Kierkegaardian selfhood as pursuit of the Greatest Commandment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt. 22:37). Refusing to regard Kierkegaard’s grasp of Jesus’ injunction within the Greatest Commandment as referencing one love that is either synonymous with faith or mere sidebar concern en route to exposition of an ethics of neighbour love, this thesis examines what it means for a human being to love God per se. It is proposed that, for Kierkegaard, loving God is a spiritual act that incorporates a dynamic process of dying away in love to enact one’s death to psychogenic idols of the mind, therein striving to become a self in giving all one’s heart, soul, and mind to God and not to sundry idols or proxies for God. Following consideration of the relationship between nihilism and love of God in Chapter I, and in contrast to studies which equate nihilism (i.e., willed negation of self and world) with, for example, irony and despair, Chapter II argues that nihilism is profitably understood as a philosophy of will arising from a trajectory of thought tracking to Arthur Schopenhauer. To begin disclosing the way in which Kierkegaardian love of God deploys dying away, which, taken out of context may sound nihilistic but in fact entirely eschews Schopenhauer’s foremost expression of nihilism, Chapter III examines Kierkegaard’s reception of Schopenhauer. Then, Chapter IV considers three deliverances of the Moravian Pietism in which Kierkegaard was raised—kenotic Christology, apophaticism, and a distinctive doctrine of grace—that shape his conception of loving God and distinguish it from Schopenhauerian nihilism. In turn, the concluding Chapter V asserts that, for Kierkegaard, to love God is to employ love’s dying away to purge oneself of adherence to idols of the mind (including Schopenhauerian knowledge of the nihil or nothingness of self, world, and God) and therein offer a love to God that is individually one’s own.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".