Transgressing Boundaries: A Discussion Concerning Methodology, Έρως, and Politics in Symposium and Platonic Philosophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis does three things in three distinct sections. First, this thesis is a discussion and critique of method. I attempt to address pivotal issues that permeate throughout the Platonic scholarship, problems of method and the problem of authorial intent. Following discussion of the methodological problems that hinder the Platonic scholarship, I propose an overlooked methodological model and psychology that is skeptical, flexible, and pragmatic: eclecticism. Second, I apply the method and demonstrate its strength while investigating the concept of ἔρως (eros) in the first six speeches in Plato’s Symposium. Third, I discuss my findings. From my exegesis, I engage in phenomenology of eros and reflect on its metaphysical underpinnings. I argue that eros is by nature fundamentally self-negating and thus absurd. I then discuss the importance of renewed and further reflection on the nature of eros and its role as an engine for philosophy and political life.
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 | 0.061 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".