Philosophy as the Exegesis of 'Sacred' Texts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to his Cratylus commentary Proclus thinks that, although an oracle or a poet is the customary promulgator of a divine name, it is the philosopher who is the authoritative interpreter of that divine name. The reason for this is that the philosopher has the same access to the source of revelation as does the oracle or the poet, because the source of revelation is the same as the source of human reason, namely our intellection (noêsis) of the nature of the gods. Because of this, Proclus calls the true philosopher divine. There have not been many of them, but the most important of them was Plato, whose dialogues are therefore to be considered as revealed texts. Most importantly, however, although the dialogues are sacred texts, Proclus thinks that Plato's act of authorship and his own act of interpreting Plato are squarely within the practice of philosophy, because philosophy, or dialectic, is just one mode of discourse that expresses the truth about the gods, alongside the inspired (in the stricted sense), the symbolic, and the mode that uses images.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".