Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article exposes some of the major differences of Hegel and Feuerbach's philosophy of religion.It is revealed that Feuerbach who attended some of Hegel's lectures and was considered as a Left-Hegelian and a Young-Hegelian (Feuerbach 'Toward a critique of Hegelian Philosophy' 1939) started to criticize some of Hegel's perceptions and theories of God and religion.This article displays how Feuerbach criticized Hegel's belief of God as an absolute and how Feuerbach humanized God.The different ways of Feuerbach's conceiving of God and Hegel's perceiving of God gets illustrated whether these two esteemed philosophers perceived God via feeling or thought and whether they conceived God as abstract or concrete.The similarities and differences of Hegel and Feuerbach's understanding of God unveiled in this paper, sheds light on two significant philosopher's interpretations of God and religion.Their different approaches to God and religion opens up a window to the light of genius and thoughts of Feuerbach and Hegel's comprehension of God.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.947 | 0.936 |
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".