The Epigenesis of Pure Reason: Systematicity in Kant's Critical Philosophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Epigenesis of Pure Reason: Systematicity in Kant's Critical Philosophy -- Kant's critical philosophy explicitly aspires to be systematic. Whether it achieves this aspiration is another question. Comparing pure reason to an organized body, Kant requires a critique of pure reason to be entirely complete down to the least elements, and regards this completeness or systematicity as a matter of all or nothing. He even speaks of critique as a system of the epigenesis of pure reason, i.e., an organic whole or system of possible ends that pure reason generates and organizes entirely out of itself. Nonetheless, the epigenetic model of systematicity, which underlies critical philosophy, remains buried in Kant's corpus. Neither Kant nor any interpreter of critical philosophy makes clear why and how pure reason generates and organizes itself as a self-standing operating system or whole of possible ends. They also do not explicate what this epigenetic conception of systematicity entails for the functioning of theoretical reason, practical reason, and the power of judgement. This dissertation investigates the question of the systematicity of pure reason in Kant's critical philosophy, presenting an epigenetic interpretation of Critique of Pure Reason through the lens of the transcendental doctrine of method. It argues that, in its primary sense, a critique of pure reason is the methodological epigenesis, i.e., self-generation and self-organization, of pure reason as an organic system or embryonic whole of possible ends. The dissertation proceeds by discussing: 1) what motivates pure reason to generate itself as a system or whole of possible ends; 2) how pure reason generates itself as a whole of possible ends; 3) how pure reason structures this whole into organic parts; and 4) how pure reason's self-generation and self-organization make the table of judgements transcendentally systematic.
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 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 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".