Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Plotinus’ understanding of self is formulated largely in dialogue with the Stoics. In early works he categorically rejects the Stoic notion of the hēgemonikon (‘leading part’ or ‘commanding faculty’) of the soul. In this paper, I show how, in light of a general dissatisfaction with the Stoic account of self articulated in his early work, Plotinus deals with the Stoic notion of oikeiōsis (‘appropriation’). I argue that Plotinus’ understanding of oikeiōsis develops across the period during which he uses it. In his middle writings, Plotinus engages with Stoic oikeiōsis by exploring how it functions in contexts related to selfhood. In his later writings, he shows, on the one hand, how the concept of oikeiōsis can be Platonized, such as to account for the relation of the self to the Good, and, on the other, how the Stoic understanding of oikeiōsis is untenable for many of the same reasons that he rejects the Stoic notion of the hēgemonikon. Ultimately, Plotinus thinks that Stoic understandings of the hēgemonikon and oikeiōsis are untenable because they lead to something that could be characterized as ‘selfishness’.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".