The Unknowable Meaning of Good-Evil, Self, and Existence in Kafka's, Vian's, and Murakami's Literary Works
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we will describe the sameness of existing in a meaningless world as it is expressed in the literary works of Franz Kafka, Boris Vian, and Murakami Haruki.Existence and meaninglessness will be analyzed as they are closely linked to the changing frontiers between good and evil as well as to the unknowable self.Existence and meaninglessness cannot be described without referring to existential categories, such as suffering, freedom, temporality, death, hope, and despair.Kafka was basically concerned with the unknowable meaning of existence.He interpreted the world in a Hobbesian way (the primacy of self-interest and search for power).But above all, Kafka's hope in humankind remains the ultimate power people should use to fight existentially rooted meaninglessness.Vian rather focused on the unknowable meaning of good-evil and was closer to a Nietzschean transmutation of values.Murakami criticized the static frontiers between the real and the unreal.He unveiled the unknowable meaning of good-evil, self and existence.Like Bergson, Murakami was quite concerned with simultaneous durations and the meaning of temporality.Also, similarly to Sartre, Murakami was emphasizing existential freedom and the meaning of death.Kafka, Vian, and Murakami have thus widened the scope of the unknowable.///
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".