MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247792273 · doi:10.3138/tjt.27.2.175

From Žižek's Monstrous Politics to the Political Theology of Kierkegaard's Housing Project

2011· article· en· W4247792273 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marko Zlomislić

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis, Philosophy, and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPhilosophyLeft-wing politicsCapitalismEpistemologySociologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Slavoj Žižek's leading question is how we are to reformulate a leftist anti-capitalist project in an era of global capitalism. In attempting to answer this question, Žižek often uses Kierkegaard's insights to add weight to his analysis of the problems associated with our social and political reality. Yet when one reads Žižek's work on Kierkegaard one is struck by the sheer number of inconsistencies that are generated. Žižek considers Kierkegaard from the point of view of the political in such a way that he avoids the religious, but Kierkegaard is clear that if a proper politics is to exist, it must be grounded in religious selfhood. The single individual, as Kierkegaard makes clear in Two Ages, is “an essentially human person in the religious sense.” Kierkegaard's views are directed by a religious notion of selfhood. Politics without this source is a form of despair. By failing to see ourselves as religious beings, we are in despair. This despair cannot be the basis from which to transform the coordinates of our current position. Kierkegaard's philosophy provides us with a radical opening from which to re-think political theology from the position of the single individual to come. The program that Žižek upholds is not adequate for the transformation of society or self because it does not have a religious understanding of the individual. As such, Žižek's position is grounded in despair, not love.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicPsychoanalysis, Philosophy, and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207