«Слепое пятно» политического мышления Ханны Арендт
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research is devoted to the constructive analysis of the phenomenon of a «blind spot» in the context of a political reflection of social-historical events and which is part of the thinking. It has a dual nature which influences the formation of our judgments. In the article, it is shown that the action of a “blind spot” belongs to belief. On the one hand, it provides a possibility of the removal of historical judgment, while on the other hand, the nature of the arising doubts about the objectivity of historical knowledge is cleared up. Some of the writings of Hannah Arendt are used as examples in the analytical interpretation of the theory of the ability of judgment. The “blind spot” will paralyze critical thinking since it is a result of the absolutization of theoretical reason, and is also reflected in the political and moral estimates of history. In this research, the investigation of several political appraisals of which Arendt gave of a number of tragedies of the 20th century uncovers the specifics of the results of the “blind spot” in her thinking. The recognition and the understanding of this phenomena promotes an increasingly-sensitive relationship of the particulars of those lives in related history. This recognition softens the ideological commitment for the sake of a more equal relationship between cultures, and averts an involuntary, unintentional cultural arrogance. As a result, it is shown that the intension of the ability of judgment is reflected in the “socialization” of theoretical reason, that the phenomenon of a “blind spot” of thinking exerts an impact on an assessment of historical and political realities and allows for the realization of the value of the restriction of reason, and that the fair, humanistic conclusions of Arendt in a latent form by themselves bear a paradoxical danger of an opposition of various cultural identities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.013 |
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".