The Mind of Narrative and the Narrative of Mind: Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and Ontology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the dialectical relationship between the ontology of the mind and the structure of modern narrative through the works of Søren Kierkegaard and Fyodor Dostoevsky. It argues that Kierkegaard’s conception of the mind as relational, paradoxical, and marked by anxiety and sin parallels Dostoevsky’s method of indirect communication, in which narrative discloses the infinite worth of self and other. Against the ancient Greek logic of contradiction, both thinkers employ biblical principles—especially the golden rule—to distinguish myth from narrative and to ground human existence in the infinite rather than the finite. Through close readings of Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous writings and Dostoevsky’s polyphonic novels, the study shows that indirect communication is indispensable for grasping the paradox of existence and safeguarding the irreducibility of the individual. It concludes that the crises of modern philosophy, theology, psychology, and literature derive from false narratives that deny the infinite, whereas the mind itself is best understood as a narrative phenomenon oriented by biblical principles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".