The Concept of Authentic and Inauthentic Existence in the Philosophy of Martin Heidegger: The ‘Quarrel’ of Communitarians and Libertarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The everyday use of the term ‘authenticity’ tends to mean ‘real’, ‘genuine’ or ‘true’, and ‘inauthentic’ as ‘fake’, ‘fraud’ or ‘impostor’. These terms are more value-judgments with something inherently better than ‘inauthentic’.The idea of authentic wishes to liberate the individuals from the constraints of their own socio-historical limitations; and to establish being as limitless potential, where we are free to be whatever we want,unconstrained by the values of instrumental or calculative thought prized by social exigencies and ideologies. It means that we have to use our potentialities as free Beings to overcome unfavourable circumstances,fight against, or protest against the ugly situation, but as ‘authentic-being, we at the same time ‘inherit and choose’ our own possibilities. So in transcending our socio-historical condition,our aim should be to be free from constraints, free from ‘the-they’ and be true to who we are.This paper holds brief for the Libertariansand liberals and supports the view that individual choice is important. But then, the community is indispensable in defining and shaping individuals in the light of communitarians.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".