Idol Democracies: An Interview with Dariush Shayegan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dariush Shayegan is one of Iran's foremost philosophers, and is a longtime voice in the debates taking place between the circulation of culturally-specific practices of political recognition and their varied forms of resistance and contestation.Herein he offers his thoughts on the cultural conditions that are necessary for specific aspects of democratic pratices to take root and flourish, and confronts head on the difficult and timely question of how, following Montesquieu, -only power can stop power.‖ Negin DjavaherianBased on your writings and on your unique position as a thinker who situates himself at the meeting point between East and West, your perspective on the concept of existence and its articulations of choice seems to ask the following, quite difficult, question: is there a need for democracy?If this need for democracy exists, I would like to know if democracy can prevail in countries that strictly adhere to an ideology similar to that of Islamic rule or Communism?Under these conditions, what does it take for democracy to thrive? Dariush ShayeganNo doubt, democracy is no more a luxury, but a necessity.In other words, we peoples can no longer afford the luxury of not having a democracy.In the first place, the autocratic, despotic or totalitarian regimes are extremely costly at all levels, at the human level as well as the economic level.They can only be sustained by tremendous and horrific human
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".