On Jean Grondin’s Metaphysical Hermeneutics: Jean Grondin, Metaphysical Hermeneutics, London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2024.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metaphysical Hermeneutics presents a conceptual singularity that simultaneously integrates a type of knowledge, a vital relation of the subject and a methodologically rigorous formal systematisation.This singularity lies in a novel and complex staging of metaphysics, far removed from the traditional negative judgements, and presented instead, in the form of a vindication of its philosophical role, as a generic structure of hermeneutic procedures.In this key, Jean Grondin succeeds in testifying from a plural approach: the communicating vessels between being, the meaning of things and understanding, as constitutive cores of philosophical work.This proposal, however, poses significant challenges in a contemporary world where hermeneutics has turned towards the critique of grand narratives and the revision of ontological frameworks from situated, decolonial or technodiscursive perspectives.It is no coincidence, therefore, that Grondin uses a progressive methodology of interpretation/understanding and proposes the text as a global analysis of the history of metaphysics in its link with philosophy and hermeneutics.This orientation responds to two fundamental factors: firstly, to an exercise in investigative continuity with regard to this problematic, already addressed in his works Du sens des choses: l'idée de la métaphysique (2013) and La belle de la metaphysique: Essai sur ses piles hermeneutiques (2021).Secondly, it is due to the author's intellectual profile as a senior lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Montreal, particularly linked to a line of research centred on the works of Martin Heidegger and Hans-George Gadamer.In this respect, Grondin argues that the articulation of these ideas offers a guideline for delineating the contours of a metaphysical hermeneutics, based on the capacity of human beings to appropriate meaning and to understand
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".