Beyond the ‘immanent frame’ : Charles Taylor as a reader of poetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor has long been a devoted reader of poetry. His passion for poetry is not just an indication of his subtle sensitivity as a reader, but also suggests how he sees poetry as an ally for the spiritual/religious quest. His investigations are often associated with Romantic poetry (especially Wordsworth) and the term ‘epiphany’, which he elaborated in Sources of the Self. In more recent surveys, he develops these earlier insights, particularly on the strength of his readings of Gerard Manley Hopkins’ and Paul Celan’s poems, a focus that comes to the fore in his recent volume, The Language Animal. Already in A Secular Age, Taylor describes poetic language as that which ‘strives to render God or something which transcends humanity’ (A Secular Age). This essay compares his views on poetic language to Paul Ricoeur’s approach to the ‘revelatory’ power of language. What distinguishes the former is that he points to the unique character of poetry as arising from a resonant energy within us that has the capacity to interpret and shape culture. In its epiphanic capacity, the energy of poetry plays an important dimension of the spiritual/religious quest. This essay explores Taylor’s passionate approach to poetry and his view, as a philosopher, that poetry, philosophy and theology should engage in continuous conversation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".