The Conceptual History of Erlebnis: Lived-Experience from Dilthey to Fanon
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of lived-experience is widely used. It is not, however, widely defined. In this paper, I argue that we need to return to the development of the concept in order to see how it is intended to be used. My argument will proceed through three parts: (i) I will give an account of the development of the term in Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), where lived-experience is developed as way to analyze the figures and aims of the German Romantic movement; (ii) building on this, I will argue that lived-experience is an applied hermeneutical strategy that interprets the way in which collective socio-historical contexts frame and coordinate individual temporal, spatial, and psychic being-in-the-world; (iii); finally, I will argue that the poetical-phenomenological source of this development is central to understand applications because it is especially concerned to conveying something of the dynamic and unvivisected reality involved in living in a given context, rather than just explaining sets of facts involved with these contexts. In this last section, I will bring in Frantz Fanon’s use of lived-experience as a paradigm for its application as an applied hermeneutical strategy, and sketch some features that can be learned from it. My overall aim of this paper is that this will clarify the way in which this hermeneutical strategy is a useful one for applied contexts.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it