Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The conflict between Christian Wolff and the figures of the Pietist movement constitutes the key intellectual controversy of the first half of the eighteenth century in Germany, and yet this controversy is widely overlooked by historians of the period. In this Introductory chapter, I consider the reasons for this neglect, which I identify as a reductive view of Wolff as a mere Leibnizan systematizer, a prejudicial conception of the Pietists as anti-philosophical, and a narrow focus on the many, frequently unedifying, texts exchanged in the course of the dispute. Accordingly, I propose to redress this neglect in this monograph in the follow ways. First, I draw attention to the broader context for Wolff’s metaphysics, outside of Leibniz, and connect it to his own early efforts to articulate the proper method of science. Second, I offer a sympathetic presentation of the philosophical bona fides of Pietism, particularly through a detailed consideration of the thought of Joachim Lange who, I contend, succeeds in offering a novel philosophical alternative to Wolff’s metaphysics. Finally, I contend that the true historical impact, and philosophical significance, of the controversy between Wolff and the Pietists is only appreciated once we also bring into consideration the various philosophers, beyond those immediate disciples and inflexible partisans immersed in the polemics, who worked to resolve the various tensions by refining, revising, and even synthesizing the metaphysical positions at issue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.411 | 0.225 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".