Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hermeneutics and cultural criticism are usually regarded as discrete enterprises by most theologians. However, in Kierkegaard's authorship the exploration of the conditions for an edifying reading of Scripture inspires and informs a very stringent critique of modernity. Although Kierkegaard claimed that apt readings of Scripture are difficult under any circumstances, he was convinced that each culture had its own particular forms of hermeneutic foolishness that impede an upbuilding engagement with Scripture. Because Kierkegaard was most concerned about the unique forms of “inwardness” or “pathos” that a transformative reading of Scripture presupposes, he exposed the ways in which the ethos of modernity discourages the cultivation of those essential passions. Most particularly, he argued that many of the cultural dynamics of the “present age” subvert the development of the habit of critical and sustained self-evaluation that engaged readings of Scripture require. Modernity encourages a deferral of meaning that inhibits decisive appropriations of texts, shifts self-critique to the critique of “others,” subverts self-evaluation through the proliferation of distracting stimuli, glamorizes paralyzing doubt, and fosters an illusory interpretive self-reliance. As a result, the meanings of basic Christian concepts are obscured as they are amalgamated with the ideology of the nation, the race, the family, and the marketplace. Without the appropriate forms of pathos, a hermeneutic vacuum ensues and the meaning of the texts is determined by the loudest cultural voices. This simply reinforces the power of the status quo and its various populisms. Consequently, any effort to understand Christian discourse rightly must expose and resist these pernicious cultural impediments.
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 | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.101 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".