Žižek’s Ruptured Monism: A Comparative Typological Reading of Less Than Nothing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem-historical method of D.H.Th. Vollenhoven is easily, rightly or wrongly, seen as needlessly idiosyncratic and esoteric, casting the suspicion that it is no longer useful for understanding contemporary philosophers. I suggest, however, that a “comparative typological reading” that utilizes Vollenhovean types as productive failures could provide new avenues for the method. That is, by failing to capture the uniqueness of certain discourses, using the ontology of Slavoj Žižek as a test case, Vollenhoven’s types help articulate certain misunderstandings of those discourses. In doing so, a new theoretical type, what I call a “ruptured monism,” emerges in order to summarize Žižek’s ontology, operating as a possible contemporary expansion of Vollenhoven’s taxonomy. The paper intends, then, to demonstrate there may be creative and underexplored uses of Vollenhoven for illuminating contemporary philosophy, suggesting a future for Reformational historiography.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".