Bibliographic record
Abstract
In "Philosophy as a Way of Life," John Mullen and Jeremy Alexander call attention to what the doing of philosophy does to us, the formative nature of philosophical thinking and speaking and, especially, thinking and speaking together.1 I appreciate their focus on democracy and sustainability not as curricular content or objects of study, but as requiring exercises in speaking politically and living sustainably.Significant about the concept of exercise is that it is a repeated activity that builds a practice and involves the whole person-body, mind, and spirit.Following Pierre Hadot, the authors write that philosophical dialogue, understood as a spiritual exercise and not merely an intellectual sparring game, puts us into question, and this experience of being put into question forces us to "give attention" to ourselves.Such attention to ourselves, the authors argue, enables us to become aware of being a part of a larger whole, both in the sense of the democratic polity and in the sense of planetary ecological systems.In this response, I will call attention to the specific nature of the attention Hadot is referring to, and argue that it is, at best, insufficient for and, at worst, harmful to especially the ecological concerns the authors discuss.In other words, while I do not disagree that, in the context of the current crises of multiple planetary systems, it can be a salutary exercise to be called into question and to attend anew to who one is and is becoming, the kind of attention we pay should not be the Stoic prosoche that Mullen and Alexander propose.In its stead, we should cultivate other, more relational and interdependent kinds of attention. PROSOCHE AND ITS DISCONTENTSMullen and Alexander propose that we should have and live by a rule of life.They write: "Essentially, the rule of life is a code of conduct, emphasizing the development of an inner wisdom to lead one through the complexities,
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".