MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987446805 · doi:10.3138/tjt.22.1.7

The Irony of Rorty's Lack of Theological Irony

2006· article· en· W1987446805 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Colin Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPragmatism in Philosophy and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIronyPhilosophyEpistemologyContingencyRepresentation (politics)RealismFoundationalismPostmodernismPresuppositionTheologyLinguisticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subtlety that characterizes Richard Rorty's pragmatic postmodernism eludes him when it come to matters theological. There he clearly demonstrates precisely what his writings are meant to expose and discard—realism, representation and foundationalism. He has no doubt about the unreality of God; he presents this knowledge as a direct representation of the way things are; and he does so in a way that makes this atheistic vision foundational for his whole approach. This is directly contrary to the tentativeness that should characterize ironists, who, by definition, are "always aware of the contingency and fragility of their final vocabulary." This raises questions about why Rorty does not deal with theology with irony, rather than in the absolutist and dogmatic terms he does use; it also suggests that Rorty himself, and perhaps postmoderns generally, are not as superior to reality, representation and foundations as they would have us think, including theological realism, representation and foundations.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.031
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicPragmatism in Philosophy and EducationFrench-language works237,207