Literature as Miscreant Justice: Benjamin and Scholem Debate Kafka's Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Walter Benjamin is interested in the motif of the miscreant, the “Missetäter,” in art and literature. This miscreance exercises a justice that surpasses conclusiveness. The justice of literature is, according to Benjamin's writings on Franz Kafka, its attentiveness to what otherwise would simply be condemned or disregarded. This exercise of study is the miscreant justice of literature. Benjamin has difficulties with the notion, urged upon him by his friend Gershom Scholem, that the exercise of study in Kafka's literature is guided by a law of law—Halakhah—and by a correlative teaching. Benjamin tends to suggest that the principal force of Kafka's literature is a miscreant Vorwelt—the physically felt “world” before any humanly constituted world. This Vorwelt knows no law and barely, if at all, indulges notions of a teaching. It exercises rather the miscreant justice of preserving ignorance that impels study against claims to know already the way.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".