Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aristotle's Politics has enjoyed a rather different Rezeptionsgeschichte from other texts in the corpus. Thomas Pangle's book promises a refreshing perspective, reading Aristotle through the lens of his historical readers, including Aquinas, Montesquieu, and the founders of the US republic. This reading is encumbered, however, by the application of a methodology apparently derived from the thought of Leo Strauss. This methodology takes its justification from the supposition that Aristotle was so concerned about political persecution—and about the corrupting effects of his doctrine on the inferior reader—that he deliberately hid his true meaning in the text. While there are ancient precedents for reading Aristotle's texts as repositories of a hidden message only available to the philosophical elect (p. 275n51), Pangle does not rely on historical data or other external evidence to justify reviving esotericism. The persuasiveness of his reading must be judged on its merits. Socrates was certainly prone to teasing, Plato to dramatic presentation. The suggestion that Aristotle engaged in deliberate obscurity, however, is harder to swallow. This is particularly so absent serious engagement with the question of textual transmission: Pangle gives scant attention to the possibility that the Politics is not a ‘single and unified treatise’ (p. 269n1; cf. p. 301n105), or that the manuscript might have undergone modification in the process of transmission. Infelicities of argument, awkward transitions between books, incomplete arguments or plain inconsistencies are interpreted as strategies to prod the astute reader to reflection (pp. 24, 31, 50 and 51, 62, 72 and 73, 84, 104, 142, 165, 175 and 176, etc.). Pangle even reads Aristotle's famous doctrine about the lack of exactness in ethical theory as evidence of Aristotle hiding the exact truth to prevent harm (pp. 3 and 4). The standard reading of that doctrine—and debate about Aristotle's commitment to particularism—is simply ignored.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".