From Hegel to Nietzsche: Losurdo’s Critical Entanglements with Liberalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines Domenico Losurdo’s treatment of Hegel, Marx, Engels, and Nietzsche with the aim of unearthing his critical entanglements with liberalism. I will argue that Losurdo’s reflections on these thinkers betray a deeper ambivalence towards liberalism as a political tradition. This ambivalence ranges depending on which of the thinkers is under Losurdo’s microscope, receiving its starkest expression in Losurdo’s treatment of Nietzsche. By closely engaging with Losurdo’s treatment of Hegel, Marx, Engels, and Nietzsche, one leaves with a deeper grasp of these individual thinkers and the political implications of their respective philosophies. In much the same way, Losurdo’s work encourages readers to interrogate their own attitudes towards liberalism’s dialectic of emancipation and dis-emancipation. The only difference is that liberalism is now under renewed attack from a variety of political quarters. Consequently, Losurdo’s critical entanglements with liberalism could not have come at a better 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".