Nicholas of Cusa’s Dialogue with Augustine: The Measure of the Soul’s Greatness in <i>De Ludo Globi</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nicholas of Cusa’s De Ludo Globi (1463) explores the tensions between the soul’s terrestrial and transcendent aspirations; between its desire to engage materiality through creative self-expression and to remove itself from its historically-bound identity in mystical contemplation. Many of Cusa’s arguments about the soul in this work are indebted to Augustine’s De Quantitate Animae (388), and while the cardinal emphasizes different capacities of the soul, many of his analogies originate from this Augustinian source. Clearly Cusa’s most significant appropriation is the dialogical framework itself, which being situated at the threshold between discursive reason and mystical contemplation becomes an effective vehicle for exploring the soul’s cognitive and spiritual aptitudes. While both dialogues illustrate the rational or creative capacities of the embodied soul, they ultimately acknowledge the limitations of these capacities, and of the dialogic form itself, when compared to the higher reaches of the soul’s contemplative powers. Le De Ludo Globi (1463), par Nicolas de Cuse, examine l’opposition entre les aspirations terrestre et transcendante de l’âme; entre son désir d’agir sur la matière par l’expression créatrice et le désir de se retirer, par la contemplation mystique, hors de l’identité circonstancielle. Nombre des arguments de Cuse sur l’ âme dans cet ouvrage proviennent du De Quantitate Animae (388) d’Augustin, et plusieurs de ses analogies sont empruntées à cet ouvrage, même si le cardinal développe indépendamment les capacités variées de l’âme. De fait, le cadre dialogique constitue le plus important des emprunts de Cuse. Entre raison discursive et contemplation mystique, ce cadre devient un outil efficace d’exploration des aptitudes intellectuelles et spirituelles de l’âme. Tandis que les deux dialogues illustrent le potentiel de raison ou de création de l’âme incarnée, ils en reconnaissent à la fin les limites, tout comme celles du dialogue lui-même, en comparaison avec les possibilités de l’âme pour la contemplation, bien supérieures à celles-là.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".