Barrage sur la ligne de fuite. Considérations sur Nietzsche et la prudence philosophique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte présente une tentative de trouver une notion de «prudence philosophique» chez Nietzsche. Il procède de la critique d’une contribution de Daniel Tanguay dans laquelle l’auteur s’oppose au diagnostic posé par certains exégètes de l’œuvre de Leo Strauss d’une certaine proximité entre la pensée du maître américain et celle de Nietzsche. L’argument principal de Tanguay tient en cette idée que la prudence, qui est le propre de la sagesse philosophique et qui est au cœur de la pensée de Strauss, est absente chez Nietzsche. La démonstration proposée est sous-tendue par une thèse sur la figure du philosophe et sur la nature de la vie philosophique. Développant une argumentation contre cette conclusion, je veux préciser les conditions de possibilité et le sens d’une prudence philosophique nietzschéenne. En particulier, la recherche d’une notion de prudence chez Nietzsche demande d’explorer d’une part une possible distinction entre eros et volonté de puissance, et d’autre part une possible distinction entre nature et volonté de puissance. Cette double distinction permet de définir une conception nietzschéenne du philosophe et de la philosophie qui n’est pas dogmatique, et dans laquelle on trouve une autre forme de la prudence, celle du don. [This paper finds its starting point in a critique of Daniel Tanguay’s opposition to the idea of a kind of proximity between the thought of Leo Strauss and Nietzsche. Tanguay’s argument is to the effect that Strauss provides us with a notion of prudence philosophique, while Nietzsche, a dogmatic thinker, doesn’t. Underlying this diagnosis is a thesis regarding the nature of the philosopher and of the philosophical life. To counter this interpretation, this paper attempts to flesh a notion of prudence out of Nietzsche’s published works. More specifically, it explores the distinction between Eros and Will-to-Power on the one hand, and the distinction between Nature and Will-to-Power on the other. This twofold distinction allows for a non-dogmatic Nietzschean notion of philosophy in which can be found another brand of prudence that takes the form of a gift.]
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".