Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In the following paper, I argue that none of the recent criticisms of Kant’s transcendental idealism offered on behalf of Husserl scholars such as Dominique Pradelle give us reason to think that Husserlian phenomenology moves beyond Kant’s “revolutionary” Copernican turn in the subject-object relation. I begin by first providing an interpretation of Kant’s Copernican turn and then outline three issues with Kant’s transcendental idealism that scholars like Pradelle take as reason to reject Kant’s revolution in philosophy. Specifically, Kant’s transcendental idealism makes reference to the thing-it-itself, construes the subject of the turn along psychological lines, and results in skepticism. I then provide reasons why these supposed issues with Kant’s theory, especially when we take into account the Kantian defenses that can be assembled against them, ought not motivate us to think Husserl’s phenomenology does not adhere to the Copernician turn or move beyond it. Finally, I make the case that if we take into consideration the role played by the unity of apperception in Kant’s account of object constitution, then Kant and Husserl, far from differing on the turn, are in fact, and contra thinkers like Pradelle, closer on the topic of the objects of consciousness than is typically appreciated.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".