Socrate l’ autourgos tês philosophias : Remarques sur le Banquet I, 5 de Xénophon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif de cet article est d’évaluer le sens et la portée de la locution autourgous tês philosophias , qui apparaît dans le Banquet I, 5. J’espère montrer que cette locution en dit plus qu’elle n’en a l’air prima facie . Je soutiendrai que l’ensemble du passage dépasse la simple opposition entre la ( philo ) sophia gratuite de Socrate et la sophia non gratuite des sophistes, d’une part, et la richesse de Callias et la pauvreté des socratiques, d’autre part. Mon point de départ sera le prologue du Banquet , suivi d’une analyse des Mémorables I, 6, texte où l’on trouve une conception de philosophia en tant que diaita ; j’analyserai ensuite les textes du corpus xénophontien où figure le mot autourgos , lui aussi associé à la notion de diaita . Ce parcours analytique montrera qu’il y a deux visions de la philosophie en jeu dans le Banquet I, 5 : celle de Callias, qui croit que Socrate et les siens ont les âmes purifiées, mais qui, en même temps, ne comprend pas tout à fait leur pratique philosophique, et celle de Socrate qui, dans sa réplique à la provocation de Callias, lui présente de manière condensée sa vision de la philosophie.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".