'Thou shalt not believe (me)': Nietzsche's ethics of reading and the movement for emancipation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Introduction.Nietzsche and the Question of Emancipation 2. Emancipation in Platonic, Christian, and Kantian Fall Narratives 3. Emancipation in the Fall Narratives of Schiller, Kleist, and Heine 4. Emancipation in Nietzsche"s Counternarrative of the Fall in Also sprach Zarathustra 119 5. Nietzsche"s Ethics of Reading and the Movement for Emancipation 176 Concluding Remarks 218 Bibliography 222writing style which serves this ethics of reading: narratives strategies such as his rejection of concepts and reliance on metaphors result in texts in which the reader is called on, oft quite directly and literally, to pause and ponder, to fill certain gaps, to make certain connections, etc.The many provocative, paradoxical, or contradictory statements which one finds in Nietzsche"s work function similarly: they seem to have been penned in order to be contested and rebuked.The subtitles of Ecce Homo come to mind: "Warum ich so weise bin," "Warum ich so klug bin," "Warum ich so gute Bücher schreibe," etc.Nietzsche"s style engages the reader in a contest for meaning, bestowing upon and demanding from the reader a great "textual response-ability," 11 to use a coinage by Alan D. Schrift.What I thus wish to explore in this dissertation is the significance of agonistics forNietzsche"s ethics of reading.In his short essay Homers Wettkampf (1872), Nietzsche praises the agonal education which prevailed in the Hellenic world: "Jede Begabung muss sich kämpfend entfalten, so gebietet die hellenische Volkspädagogik."
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".