The dream of enlightenment : an essay on the promise of reason and freedom in modernity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis utilizes a methodological reading strategy of intertextual comparison in an attempt to explicate certain conceptual covergences within modern thought. Basically I attempt to defend the values of reason and freedom while trying to avoid the authoritarian discourses that these concepts have been historically implicated within. Throughout, I follow three themes centred around what I have called "the dream of enlightenment." The first theme examines the optimism within enlightenment thought examined through the texts of Rousseau, Kant, and Marx. The second theme explores certain pessimistic critiques of enlightenment thought through the texts of Freud, Dostoevsky, and Nietzsche. The final theme views the dream of enlightenment as an ongoing critical process perhaps requiring an awakening of consciousness. In order to explicate this theme I draw upon certain textual convergences between the optimistic dream and the pessimistic dream especially through the work of Marx and Nietzsche. In the end, against Kant's motto "dare to know," I propose an alternative motto for the postmodern age. This motto is "dare to dream."
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".