Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this dissertation, I examine Benedict de Spinoza's engagement with ancient Greek moral philosophy (in particular, his agreements and disagreements with Aristotle, Epicurus, and the Stoics).Through this comparative analysis, I argue for three central claims.Firstly, Spinoza is best understood as continuing the ancient ethical tradition of eudaimonism, which considers happiness (a) partly grounded in certain facts about (human) nature; (b) partly grounded in the beliefs/feelings of a subject; (c) structurally stable; and (d) exclusively intrinsically good.Secondly, Spinoza's unique contribution to this ethical tradition is his view that mind and body are ontologically and ethically equal by virtue of their non-reductive identity.Thirdly, this equality of mind and body crucially informs Spinoza's views (in contrast with Aristotle, Epicurus, and the Stoics) on core eudaimonistic themes, such as the roles of pleasure, virtue, reason, and activity in living a happy life.These views ultimately showcase Spinoza's novel synthesis of the unity (i.e., identity) and plurality (i.e., diverse expression) of being, both ontologically and ethically, insofar as Thought and Extension, mind and body, will and intellect, practical reason and theoretical reason, and pleasure and activity are revealed, in each ontological context, to be different (but strictly corresponding) aspects of one and the same thing.viii
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".