Bibliographic record
Abstract
The political as a category and politics per se involves the war — historically and substantively, but ambivalently. The war, according to Schmitt, is the basic premise of politics, and politics is war, at least in potency; at the same time, politics is a way to limit war, delay it, suspend it, or at least civilize it. This was essentially the aim of the process of political autonomy, during which a meaningful revision of the concept of autonomy made it almost indistinguishable from the notion of sovereignty. Decisive theoretical turn in this direction was performed by Kant. After a long pause filled with the rise and decline of national, nationalist, and totalitarian projects, Kantian political praxis has become an almost universally binding standard in the West. By now, however, it is clear that the possibilities of political autonomy as a means against war have been exhausted — a palliative, not a panacea. War is irremovable from the political, even an autonomous one. The author suggests that the solution to the deadlock may be a partial de-autonomization of the political, returning the notion of autonomy to the pre-Kantian content, consisting in the opening access into the political for at least some non-political values, and subordinating it to the latter. The author shows that such a value can become love — in its Christian understanding, not identical and not orthogonal, but directly antagonistic regarding to the war. The author demonstrates that the well-known phenomenon of the civil religion is an effective institutional channel for partial de-autonomization of the political. The author insists that his considerations are not yet another version of political theology, as they are grounded within the boundaries of mere reason.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".