Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to explain Bonaventura's anthropology theory as one of the main issues in the philosophy of religion. This article examines this issue by referring to the works of Bonaventura as well as descriptions and interpretations written on this field using descriptive-analytic methods. Bonaventura knows human as God's image and unlike some of the Christian philosophers considers'matter'in addition to 'soul'anddoes not separate soul from body.Following Augustine, Bonaventura knows human soul as body image so that soul can affect and be affected. He properly accepted two types of self-knowledge, first, he believed that an inner queen exists in human existence possessing the ability to thinkand contemplate on its own and Second, alternate activities of thought about itself, which is due to resorting to internal contemplation. Bonaventura knowsthe fact of human as something through which he/she can communicate with God and accordingly believes that human as the image ofGod has the power of thoughts and authority; He has a standpoint of "from Him" and "to Him". The superior position which Bonaventura intended for human in the universe is that human is a microcosm. Because he/shewill reflect its creatormore than any other creature in the material world.Nevertheless, Buenaventura believes that human has collapsed and original sinhas disrupted the realm of the intellect, emotions and human actions; He also explores the realms of human existence such as soul, spirit and heart so about heart he suggests that if human heart becomes clean and pure existence, his/her existence and nature is God's Wisdom Book. He believes that human can reach the highest level of wisdombecause he/she is the God's word (promise). Bonaventura believes that the foundation of human relationship with God is romantic; He knows the truth of human in relation to absolute (God); and part of his thoughts in relation to the human is focused on perfect human and perfect man knows Jesus Christ and introduces him as the inner teacher all mankind.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".