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)
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".