Modernite Tartışmalarına Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım: Modern Aklın Eleştirisi ve Geleneksel Düşünce (An Alternative Approach to the Arguments of Modernity: The Critique of the Modern Mind and the Traditional Thought)
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
In this article, the intellectual background of the modern world’s problems is studied by comparing the modern paradigm with traditional thought. For this reason, the author will attempt to determine the the defects of the modern mind mainly from the point view of tratidional thought. Considering the main characteristics of the modern mind, global ecological and moral crises will be dealt with. This structural area will be followed through sociologic theories in the article. In order to provide an in-depth understanding, traditional (Islamic) conceptual instruments like the intellect/heart, self (nefs) and soul (ruh) are proposed here to be used in the critique of modernity instead of using Cartesian dualist concepts like the soul and body. Thus, this article attempts to overcome the Euro-centric and modernist based area of discussion in order to evaluate the background of the factual problems that accompany modernity. In this context, the method of structural research of the traditional thought/traditionalist school which looks at the modern world’s dilemmas from a rooted criticism seems to be better equipped to perform a better analysis of these problems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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