Bibliographic record
Abstract
What do we sacrifice when politics is in motion? The Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor argues that modern society has lost sight of what he calls frameworks or horizons of significance, which help citizens define the demands by which they judge their lives and measure, as it were, their fullness or emptiness. The economic and political consequences of an increasingly globalized, interconnected, and complex world erode to some extent these cultural guidelines. If Taylor represents a philosophical investigation of a society without a guiding framework, the recent albums of Bob Dylan are a phenomenological account of living in such a society. Critic Mikal Gilmore writes that Dylan's recent work depicts a center less time creating a vista of mortal and cultural disintegration. This paper integrates Taylor's work, particularly that found in Sources of the Self and The Ethics of Authenticity, with Dylan's recent albums, Time Out of Mind, Love and Theft, Modern Times, and Tell Tale Signs. After outlining Taylor's philosophy, I conduct a thematic analysis of Dylan's lyrics as they relate to Taylor's ideas. I conclude by evaluating their perspectives: are Taylor and Dylan right to be pessimistic about modern society? The benefit of this coupling is twofold: 1) we get two distinct, yet very interrelated perspectives of the potential costs of our changing political world and 2) we can understand these costs from a macro, cultural level perspective as well as a micro, psychological one. Whereas Taylor tells us of a culture characterized by individualism and lacking a common view of the good life, Dylan describes a psyche full of loss, regret, emptiness, and morally ambiguous decisions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".