Talk:Nicholas of Cusa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

The links in the text to "De Docta Ignorantia (Of Learned Ignorance)" and "De Visione Dei" as well as the link to "A biography of Nicholas of Cusado" in the "External Links" section do not appear to be working.

how does nicholas of cusa have anything to do with borda in the "borda count method"?

I do not think that Cusa proposed that the Earth revolves around the Sun. See page 34 at this website: http://cla.umn.edu/sites/jhopkins/DI-Intro12-2000.pdf.

[edit] Not good

"and that the orbits of the planets around the sun must be elliptical. He also predated Giordano Bruno in affirming the universe is infinite and Earth has no priviledged position in the universe." - I believe the text is incorrect or at the very least sloppily written. See Koyré, A., From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe; Chapter I. There is no mention of Nicholas ever stating planets go around either Earth or the Sun, much less claiming their orbits being elliptical.

You are partially right, Cusanus simply makes a point they are not circular. Probably the editor concluded they must be elliptical, though Cusanus' text leaves room for any possible shape. Daizus 09:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as "priviledged position" is concerned: this is somewhat of a missunderstanding: the Middle Ages conception of Earth being "in the centre" meant humans were worse off. It was not understood at the time as a privileged position. Quite the contrary: it was a despicable position, related to a heavy, material nature - the Earth was at the lowest possible position - only hell was worse (being below ground). --Lynxmb 20:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. That was my addition and I haven't valued the word "priviledged" in that context as necessarily a positive thing (I was looking for a synonym for "special", "particular"), but probably I was wrong as it gives the reader (you're one good example for that), a false impression. So what's your suggestion for rephrasing? Daizus 09:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I modified the article. I dropped the "elliptic orbits" fragment and I rephrased the vision upon Earth's position in the universe. Please verify if it answers your criticism. Daizus 14:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neither fininte nor infinite

@Daizus It seems to me you are only partially acquainted with what Nicholas actually stated in his books. One of the key premises (e.g. in rejecting perfect circle orbits and finity of the cosmos) is his specific form of skepticism, formulated as "docta ignorantia" or "learned ignorance". Its importance is illustrated by the fact that he intitled his book, dealing with the shape of our world, by that exact term.

Ad. "infinity of the Universe": His explicit words: "even though not infinite, we cannot imagine it as finite, since it has no confines..."

He never said the world was infinite. He reserved that predicate for God only. So he says that God is infinitus and that the world is interminatus, very clearly indicating there is a difference between them, that we ought to respect. (There is a very good reason, why I changed "affirming the universe is infinite" to "denying the universe being finite".)

This whole article is written ignoring these fine (yet crucial!) distinctions and is therefore of little use to anyone trying to inform her-/himself about Nicholas' work. I believe it should be thoroughly revised and written properly. I only tried to point out some factual inaccuracies, but even as we corrected them, the main problem is not resolved.

Some further examples:

• "that the earth was a near-sphere ellipse shape
• ...that revolved around the Sun, and
• ...that each star is itself a distant sun
• ...with its own planets"

Again, he never said anything like the Earth being "ellipse shape". I think this is the same jumping to conlusions as the case was with orbits. As for the other three, I would like to see the source of those statements. I believe they are false. --Lynxmb 19:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not read any full text on Cusanus except some excerpts but I have read scholarship on Cusanus. From scholars I could quote I. P. Culianu with multiple works on the mystical Renaissance or historians of medieval and Renaissant philosophy like Christian Trottmann. I have edited little in this article and I agree with many of your objections, but as far as terminology goes, the scholars I've read seem to agree Cusanus' universe is infinte, not just not finite. interminatus means ad litteram without bounds, endless, which in current English when addressed to the universe is synonymous with infinite. As long as the article does not have any detailed section about Cusanus' worldview or his terminology and concepts such nuances are useless and confusing.

On your further examples I agree with all, they seem a bit of an outstretch from what Cusanus actually seems to say (or let me more precise, from what scholars argue Cusanus would have said). I'll take your points in order:

* to my knowledge Cusanus only agree the Earth was not a perfect sphere (I'm not sure if we can translate that as near-sphere, anyway ellipse is an outstretch)

* I have no knowledge of a heliostatic solar system in Cusanus' worldview

* all celestial bodies were the same, that means the sun was a star, to call each star a sun however is a bit pushing it

* I have no knowledge of such a statement from Cusanus

Perhaps a previous editor made some confusions between Cusanus and Bruno. I'll make an edit to correct it. Please improve it if you can. Daizus 22:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've modified the text an removed the disputed-template. However, the problems I described remain. --Lynxmb 18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

All the problems you signaled were removed or rephrased. So what exactly remained? Daizus 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1451

Did Nicholas of Cusa invented concave lens to treat myopia?

Question: On a TV programm I have heard Kusanus was the owner of a huge library. It was said Kusanus wanted to make a big library which would contained all the existing books at that time, a universal library. Is it true? does any one have information?

An anti-empiricist at heart. No wonder you never hear about this guy in school textbooks....