Moral Authenticity in a Turbulent Age: Charles Taylor and the Diary of Etty Hillesum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the relation between the moral philosophy of Charles Taylor and the wartime diary of Etty Hillesum. Written in Amsterdam between 1941 and 1942, Hillesum’s diary records her effort to construct a meaningful identity in relation to the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. That effort, I want to claim, is clarified via an interface with Taylor’s notion of “authenticity.” Taylor argues that authenticity constitutes a moral ideal that serves to measure the worth and value of the lived life. Such is the fundamental mission of Hillesum. In the final analysis I argue that Taylor’s moral philosophy lends structure, form and substance to Hillesum’s thought, while Hillesum’s journey vivifies the veracity of Taylor’s project. Her life situation both embodies and expresses the contemporaneity of Taylor’s work and illuminates its existential significance. Thus the importance of authenticity is not just a philosophical hypothesis but an issue with historical flesh and bone. Or so suggests Hillesum’s search for authenticity in a turbulent age.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".