Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The term ‘Neoplatonism’ is an eighteenth-century label coined by German scholars (‘Neuplatonismus’) used pejoratively to indicate unwholesome contaminations of the pure stream of ancient Hellenic thought. I use that term here simply to refer to the last phase of ancient Greek philosophy, beginning with Plotinus (204–270 ce ) and ending effectively with the pervasive domination by Christianity of the Greek world in the sixth century. I focus primarily on Plotinus, the ‘founder’ of Neoplatonism, because of his explicit engagement with the entire history of philosophy as he knew it, from the Presocratics up to contemporary Peripatetics. As we shall see in a moment, Plotinus provides one dogmatic response to the sceptical onslaught. In particular, it is, not surprisingly, a response made from a Platonic perspective. Precisely because Plotinus was so conscious of the ongoing eight-hundred-year long dialogue among the Greek philosophical schools, his dogmatic response is really something quite original. In regard to epistemology, it is a response steeped above all in Aristotle's analysis of cognition. Plotinus was more than willing to invoke Aristotle's assistance on behalf of a defence of Platonism against sceptical attacks on the possibility of knowledge and rational belief. Although Plotinus is critical of Aristotle on numerous matters, there is no indication that this critical stance included epistemology. Plotinus' originality lay in an attempt to articulate the position with regard to knowledge and belief that I outlined in the first chapter.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".