MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416058053 · doi:10.1163/18758185-bja10113

Disagreeing About Cruelty: A Problem for Rorty’s Ironist

2025· article· en· W4416058053 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Rodrígues

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Pragmatism · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPragmatism in Philosophy and Education
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIronyResolution (logic)Position (finance)PoliticsConstruct (python library)Face (sociological concept)Form of the Good

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract I will argue that disagreements about what counts as cruelty, the resolution of which is required for a determinate picture of how to proceed in a project towards moral or political progress, pose a problem for Rorty’s liberal ironism. Rortian irony lacks the resources to provide us with a satisfactory way of resolving such disagreements in a way that itself avoids the risks of cruelty, and therefore Rortian irony is incompatible with genuine liberal hope. The most pressing problem with Rorty’s liberal ironist is not so much that she lacks the resources to justify her position against the anti-liberal, but rather that her irony undermines the very hope she claims to pursue by emptying that hope of determinate content.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary PragmatismSame topicPragmatism in Philosophy and EducationFrench-language works237,207