Bibliographic record
Abstract
The political philosopher Leo Strauss undertook a systematic reexamination of the meaning of tyranny in the twentieth century. In his view, modern political science had failed to understand or even anticipate the rise of Nazism and communism. Strauss contended that the rediscovery of the two founding traditions of the West, classical Greek political philosophy (Athens) and the theology of the Bible (Jerusalem), was necessary to the project of comprehending the most murderous tyrannies that had consciously repudiated this intellectual heritage. I shall show that Strauss’s own profound insights on the Bible, as evidenced in his essays on Genesis, the Athens–Jerusalem conflict, and the weakness of Enlightenment liberalism in pre-Hitler Germany lead to the conclusion that Strauss must fall back on Jerusalem as the foundation that best understands modern tyranny. Ultimately, it is the political theology of Jerusalem, not the political philosophy of Athens, which reveals that the creation of man in the image of God paradoxically opens the door to the greatest freedom but also the most murderous forms of idolatry in politics. Admittedly, this argument is a bold one. After all, Strauss, who saw himself as a political philosopher, sharply distinguished political theology, which is based “on divine revelation,” from political philosophy, which focuses on what “is accessible to the unassisted human mind.” As I argue, however, the human mind requires the assistance of divine (biblical) revelation to make sense of Nazi tyranny.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".