Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The first part of this essay considers how and why Albert constructed, and Aquinas acquired, Dionysian Peripateticism. The second part examines how Aquinas, for whom the Areopagite remained a quasi-biblical authority, later came to identify him as a Platonist. Aquinas had been initiated by Albert into the congruence of Dionysius and Aristotle when he was his student. Aquinas was his scribe when Albert exposited the Dionysian corpus and began to comment on Aristotle. Albert’s philosophical theology continued to shift so that a Greek apophatic Dionysius, matched with Aristotelian philosophy in the Arabic Neoplatonic–Peripatetic medium in which it was received, provided the system within which his Latin Augustinianism is situated. Aquinas labelled Augustine as a Platonist. Without knowing what he was doing, Albert separated Dionysius from Proclus. In virtue of Moerbeke’s translations of the Greek commentators and the Elements of Theology, when Aquinas compared Proclus with the Liber de causis and the Dionysian corpus, he was able to construct a more complete and accurate history of Platonism. He continued his teacher’s endeavour to save Greek Christian apophatism within the limits set by the condemnation of 1241. Aquinas’ characteristic doctrines used the logical means Albert invented, but his more strongly kataphatic results still preserved the apophaticism, which, for Albert and Aquinas, Dionysius and Aristotle shared.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".