Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen: William Chittick, actualmente profesor distinguido en la Universidad de Nueva York (Stony Brook), es un experto y reconocido especialista en Pensamiento islámico. Sus contribuciones al campo del Sufismo y la Filosofía islámica han contribuido a pintar un cuadro claro del paisaje espiritual e intelectual de la civilización islámica desde el siglo VII/XIII en adelante. Aunque, Chittick no está solo preocupado por las discusiones sobre pensamiento islámico como reliquias de la historiaintelectual premoderna. Su vasto conocimiento de la tradición intelectual moderna sirve como base desde la cual busca abordar una amplia variedad de asuntos contemporáneos. En este breve ensayo, destacaré los escritos de Chittick que versan sobre el sí dentro del contexto de su tratamiento de la cosmología. Más allá de emplear métodos obsoletos para mirar al universo y nuestra relación con él, Chittick sostiene que las enseñanzas cosmológicas tradicionales islámicas son justamente tan relevantes para la cuestión del sí hoy en día como lo fueron en el pasado.
 Abstract: William Chittick, currently professor of religious studies at the State University of New York (Stony Brook), is an internationally renowned expert on Islamic thought. His contributions to the fields of Sufism and Islamic philosophy have helped paint a clearer picture of the intellectual and spiritual landscape of Islamic civilization from the seventh/thirteenth century onwards. Yet Chittick is not simply concerned with discussions in Islamic thought as artifacts of premodern intellectualhistory. His vast knowledge of the Islamic intellectual tradition serves as the platform from which he seeks to address a broad range of contemporary issues. In this short essay, I will outline Chittick’s writingson the self within the context of his treatment of cosmology. Rather than being outdated ways of looking at the universe and our relationship to it, Chittick argues that traditional Islamic cosmological teachings are just as pertinent to the question of the self today as they were yesterday.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".