MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193840666

Between Kierkegaard and Descartes: faith, reason, and the ontology of creation

2021· article· en· W3193840666 on OpenAlexaff
Avron Kulak

Bibliographic record

VenueInscriptions · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Philosophy of Evil
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaithPhilosophyOntologyEpistemologyFocus (optics)Order (exchange)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this essay I pose the question of the relationship between faith and reason by examining central texts of Kierkegaard and Descartes.  I focus particularly on the relationship of the Genesis story creation – its ontology and ethics – to Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and Descartes’ Meditations and Discourse on Method in order to examine the history and ethics that underpin the latter three texts.  I argue that, in aligning their projects with biblical principles and values, and in also distinguishing their work from the principles and values underpinning ancient Greek thought, Kierkegaard and Descartes together teach us that existence cannot be divided between faith and reason, that existence is religious or philosophical, faithful or rational, only if it is both simultaneously.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInscriptionsSame topicTheology and Philosophy of EvilFrench-language works237,207