The dialectic of Logos and Eros: Plato’s Display of Rhetoric in the Phaedrus and the Symposium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation offers an interpretation of Plato's philosophical writing that relies on the discussion of speech that is displayed in the Phaedrus. As Socrates shows in this discussion of speech, the philosophical writer who wishes to teach the philosopher's art of thinking must write in a way that could facilitate the serious activity of philosophy or dialectic, that is, the examination of the powers and affects of things that are said to be beneficial or harmful to human beings. In both the Phaedrus and the Symposium, Plato displays various speeches of praise and blame about ers or love to which Socrates must respond, hence inviting his audience to examine for themselves the natures of speech and love as complex things, both in terms of their powers and affects in relation to the human soul. In other words, rather than the indoctrination of some rigid metaphysical system, Plato sought to teach through his philosophical writing-dramatic works which can be identified as Plato's "display of rhetoric"-an arduous art of thinking that Socrates calls dialectic.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".