Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article argues that Nietzsche advanced a rhetorical theory that enacted an attitude of creative destruction by subverting the norms of traditional, yet effective, Greco-Roman rhetoric with a dizzying, distasteful, untimely, unteachable, and impractical mad eloquence. The argument draws particular attention to two aphorisms from The Gay Science. Nietzsche partially described what I call mad eloquence in the obscure aphorism “Two Speakers” (Zwei Redner) and exemplified it with the performance of the madman in the infamous aphorism of the same name (Der tolle Mensch). The first speaker affirmed and then questioned the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition, but the second blew it up. After establishing how and why Nietzsche confirmed the utility of traditional rhetorical theory, this article demonstrates how he redefined rhetoric as the art of discovering the available means to cultivate confusion and alienate audiences with reconceived parrhēsia, obnoxious delivery and ethos, impropriety, uncommonplaces, logical irrationality, unteachable inimitability, a very delayed persuasive effect, and an insufferable style.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".