Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Figure: see text] Kierkegaard's conceptualization of his aesthetic stage of existence is lacking even with a very unstinted acknowledgment of his undeniably profound and brilliant insights. For Kierkegaard the aesthetic stage is based only on the immediacy of feeling, thus a transitoriness that ultimately leads to boredom and despair. This presentation agrees with Adorno's triadic understanding of what the aesthetic means in Kierkegaard's aesthetic writings as opposed to his religious ones. It is argued in this presentation that Kierkegaard's aesthetic stage or sphere of existence is a good deal more than passion at the sensuous level. There are too many great artists who struggled and made their lives ethically, spiritually, or religiously meaningful in blatant contradiction of Kierkegaard's demeaning of the aesthetic stage of existence. Many artists would not accept Kierkegaard's a priori assumption that sensual immediacy is the basic state of the aesthetic individual. Nevertheless, Kierkegaard's profound insights into the aesthetic sense of live music performance are an invaluable result of his informed intuition and other aesthetic writings; i.e., he asserts in some writings that the aesthetic derives only from immediacy, yet there are other writings (e.g., on music and acting) from which one can infer a broader sense of the aesthetic. It is also possible to formulate a practical realization of Kierkegaard's aesthetic philosophy by way of his profound observations on dramatic acting and applying these uncannily insightful concepts to music performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".