MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1594710293

Re-Thinking Secularism Today: Jacques Derrida and the Theologico-Political Predicament

2012· article· en· W1594710293 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Cassatella

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecularismEnlightenmentFaithPoliticsNexus (standard)NormativePhilosophyEpistemologyReligious studiesSociologyEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper articulates Derrida’s view on theologico-political predicament and suggests that his thought offers powerful resources to pursue the study of secularism beyond its traditional modern understandings, many of which rely on a binary logic separating reason from faith. Questioning the Enlightenment emphasis on ‘reason alone’ as way to address the relationship between the theological and the political, Derrida shows how the secular domain cannot be purified from all faith and is best thought as theologico-political, especially if viewed from the event of its foundation. In particular, he emphasizes how such an event is characterized by an experience of faith or credit that is common to positive religion and reason but is irreducible to both. On the one hand, this experience illuminates the limits of attempts seeking to provide robust normative foundations, secular or religious, to communal life; on the other hand, it opens up the space for a view of the secular domain that underscores rather than severs the nexus between the theological and the political and that is more hospitable to cultural and religious difference.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.036
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicPhilosophy, Ethics, and ExistentialismFrench-language works237,207