Commentary on Hasana Sharp's <i>Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hasana Sharp's book, Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization, ingeniously argues for and performs Spinoza's call for what she terms a "radical transformation of thought" (Sharp 179).Sharp persuasively argues that a Spinozist politics of renaturalization has much to offer the ethics and politics of our day.Although she considers the implications of her project for various contemporary philosophical movements, I limit this discussion to some further implications and questions for a Spinozist ecological philosophy, since I believe Sharp offers a particularly fecund resource for this field.Sharp's book reorients our focus in a manner indispensable for environmental thought.As I see it, much avowedly anti-humanist environmental philosophy is still caught up in identity politics, even while several strands of it argue for the importance of intersectional theorizing, which, in my opinion, should constitute at least an implicit challenge to identity politics.Sharp's politics of renaturalization can do much of this important work, in my estimation.Following Elizabeth Grosz, her Spinozist model jettisons a "regime of recognition… [that] cannot escape an investment in a humanistic politics of identity" (158).As an alternative, fusing Grosz with Spinoza, Sharp recommends that we affirm an "'inhuman' ontology of forces" (158).In denying that there are any "special laws" that define human nature, Sharp's politics of renaturalization helps us diagnose our powers and limits in accordance with our own particular strivings, and in
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.062 | 0.069 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".