‘Common possession of the earth and the right to be somewhere: a commentary on Jakob Huber’s <i>Kant’s Grounded Cosmopolitanism</i> ’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jakob Huber’s Kant’s Grounded Cosmopolitanism focuses on an underanalyzed aspect of Kant’s theory, namely, Kant’s distinctive account of common possession of the earth, and combines Kant scholarship and contemporary global justice debates to show the ongoing relevance and potential of what Huber calls Kant’s ‘grounded cosmopolitanism.’ Huber argues that the right to be somewhere is a ‘material right to something located in time and space’ (27). This revisionist account of the right to be somewhere is at the core of Huber’s ‘argument from earth dwellership,’ and among the central arguments of the book. Kant’s argument from earth dwellership, so Huber argues, constitutes ‘an independent strand of thought that is concerned with the normative complexity of coming into a world of finite space as corporeal agents’ (36). In this article, I will inquire whether it is plausible to adopt Huber’s revisionist interpretation of the right to be somewhere. I will argue that although his argument is compelling at first sight, Huber’s understanding of the right to be somewhere as a ‘material right’ would have undesirable theoretical implications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".