Human measure and natural fecundity: Mythos and logos in the past and future of the humanities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The beginnings of social forms are shrouded in, and justified by, myths which establish both the manifest content of stories and religion. The replacement of myth by logic is never total and the role of logic depends upon the mythic origin that it partially replaces. The form of heritage is constituted in large part by the manner in which intertwining between mythos and logos is structured. Taking the measure of humanitas today means noting, not only the internal articulation of a heritage but those elements of a given heritage which resonate with other heritages. The proximity of Socrates and Protagoras, in Plato's dialogue of the same name, allows us to glimpse a possibility not visible in any other confrontation between Socrates and the sophists: a unity of philosophy and rhetoric in the constitution and heritage of humanism. George Lukács' late, unfinished work, The Ontology of Social Labour, aimed to establish an ontological foundation for the relation between science and religion. In this way, the ontology of labour introduces a new twist into the relation between mythos and logos. One critical comment about Lukács' ontology of labour pertinent to the relation between mythos and logos is that the experience of nature in labour may be more affirmative than the trajectory of classical Marxism allows. The productivity of labour, which increases with social organization and division of labour, is based upon natural fecundity. A human being lives a necessary paradox of seeing human excellence and good in distinction from nature and as part of the nature that surpasses it. The humanities are charged with investigating this paradox in all its forms. Even while inhabiting a given tradition, the mythos/logos complexes of other societies may be approached, listened to, and even understood.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".