Freedom and the formalization of experience: a Hegelian critique, a Kantian answer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s critique of Immanuel Kant’s formalism is highly informative – it brings to light many aspects of morality and ethical decision-making that had gone entirely unnoticed by Kantians until that point, such as the importance of world history in determining our concepts of right, and that the subsumption of particulars under universals does not typically fall to individuals. Because a determination of moral concepts by history itself seems to contradict Kantian morality (in which we use the categorical imperative to determine whether a formulated maxim conforms with duty or not) by eliminating any genuine choice (as the ways in which we formulate our maxims are themselves historical products rather than free decisions), Kantians have responded to Hegel’s critique in part by trying to show that such factors can be accounted for purely within Kantian philosophy. Through examining Hegel’s critique of Kant’s formalism and Kantian philosophy, this thesis will follow this tradition. I will argue that Hegel’s critique must transform how we conceptualize Kant’s philosophy, how we should think of his doctrine of freedom in contrast to determinism, and the sense of objectivity that we can secure with his philosophy. I will argue that the best answer to Hegel’s critique of Kant’s formalism is Kant’s own theory of the end of nature and history and that his writings on history are consistent with the rest of his more speculative work.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".