Analysis, Systematicity and the Transcendental in Hermann Cohen's System of Critical Idealism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dissertation provides a systematic, critical analysis of Hermann Cohen's System of Critical Idealism. The first chapter establishes Cohen's reading of the a priori of Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic as founding the possibility of intuition in mathematics, rather than the possibility of mathematics in intuition. The second chapter then investigates the problem of the unity of the transcendental object, or, more specifically, the conditions under which the intelligible predicates of the functions of judgement can be applied to an objective unity. Chapters three and four compare the idealist responses of Salomon Maimon and G.W.F. Hegel to the problem of objective unity. Both Maimon and Hegel attempt to provide a logic (and a manifold of reality) grounded in the Spinozistic principle of determinability. Ultimately, this leads to the conflation of the totality of intuition with the domain of the intelligible thereby reducing Kant's infinite judgement to a positive assertion. Cohen, however, rejects this solution, and insists that the manifold of reality (or the real continuum of calculus) is the product of continuous thinking. Cohen's principle of production implies an indeterminably determinable manifold, thus providing the intelligible foundations for the eventual set-theoretic foundation of arithmetic and analysis. The final chapter of the dissertation investigates the consequences of Cohen's innovation for the prospects of systematic idealism as a framework within which normative, theoretical and aesthetic claims may be raised and justified. Since logic does not determine a priori the structure of the intelligible whole, Cohen cannot assume a convergence between natural and ethical representations. The free production of laws, Cohen argues, is the practice of jurisprudence, or, the construction and reconstruction of assertoric statements (universal claims) with the aim of limiting contradictions. If, in the natural sciences, we call this aim truth, in ethics, we call it the good, guided by the idea of the end of humanity.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".