Dialogue, Dasein, and Destiny: Heidegger’s Challenge to Dialogical Comparative Political Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article critically assesses the influence of Heidegger on the “dialogical” school of comparative political theory, and in particular the writings of Fred Dallmayr. In response to dialogical cpt’s employment of Heidegger in service of democratic, egalitarian, and cosmopolitan ends, this article reconstructs Heidegger’s own projects of intercultural dialogue as attempts to awaken the inegalitarian political-spiritual potential of elect nations, such as the Germans, Greeks, and Japanese against the tide of liberal modernity. Contra Dallmayr, the article analyzes the political unity of Heidegger’s treatment of “authentic” intercultural dialogues in his speeches and lectures from 1933–34, his 1941–2 lecture courses on Hölderlin, and his semi-fictional dialogue between a German “Inquirer” and “Japanese” in the 1950s. It outlines the existence of an illiberal Heideggerian cpt and concludes that dialogical cpt scholars should reconceive of their dialogue with Heidegger as one with an “other” to the egalitarian pluralism that they seek to promote.
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 | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".