<i>Felicitas</i> (<i>eudaimonia</i>) ou les promenades d'Érasme dans le jardin d'Épicure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An examination of Erasmus' changing views of Epicureanism must primarily rely on statements by himself that refer to Epicurus or indicate awareness of, and perhaps affinity with, some aspects of his philosophy. A brief first part will survey the intermediate sources for Epicurus' system, classical and patristic, appreciative or critical, with which Erasmus was familiar. Thereafter the procedure will be chronological, examining first the early traces of Erasmus' acquaintance with Epicurus, leading to an attempt to reconcile his moral philosophy with the Gospel teachings. Next Erasmus' years in Italy are considered. Italy had recently experienced a marked revival of interest in Epicurean thought, leading to a positive revaluation. Here Erasmus' familiarity with the work of Lorenzo Valla obtains a crucial importance. Valla turned Erasmus, to put it boldly, into a sort of convert to Epicureanism, as will be shown by a fresh look at his Moriae encomium. After the Moria Erasmus' statements relevant to Epicureanism tend to be more casual and inconsistent. In the end, however, we notice a reawakening of concern and almost a return to his initial endorsement of a Christian Epicureanism. The history of Epicureanism is an ongoing, often radical, quest for enduring felicity, although not always proceeding from the same intellectual premises. Finally, a brief attempt is made to assign Erasmus his modest place in that history.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.008 |
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".