MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239793115 · doi:10.3138/cras.38.1.147

Leo Strauss and Resourceful Odysseus: Rhetorical Violence and the Holy Middle

2008· article· en· W4239793115 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christopher Craig Brittain

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernityRhetoricRhetorical questionLiberalismPoliticsPhilosophyContext (archaeology)LiteraturePolitical philosophyInterpretation (philosophy)HistoryEpistemologyLawArtTheologyPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In the context of the heated rhetoric surrounding the legacy of political philosopher Leo Strauss's thought in the United States, this essay illustrates that the roots of the polemic are found within Strauss's approach to political philosophy, particularly as it is grounded in his critical interpretation of modernity and his distinction between esoteric and exoteric writing. This essay is an examination of how Strauss's anxiety regarding the potential violence of “truth,” combined with his reaction against the limits of modernity and his celebration of a purer form of “classical” philosophy, contributes to the development of what Gillian Rose calls a “holy middle.” As such, the rhetoric of Strauss's critique of modern liberalism risks being overwhelmed by the ferocity of its own polemic. In the midst of the contemporary polarized “culture wars” in the United States, it is not surprising that the tone of Strauss's polemical attack against liberalism often usurps the issues his ideas intended to resolve.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical ThoughtFrench-language works237,207