The Phenomenology of Terrorism: The Conditional Counterviolence as a Relational Phenomenon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether ends justify all violent means or only conditional violent means? The phenomenological analysis of terrorism prepares a way for looking accurately at how one can make sense of a major transition from an engagement to a disengagement of society. Phenomenologically speaking, Violent acts are interpreted based on intentional experience that conducts the social roots of violence towards an intersubjective relationship between oneself and the Other, understood as Ego and alter Ego. The connection between the I and the Others emanates from two phenomenal concepts of love and hatred. On the one hand, These two concepts have bonded with the freedom of their subjects, so both the I and the Others should be in permanent violence to keeping their freedom. On the other hand, the phenomenological concept of terrorism is examined through the justification of relational violent means, rather than an absolute violence. The main core of this paper is centralized on the formula of Trotsky who asserts ‘ends justify means.‘ However, it must be differentiated between terrorists’ actions that unconditionally use means and conditional violent actions, used by relational violent means. The latter wants to achieve some goals, such as restoring the self-respect and the personal identity of victims of terrorism, as well as decolonizing and protecting territories. Counterviolence, such as defending our national identity, is necessary to achieve these goals, but it should not be led to assassinating all humans, both civilians and statesmen. The contemporary violence can be thought of as a modern slavery such that it overlooks the idea that all humans are born free. Therefore, counterviolence is permissible without any extreme violence through different methods, such as protesting or making a real international court without any directorial and commanding aspects on behalf of colonialist leaders./div
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".