end of the highest importance in regards to the general economy of Hegel’s final system. This in turn implies that we have two distinct ‘phenomenological’ moments within Hegel’s system that need to be appraised in their own right.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".