Chatgpt 사용 사례

1.논문 일부 요약한 사례 

21줄(아래)의 글을 Chatgpt 에게 요약해달라고 부탁해보았다. 

Sister to the trope of serio ludere, the serious play designed to uncover truth through ironic duplicity, paradox in the Renaissance stood essentially for a rhetorical technique. At their most playful and non-serious, paradoxes amounted to, in Colie’s words, ‘‘exercises of wit designed to amuse an audience sufficiently sophisticated in the arts of language to understand them.’’31 They could also be — as critiques levelled at those who take life too seriously, or those who don’t take things seriously enough — vehicles of high moral and spiritual seriousness. Medieval and Reformation theologians exploited the potential of paradox to stimulate human understanding of divine truths and deepen appreciation of their mystery: Luther himself employed the technique of rhetorical paradox, for example, when formulating his theses for the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518.32 More recent scholarship has even regarded paradox as paradigmatic for an early modern mentalite´ that embraced ‘‘the simultaneous experience of contrary states.’’33 It is not immediately apparent that the adage Beham affixed to the right margin of Impossible produces a rhetorical paradox when read alongside the figure, so let us test it. At its core lies the notion of that which is impossible (vnmvglich) to do, a notion which, like its noun form, is already paradoxical because it has no independent existence or nature. Since the impossible does not exist, one may reason, any attempt to achieve it is illusory. Whoever dares try will do little more than expose his own folly. Likewise foolish, if not impossible too, are any statements praising the impossible, for it — like folly itself, or any number of ridiculous topics — can never be praiseworthy, and thus logically is not praisable. Upping the ante is the absurdity of positing (or praising) such great things (groser ding) with whose magnitude the impossible might be equated. Finally — but really in the first place — we are presented with the paradox of who would ever dare to undertake the thing that must forever remain undone, though the answer has already been provided: nobody (Niment). The subject of an absurd striving for things so great they are on a par with nothing is, in the end, nobody at all. By formalizing the nonexistence of both its own defining object and subject, withdrawing the possibility of praising them in the very act of speaking their names, the adage collapses in on itself, taking with it the force of any simple moral admonition.

 

아래 8줄의 요약글로 요약을 만들어냈다. 

The article discusses paradox as a rhetorical technique that was used in the Renaissance to amuse and challenge sophisticated audiences. Paradoxes were exercises of wit that could also convey moral and spiritual seriousness, and were employed by theologians to deepen understanding of divine truths. Paradox was seen as paradigmatic for an early modern mentality that embraced the simultaneous experience of contrary states. The article then analyzes a specific paradoxical adage and argues that it collapses in on itself, making any simple moral admonition impossible. The adage explores the notion of the impossible and argues that any attempt to achieve it is illusory, and that it is impossible to praise something that cannot exist. Ultimately, the adage presents the paradox of who would ever dare to undertake something that must forever remain undone, and the answer is nobody. 

위 챗지피티 요약글을 파파고가 번역한 글 (아래)

이 기사는 르네상스에서 세련된 청중을 즐겁게 하고 도전하기 위해 사용된 수사학적 기법으로서의 역설에 대해 논의합니다. 역설은 도덕적이고 영적인 심각성을 전달할 수 있는 재치의 행사였으며, 신학자들은 신의 진리에 대한 이해를 깊게 하기 위해 사용되었습니다. 역설은 상반된 상태의 동시 경험을 수용하는 초기 현대 심리학의 패러다임으로 간주되었습니다. 그런 다음 기사는 특정 역설적 격언을 분석하고 그것이 스스로 무너져 단순한 도덕적 훈계를 불가능하게 만든다고 주장합니다. 이 격언은 불가능에 대한 개념을 탐구하고 그것을 달성하려는 어떠한 시도도 환상이며, 존재할 수 없는 것을 칭찬하는 것은 불가능하다고 주장합니다. 궁극적으로, 이 격언은 영원히 미완으로 남아야 하는 것을 누가 감히 착수할 것인가에 대한 역설을 제시하며, 그 답은 아무도 아닙니다. 

 

---

또 다시 논문의 일부분(아래)을 복사하여 챗쥐피티에게 요약을 부탁해보았다. 이번에는 좀 더 많은 양의 분량을 복사하여 붙여넣었다. 

Can you summarize the followings? Before sorting out the implications of these negative affirmations, it may be instructive to note that the Beham adage is both much less, and much more, than a logical paradox such as the famous Liar Paradox in which Epimenides the Cretan is credited with the statement, ‘‘All Cretans are liars.’’ A classic example of a perfect equivocation, its meanings are ‘‘literally, speculative,’’ according to Colie, ‘‘infinitely mirrored, infinitely reflected, in each other.’’34 The situated illogic of Beham’s paradox in the engraving is less pure in its recursive contrariety. But contemporary readers — educated Christians — would likely have recognized one significant way out of the hall of mirrors that paradox normally produces: the notion of faith as the only possible mode of apprehending the impossibilium of divinity, which is removed, by its very nature, from normal modes of sensory experience and intellectual speculation. Drawing upon the Neoplatonism associated with Dionysus the Areopagite, late-medieval mystical theologians such as Nicholas of Cusa (1401–64) developed this awareness into a rigorous rhetorical technique designed to avoid falsifying or insufficient statements about God by directly asserting only what he is not.35 By the mid-sixteenth century this principle had already become something of a commonplace. Several participants in the Willensfreiheit controversy were, in fact, heirs to this tradition of ‘‘negative theology.’’ The best example again may be Franck, who, with his thoroughgoing ontological conception of God, required that the illuminating truth of the divine Word be sought as a hidden entity in puzzles and paradoxes.36 On both sides of the confessional divide, but especially among Protestants, it was understood that one exercises one’s faith purely and appropriately only in grappling with that which is most difficult, or well-nigh impossible. Luther’s valorization of faith’s power to overcome all obstacles formed the cornerstone of his catechism projects and echoed across the sixteenth century, even among his polemical opponents. ‘‘Faith produces virtue,’’ wrote Sebastian Castellio (1515–63) in the preface to his Latin translation (1557) of the Theologia Deutsch, ‘‘that is, the force and power makes what we believe come a reality.’’37 Rooted in Jesus’ proclamation in Mark 9:22 — ‘‘If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth’’ — this valorization of faith’s authority over reason found its philosophical fountainhead in Tertullian (d. ca. 220), who declaimed in his treatise De carne Christi with regard to the Resurrection‘‘It is certain — because it is impossible.’’38 But the idea also shared in the Pauline trope of ‘‘God’s fool,’’ which was reinterpreted in the sixteenth century across the ideological spectrum.39 If the impossible thing in Beham’s adage were truly coded in this way, and the hero’s struggle seen as a straightforward visual metaphor for that which challenges human effort — or that which defeats the wrong kind of effort — then the engraving’s tensions would quietly resolve themselves into an allegory of faith. Modern commentators, more or less certain of the elder Beham’s Protestant identity, and preferring to see the engraving as expressive of well-worn Lutheran precepts, have embraced this meaning for the print. A parallel appears in Melanchthon’s adage, ‘‘Do not struggle in vain doing useless things,’’ concerning the futility of earthly works and the misplaced trust in what reformers called adiaphora. 40 Faith is now, in this interpretation, more than the better part of valor: it is the only part, exclusive of any other possible striving. The athlete figure appears in the fullness of his Sisyphean despair, though it still remains unclear if the legend mocks the figure’s futile grasping or valorizes his heroic determination. Is this struggle misdirected toward inessential things or is it virtue born of faith, sure of itself against all odds, even in the absence of consolation? Alone and isolated against a distant horizon, Beham’s personification gives no indication of the prospects for success or failure. Only the insistent no-thing, the title Impossibile, trumpeted above him in capital letters as if spoken by the tree’s branches — a spelling that could be Latin, but could also be the Italian adjective — seems to cast judgment on his undertaking. A full stop comes after the word itself. Does the impossible refer to the runner growing from the base of the older tree? Entwined around an older tree luxurious with foliage, the runner, mostly dead but displaying a few slender new growths, does seem conspicuously symbolic. Educated contemporaries would surely have suspected as much, given the ubiquity of symbolic plants, trees, and various arboreal manipulations — watering, pruning, grafting, transplanting, felling, etc. — found in emblem books.41 Beham’s engraving and its relatives do indeed have much in common with contemporaryemblems and imprese, as noted. But within the emblem-book tradition the entwined-tree motif bore a multiplicity of meanings, and depended largely on the imagery of encroaching vines. In one example an old olive tree, symbol of wisdom, complains of being embraced by the young vine, from whose fruits the virtuous must abstain; in another, a withered elm supports a grape vine even beyond death; while in still another an old tree is entangled and choked by the vines it had once nourished, an allegory of ingratitude.

챗쥐피티의 요약(아래) : 요청한 원문의 양이 훨씬 많았지만 아까 분량이 작았던 글의 요약과 비슷한 분량으로 요약하였다.

The article discusses the implications of the paradoxical adage depicted in Hans Sebald Beham’s engraving Impossibile (1548). The article points out that this adage is much less, and much more, than a logical paradox like the famous Liar Paradox. The author suggests that Beham’s adage is not pure in its recursive contrariety. Instead, it is an allegory of faith, implying that faith is the only possible mode of apprehending the impossibility of divinity. The article explains how late-medieval mystical theologians developed the awareness of faith into a rigorous rhetorical technique designed to avoid falsifying or insufficient statements about God. The article also discusses how the engraving’s tensions quietly resolve themselves into an allegory of faith if the impossible thing in Beham’s adage were coded in this way. The article concludes that the entwined-tree motif in the engraving bore a multiplicity of meanings, but within the emblem-book tradition, it depended largely on the imagery of encroaching vines.

이 글은 한스 세발트 베함의 판화 임파서블(1548)에 묘사된 역설적 격언의 함의를 논하고 있습니다. 기사는 이 격언이 유명한 거짓말쟁이 역설과 같은 논리적 역설보다 훨씬 덜하고 훨씬 더 많다고 지적합니다. 저자는 베함의 격언이 그 재귀적인 모순에서 순수하지 않다고 제안합니다. 대신, 그것은 믿음의 우화이며, 믿음이 신성의 불가능을 이해하는 유일한 가능한 방법임을 암시합니다. 이 기사는 중세 후기 신비주의 신학자들이 어떻게 신앙에 대한 인식을 하나님에 대한 거짓이나 불충분한 진술을 피하기 위해 고안된 엄격한 수사학적 기법으로 발전시켰는지 설명합니다. 이 기사는 또한 베함의 격언에서 불가능한 것이 이런 식으로 코드화된다면 조각의 긴장이 어떻게 조용히 신앙의 우화로 스스로를 해결하는지에 대해서도 논의합니다. 기사는 조각에서 얽힌 나무 모티브가 다양한 의미를 가지고 있다고 결론지었지만, 엠블럼북 전통 내에서, 그것은 주로 잠식하는 덩굴의 이미지에 의존했습니다.

 

출처논문: Nobody Dares: Freedom, Dissent, Self-Knowing, and Other Possibilities in Sebald Beham’s Impossible* by MITCHELL B. MERBACK