MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spinoza’s Philosophy of Religion

2013· book· en· W2256623465 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Fraenkel

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2013
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinterpretationInterpretation (philosophy)ChristianityPhilosophyEpistemologyArgument (complex analysis)Content (measure theory)Philosophy of religionRelation (database)Religious studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter proposes a new interpretation of Spinoza’s approach to religion. The main thesis is that Spinoza is primarily concerned with a philosophical reinterpretation of Christ and Christianity. His celebrated critique of religion, by contrast, is a secondary project. It is not necessary to attain the goals of TTP, accounts for some of the main flaws in TTP’s argument and quite possibly was not part of TTP’s original plan. This chapter first shows that, in the writings prior to TTP, Spinoza consistently claims that the true content of Biblical religion agrees with the doctrines demonstrated in philosophy while the literal content of Biblical religion ensures that imperfectly rational citizens follow the prescriptions of reason. Then it gives an account of the philosophical interpretation of Christianity set forth along the same lines in his later writings. Finally, it discusses Spinoza’s critique of religion and proposes an explanation for why he chose to undermine his philosophical interpretation of Christianity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.161 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical ThoughtFrench-language works237,207