Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years the philosophical roots of the human-animal distinction have seen a resurgence of interest among political theorists, suggesting a possible sea change in how relationships between animals and humans are understood. Yet despite this interest, Aristotle’s famous dicta that ‘man is a political animal’ and only ‘beasts and gods’ might live without politics persist as the most well-known statements concerning humans and animals and how they relate politically. In my paper I argue that Aristotle’s formulation of the human-animal distinction marks the point at which power as persuasion becomes power as exclusion, making Aristotle key for understanding the political relation between humans and animals and how power is exercised between them. I begin with an examination of Aristotle’s biological writings in order to complicate the traditional understanding of Aristotle’s views on the human-animal distinction, drawing out a trend in his thought wherein humans are similar to other animals in important ways. I argue that Aristotle’s formulation of the relation between human and animal makes possible a political community shared by humans and animals, based in their mutual capacities for sensation (aisthesis) and imagination (phantasia). However, Aristotle’s hierarchy of capacities will subordinate sensation and imagination to speech and reason, ultimately blocking the possibility of a shared human-animal political community. In light of Aristotle’s formulation of the human-animal distinction, the capacity for persuasion is not an expression of power that avoids its less polite manifestations, but a justification for exclusion and naked force.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".