Rebellion or love? Literature, two humanisms and the exercise of strong evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to John Gardner,true art entails the search for and examination of values. Some forms of literature do forward narratives that provoke a response to, and entail an assessment of, different moral values as an essential part of their art . This claim holds true for the novels The Outsider by Albert Camus and Such Is My Beloved by Morely Callaghan. Both are classic modern works of fiction that contribute to a search for values. Marc P. Lalonde’s examination of these values involves an interrelated twofold approach. First, he provides a parallel reading of the exclusive humanism reflected in The Outsider and the integral humanism incorporated into Such Is My Beloved . Second, the moral appraisal of these two humanisms is carried out in relation to what Charles Taylor calls ‘strong evaluation’. Such a moral sensibility makes itself felt in relation to the theme of hope. On the one hand, the absurdist denial of hope in The Outsider seems to pair itself with a moral nihilism. This tends to undermine the exercise of strong evaluation. On the other hand, the religious affirmation of hope in Such Is My Beloved involves a moral altruism. This tends to rely on strong evaluation. Pushing back against this observation, Camus observes that even in relation to nihilism it is possible to transend nihilim. In many ways, this is true of The Outsider. However, in order to actualize this sense of transcendence, the novel alludes to a type of hope that not only resonates with certain aspects of integral humanism, but also ultimately relies on a form of strong evaluation itself.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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".