Bibliographic record
Abstract
his morning we listened to Rabbi Telushkin address the topic of "Martin Luther and Antisemitism" by framing his keynote address in the context of how passion can blind one from ethical propriety.In so doing, he looked at five historical figures to reveal how passion blinded their reason and judgement: 1) Martin Luther's passion for faith over ethics; 2) Immanuel Kant's passion for truth over ethics; 3) Elijah of Vilna (the Vilna Gaon)'s passion for Torah study over ethics; 4) General Robert E. Lee's passion for loyalty to one's state over ethics; and 5) Mahatma Gandhi's passion for non-violence over ethics.By historically detailing the manner in which each of these five seminal figures subverted ethical propriety, Rabbi Telushkin demonstrated the inherent danger of passion and its tragic effects throughout history.In returning to Luther, he traced the early years when Luther appeared to be Philo-Semitic to later Luther when he, in hostility, turned anti-Judaic and antisemitic upon realization that Jews who heard his Gospel message would not wholesale convert to Christianity, pointing to undeniable documentation such as his venomous tractate, "Against the Jews and Their Lies."This afternoon, I have been given the opportunity to express my reflections on how passion has played a seminal role in my own community tradition and, in so doing, to further the conversation about ethical propriety.It occurs to me that there are a number of methodological approaches available, each with their own merit and each with their own potential pitfalls.For example, I could trace throughout Jewish history examples of passion gone wild, in instances of individuals as well as collectively.To begin this path of investigation, individual passion is recorded in the first book of the Hebrew Scriptures with one brother killing another in passionate pursuit of divine acceptance (Rosenberg andRosenberg 2001-2002).Collective passion created a golden calf in similar search for the Divine (Kahan 2013).After tracing specific documented episodes of passion gone wrong individually and collectively throughout Jewish history, I might have concluded with recent examples that elicited names such as Bernie Madoff, widely known for financial crimes of passion (Scott and Ajmera 2019), and Lev Tahor, a Haredic Jewish cult of contemporary notoriety charged with communal crimes of passion including kidnapping, sexual abuse, and child abuse (Swenson 2019).But in order to properly address this approach, I feel that I would have to spend much of my time balancing the approach with a conversation about moral equivalency and false moral equivalency, given the propensity of our generation (and past generations) to consider singular transgressions within Jewish history as equal to or greater than atrocities committed against Jews, not to mention the need to address pejorative Jewish stereotypes and damning tropes about the Jewish community.Another method that occurred to me would look at passion-driven transgressions against Jews throughout history around the world -a kind of who's who and what's what of antisemitism.But, again, I feel that I would have to spend far too much time framing the enormous catalogue of data and be particularly careful to remain positive and constructive, all the while
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".