Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although tomes have been written on Paul Tillich's "method of correlation" as an organizing principle of his systematic theology, his own understanding of his procedure, absorbed from writing two dissertations on Schelling, is more accurately labelled "dialectics." Tillich's importance in the history of twentieth century theology rests in good part on his critical and systematic appropriation of existential insights in theology, which turn on the philosophical sense of dialectics that he imbibed from Schelling and Kierkegaard. This paper, more expository than argumentative, is especially for those who, like me, were educated in an Anglo-American history of philosophy which took seriously only Hegelian and Marxist versions of dialectics. In what follows, I shall (1) note some notions of the term "dialectics" in the history of philosophy leading up to Tillich; (2) reflect on some motifs in Soren Kierkegaard's existentialist responses to Hegelianism; and (3) consider Tillich's early conception of theonomous culture and related components of his systematic theology. I do not go into other possible readings of the Kierkegaardian corpus, which focus more on Kierkegaard's later work.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".