Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discourse of universal grace is employed as revolutionary theo-politics by many of the readers of Paul’s letters. Alain Badiou is one such reader of Paul, who finds in Paul the possibility of a new radical egalitarianism based on the constitution of a subject committed to the truth of a grace-like event. This paper examines the compatibility of Badiou’s politics and his reading of Paul in his book St. Paul: The Foundation of Universalism through a comparison with another politically radical reading of Paul, that of the German theologian and reformer Martin Luther. Like Badiou, Luther is a prime example of the way in which theology, philosophy, and politics are intimately connected. But more than that, Luther occupied a position from which he was able to, and did, affect the social and political implementation of his ideas. Thus, he provides a means of analyzing the results of the coordination of power and a Pauline universalism of grace. This paper concludes not only that Badiou’s attempt at a materialistic appropriation of Pauline grace is incommensurable with his political vision but that it has, to borrow Slavoj Žižek’s phrase, a hidden perverse core. Le discours de la grâce universelle est utilisé en tant que theo-politique révolutionnaire par plusieurs des lecteurs des lettres de Paul. Alain Badiou est un tel lecteur de Paul, qui trouve en Paul la possibilité d’un nouvel égalitarisme radical basé sur la constitution d’un sujet investi dans la vérité d’un événement de grâce. Ce document examine la compatibilité des politiques de Badiou et sa lecture de Paul dans son livre St. Paul: The Foundation of Universalism au moyen d’une comparaison à une autre lecture politiquement radicale de Paul, celui du théologien et réformateur allemand Martin Luther. Comme Badiou, Luther est un exemple typique de la manière dont la théologie, la philosophie, et la politique sont reliées intimement. Mais plus que ça, Luther a occupé une position dans laquelle il pouvait affecter et a affecté l’exécution sociale et politique de ses idées. Ainsi, il fournit des moyens d’analyser les résultats de la coordination de la puissance et d’un universalisme Pauline de grâce. Cet essai conclut que la version de grâce matérialiste avancée par Badiou est non seulement incommensurable avec sa vision politique mais qu’elle a-pour emprunter l’expression de Slavoj Žižek-un Ž noyau pervers caché.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".