Anthropology of Salvation in Russian Medieval thought: «Nestyazhateli» and «Iosiflyanie»
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes the anthropocentric aspects of Russian Orthodox thought. It is noted that the Russian traditional self-consciousness inherited the main religious and moral norms and values of Byzantium, such as contemplation, Hesychasm, careful preservation of dogmatic and ceremonial aspects of faith. The authors of the article conclude that the central problem in Russian Orthodox thought is the problem of human justification, the problem of understanding human essence. Starting with the understanding of the problem of theodicy, Russian Orthodox thought gradually turned into its visibly formal opposite and became essentially a philosophy that proves the high creative purpose of man - a philosophy that justifies man. Thus, the humanistic, anthropocentric direction of the development of Russian religious philosophy is emphasized. Also, turning to the analysis of the dispute between «Iosiflyane» and «Nestyazhateli», the authors of the article identify two opposite conceptual approaches to the philosophical interpretation of the essence of man: «contemplative man» and «active man».The authors conclude that Russian state policy has been mostly «Iosiflyanian», and the philosophy became a haven for «Nestyazhatel».
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".