Aporías genealógicas: Nietzsche, Foucault y los límites del historicismo radical
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Varios autores han definido la genealogia nietzscheano-foucaultiana como una filosofia critica que tiene como objetivo principal demostrar que aquellos valores considerados universales o eternos son, en realidad, historicos y contingentes. La genealogia seria, por tanto, una estrategia de desfundamentacion de aquello que en el presente se considera como incuestionable. Tomando como referencia esta definicion, el objetivo de este articulo es examinar hasta donde llegaron Nietzsche y Foucault en su proyecto de historizacion radical de los valores. Se muestra como, en ambos casos, el deseo de historizacion choco con la definicion de la voluntad de poder como un sustrato no historizable. La aparicion de esta aporia en la obra de Nietzsche y de Foucault plantea algunas cuestiones fundamentales. En primer lugar, es necesario explicar por que el poder escapo a la mirada historizadora de ambos filosofos. En segundo lugar, esta contradiccion nos obliga a preguntarnos cuales son los limites de una genealogia entendida como extension maxima del concepto de historia. Friedrich Nietzsche and Michel Foucault’s genealogy has been defined as a critical philosophy which seeks to determine the historical constitution of concepts, ideas and discourses commonly considered universal. The notion of genealogy depicts how these concepts are created within power-knowledge complexes in history. With reference to this definition of genealogy, in this article I explore some of the limits of Nietzsche and Foucaut’s project. In particular, I seek to demonstrate that Nietzsche and Foucault’s statement that “everything is historical” is in contradiction with their transcendental concept of power. In other words, both thinkers postulate a will of power for all times and all societies that, ironically, contradicts their project of a radical “historization” (historisation) of reality. In this paper, I seek to understand, first, why Nietzsche and Foucault supported a transcendental definition of power, and, second, how this definition poses the problem of the limits of genealogy considered a radical historicist project.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".