MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2011377302 · doi:10.1353/jsp.0.0053

A Terrible Love of Hope

2008· article· en· W2011377302 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
John J. Stuhr

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Speculative Philosophy · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueComparative and World Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLawDemocracyJust war theoryProsperityValue (mathematics)DoctrineHomelandEconomic JusticeSociologyPolitical scienceSpanish Civil WarPolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A Terrible Love of Hope John J. Stuhr 1. A Suitable Peace "All nations want peace," Admiral Sir John Fisher said, "but they want a peace that suits them." Most people—including maybe you and me—and most nations—perhaps all nations and surely the United States—are not pacifists. It is not simply that they sometimes or often fail in practice to live up to their pacifist commitments. It is rather that they are not committed in principle to pacifism. They are not pacifists in theory. They do not oppose war, all war, categorically and without exception. At the same time, of course, it is not that they do not value peace at all. It is rather that they hold other values to be more important than peace, to be ethically higher than peace, to be ethically more fundamental than peace. They are not fundamentally pacifists. They are fundamentalists for something else. This something else could be anything else at all—for example, democracy, freedom, equality, rights, prosperity, livelihood, territory, homeland security, children, family, clan, class, nation, tradition, doctrine, sect, religion, revelation, revenge, or justice. At most, fundamentalists for something other than peace support peace when, but only when, it serves their more fundamental value or values. They support peace when it seems instrumental to do so, support peace when, and only when, it suits them. And these supporters of pacifism-when-it-suits have a simple strategy recommendation for all supporters of pacifism-in-principle: If the sheer absence or end of war really is your highest value, then just surrender unconditionally. To support peace only when it suits is to support war whenever it suits. It is to support war when it seems to serve, or seems to be instrumental for, one's fundamental value or values. It is, further, to recognize and sanction the need, if one is reflectively to realize those fundamental values, for ongoing complex calculations to determine if and when and where and against whom this in-principle instrumental justification for war may be, or may become, realized in fact. It is to make every perceived change in circumstances an opportunity, or perhaps an obligation, to retotal the pluses and minuses for going to war. Moreover, it is to experience all places as in-principle possible battlefields for justified war, all [End Page 278] times as in-principle possible justified wartimes, and all others (including perhaps one's self ) as in-principle justified allies or enemies. For the suitable pacifist who believes that reality changes, the call of justified war may come at any time because for the suitable pacifist justified war is a permanent possibility. Aristotle observed that we make war so that we can live in peace. John Stuart Mill captured well the spirit of pacifism-when-it-suits and its disdain for pacifism-in-principle. Claiming that war is ugly but definitely not the ugliest of things, Mill wrote: "The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight . . . is a miserable creature." In this same spirit, Woodrow Wilson counseled: "The right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts—for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments . . . for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free."1 Now, the practice of suitable pacifism, pacifism only when it suits, does not entail the practice of war. It is logically possible, of course, that suitable pacifists might never find that their fundamental values are best served or advanced at all by engaging in war. The United States, for example, might reject pacifism in principle but still find no compelling reason to engage in war against, say, Australia, Bermuda, Canada, or Denmark. Although it is logically possible for suitable pacifists not to engage in war, history proves that often, very often, suitable pacifists do engage in...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,035
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,116

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,017
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0170,021
Communication savante0,0150,013
Science ouverte0,0010,013
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,022
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0350,011

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,070
Tête enseignante GPT0,249
Écart entre enseignants0,178 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Speculative PhilosophyMême sujetComparative and World LiteratureTravaux en français237 207