Jürgen Habermas and the public intellectual in modern democratic life
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper provides an overview of Jürgen Habermas's writings as a public intellectual and relates this work to recent debates about the proper relationship of theory to practice. In addition to being one of the most influential continental philosophers of the postwar era, Habermas is also the leading public intellectual of the Federal Republic of Germany and increasingly of the European Union as well. Unfortunately, his political writings have not received the attention they deserve. As a result, he is often misconstrued as an ideal theorist who is both ignorant of and apathetic toward ‘real’ politics. By showing how his philosophy relates to his political engagement, I present Habermas as a model for how the philosopher can apply theoretical insights to political developments in an indirect, mediated manner that focuses on debates within the democratic public sphere. This approach has distinct advantages when compared to active participation in the policymaking process and the direct application of philosophy to political practice, both of which threaten the principle of democratic equality in the public sphere.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it