Between Philosophical Theory and Religious Dogma: Philosophical Views of Father Sergius Bulgakov
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the correlation of Sergius Bulgakov’s views on the inescapable tragedy of philosophy with contradictions rooted in Bulgakov’s philosophy itself. Based on comparative analyses of Bulgakov’s views on the evolution of philosophy and peculiarities of Bulgakov’s philosophizing, we conclude that the meaning created by his mental image of “the tragedy of philosophy” is much broader and more versatile than he himself intended. The tragedy of philosophical thinking is expressed in contradictions that arise between system-creating aspirations for philosophy and the need for the free movement of thought; between the passionate desire to affirm human individuality and the desire to substantiate the absolute basis of Being; between the will to live and the search for the meaning of life; between the philosophical search for truth and religious dogma; between the claims of reason and the ocean of the overmind or macrocosmic; and finally, the awareness of the acuteness of these contradictions and of the impossibility of going beyond their tragic circle. We conclude that Bulgakov’s philosophical quest is the ultimate expression of the tragedy of philosophy. This is inevitable: immersion in the mythic is a natural result of the evolution of philosophy, striving for the Absolute.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".