Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper intends to contribute to this workshop by engaging in Emmanuel Levinas’ writings and his conception of anarchy. Levinas belongs to the generation of continental philosophers who were deeply concerned by the alienation of modernity and the terror of totalitarianism and were strongly critical about the so-called “digestive philosophy” that prioritizes ontology and removes the material and sociohistorical contingencies of political struggles. Levinas avoids the common critique that anarchism is nihilistic and simply chaotic by firmly re-anchoring the subjectivity of the self in its responsibility for the Other in a transcendental encounter. Furthermore, Levinas argues that the approach of the Other is anarchic, as the transcendental encounter is absolutely beyond premeditation and thematization. In this state of anarchy, the self is absolutely passive and vulnerable, and has no choice but to be attentive and respond to the call of the Other. As a result, the Cartesian self is dissolved and turned inside out, but not nihilistic. Ontology becomes secondary to responsibility: subjectivity and freedom are the result of and constituted by the primordial responsibility for the Other. Bringing Levinas’ writings to international law is challenging but extremely important. International law’s traditional ontological reliance on the sovereign state is now under various challenges, most notably the challenge of human rights. Levinas’ critique on ontology can be transposed into a much principled and radical critique on the classic notion of sovereign state as the sole legitimate subject of international law. Levinas’ anarchy also invites the imagination of a Levinasian ethical state and international law which aspire to a justice-yet-to-come.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".