Rediscovering the Importance of the Theology of Language in the Contemporary Orthodox Discourse and Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orthodox theology, starting with the post-Nicene Fathers, has firmly linked its development to ontological thought, on the basis of which dogmatic theology has been progressively defined and the understanding of the divine economy has been deepened. Ontology, however, presupposes an inseparable relationship with logic on the one hand, and with the theory of language on the other. Since the Middle Ages, the Christian West has given importance to the logical foundation of theology, reinterpreting its ontological foundations, while the theory of language, in its applications to theology, has followed its developments accordingly. Orthodox theology, on the other hand, has developed a theology of language that is functional to the ontological arguments that have recurred in dogmatic debates. A theology of language independent of ontology was never developed in the patristic era. Developments in Orthodox theology over the last two centuries, however, have highlighted the problem of the theological understanding of the linguistic fact, as a result of which, in the 20th century, there have been attempts to define a theology of language. The recovery and development of this reflection sheds light on several problems that contemporary Orthodoxy is called to face, from the crisis of ontology that is rampant not only in secular thought but also in worldview and contemporary customs, to the ecclesiological nominalism that emerges in the background of the ecclesiastical diatribes of the present 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 | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.132 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".