Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article's primary purpose is to analyze the problems of the emergence of philosophy against the background of myth and the correlation of mythical and philosophical styles of thinking. The author substantiates the question of myth theories that do not consider the bearer's inner conviction of mythological thinking in the absolute reality of events and characters described in myths. The main features of the myth as the most ancient form of social consciousness are revealed: absolute subjective certainty, anonymity, which is expressed in an unconscious type of authorship, as well as a specific explanatory function, the essence of which is to implement the solution for a cognitive task before this task itself can be set and consciously formulated. Myth cannot be considered pre-scientific thinking, as an early form of folk art, or as primitive forms of religious worship. The crisis of mythology, which consists of its inability to perform its explanatory function, in turn, generates three new types of social consciousness: epic and other types of the poetry of personal authorship, religious teachings as a system of dogmas and organized cult actions, propagated by the prophets and supported by the priests, and philosophical thinking as a form of conscious intellectual creativity, the reliability of the results of which is supported by the personal wisdom of its author.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".