Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Figure: see text] This paper reconstructs Tillichian grace, analyzing its existential and ethical dimensions beyond traditional supernatural interpretations. It explores the historical lineage of Tillich's work, drawing parallels between ancient and medieval discourses on grace and Tillich's existential theology, with a particular emphasis on the theme of existential estrangement and its implications for moral development. In section one, I analyze Augustine's critique of Greek and Roman ethics, noting how his interpretations of sin and grace sought to address ethical, and not merely narrowly Christian theological, concerns. The paper then examines Martin Luther's shift towards a more personal apprehension of grace, setting the stage for Tillich's complex and nuanced understanding of justification. The strengths and ambiguities of Tillich's approach, along with its practical implications, are then critically evaluated. In conclusion, I advocate for the relevance of Tillich's conception of grace in modern secular ethical discourse, arguing that its emphasis on ethical intersubjectivity and the courage to embrace existential uncertainties provides a compassionate framework for addressing moral questions in our own time.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".