Bibliographic record
Abstract
When it comes to politics, Søren Kierkegaard is generally considered to be either apolitical or politically conservative. This conclusion is largely based on very limited comments that Kierkegaard made in works like The Point of View and in his journals. However, this article questions whether Kierkegaard’s own thoughts on politics should serve as the definitive account of whether his work is itself political. That is, while Kierkegaard himself might have eschewed politics, this article demonstrates that Kierkegaard’s thought is nonetheless deeply political. Therefore, by examining the nature of Kierkegaard’s ethical thought, it is possible to demonstrate that there is in fact an ethical necessity to engage in politics. Furthermore, by analyzing Kierkegaard’s work alongside that of his contemporary post-Hegelian Karl Marx, this article demonstrates that Marx’s political philosophy serves as a necessary and appropriate ethical and philosophical complement for Kierkegaard. Moving past superficial accounts of their opposition, it shows fundamental underlying similarities that allow us to read them in conversation so that we can properly extend Kierkegaard’s work into the world of politics, because together they form the necessary ethical and political whole.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".