MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942786064

Review of Dale M. Schlitt, German Idealism’s Trinitarian Legacy . Albany, NY: SUNY, 2016. 456 pages

2018· article· en· W2942786064 on OpenAlexaff
Sean McGrath

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalecta hermeneutica · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Philosophy of Evil
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHegelianismGerman idealismIdealismPhilosophyGermanGerman philosophyDoctrineEpistemologyPhilosophy of historyTheology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this follow up to several detailed studies of Hegel’s philosophy of religion, Dale Schlitt takes a decidedly Schellingian turn. German Idealism’s Trinitarian Legacies is as much about the Trinitarian thought of the late Schelling as it is about Hegel. In this regard alone, the book stands apart. Where Hegel’s philosophy of religion has been well mapped and explored, the late Schelling’s alternative remains the most underresearched chapter in the English reception of modern German philosophy. Schlitt shows how Schelling and Hegel are never closer than in their appreciation for the logical, historical, and universal significance of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Precisely because they come so near on this point, the fundamental dispute that divides the two comes into sharp focus in their disagreement about the nature of Trinity. Behind the dispute lies their related conflict concerning the structure of personality, with ramifications that extend to psychology and politics. Schlitt’s book is an important contribution to the history of philosophy and theology, and will remain a standard work in the field for years. In the following review  essay, I offer some unsystematic reflections as to why I think this book is indispensable both for scholars of German Idealism and twentieth-century theology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalecta hermeneuticaSame topicTheology and Philosophy of EvilFrench-language works237,207