To end with Carl Schmitt Habermas in the face of legal and political amateurism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When approaching Habermas's work, one cannot avoid noting that the German constitutional jurist and philosopher Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) finds himself constantly under fire from direct and implicit criticism. Habermas openly rejects Schmitt's ideas, which he considers harmful because they manifest anti-democraticism. He is so vehemently opposed to Schmitt's political and legal thought that he impedes legal reasoning (as well as legal practice) in the turns of irrationality, even in the swamps of legal and political amateurism. In Habermas's eyes, Schmitt embodies the syndrome of totalitarianism, servitude and immersion in the face of all that is pure and cruel, which has served and blinded the German people and especially its cultural, legal or political elites. He clearly rejects its authoritarian and shameful side, the existence of which he deplores as much as its persistence in German legal and political culture.The practical and theoretical reasons for this disagreement and the rejection of Schmittism in all its forms will concern us later. To the extent that Habermas's democratic theory of law is the exact opposite of Schmitt's anti-democratic authoritarianism, this critique allows us to take a unique look at the methods of this theory itself.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".