In Pursuit of True Wisdom: How the Re-Emergence of Classical Wonder Should Replace Descartes’s Neo-Averrostic Sophistry

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Jason Nehez
{"title":"In Pursuit of True Wisdom: How the Re-Emergence of Classical Wonder Should Replace Descartes’s Neo-Averrostic Sophistry","authors":"Jason Nehez","doi":"10.26385/SG.090212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern mathematical physics often claims to make philosophy obsolete. This presentation aims to show that the modern concept of wisdom fundamentally diverges with the thinking of Descartes, that, strictly speaking , at least in his metaphysical first principles, if not in his chief aim, he may be a sophist and no philosopher at all. Descartes denies the classical understanding of philosophy and thereby reduces the human person to an intellect separate from the body. Descartes initiated a popular understanding of sophistry that reverberates to today in our modern institutions of philosophy and science. But St. Thomas Aquinas anticipated this divergence and gave a defense of true wisdom in his writing against Averroes. This presentation concludes with what constitutes real philosophy and science as presented by St. Thomas Aquinas, namely sense wonder that cre-ates a search for the true knowledge of the unity responsible for true causes of true effects. For a true restoration of philosophy and science we will need a re-emergence and recovery of this understanding of wisdom.","PeriodicalId":36983,"journal":{"name":"Studia Gilsoniana","volume":"9 1","pages":"287-315"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Gilsoniana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26385/SG.090212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Modern mathematical physics often claims to make philosophy obsolete. This presentation aims to show that the modern concept of wisdom fundamentally diverges with the thinking of Descartes, that, strictly speaking , at least in his metaphysical first principles, if not in his chief aim, he may be a sophist and no philosopher at all. Descartes denies the classical understanding of philosophy and thereby reduces the human person to an intellect separate from the body. Descartes initiated a popular understanding of sophistry that reverberates to today in our modern institutions of philosophy and science. But St. Thomas Aquinas anticipated this divergence and gave a defense of true wisdom in his writing against Averroes. This presentation concludes with what constitutes real philosophy and science as presented by St. Thomas Aquinas, namely sense wonder that cre-ates a search for the true knowledge of the unity responsible for true causes of true effects. For a true restoration of philosophy and science we will need a re-emergence and recovery of this understanding of wisdom.
追求真正的智慧:古典奇迹的再现应如何取代笛卡尔的新平均诡辩
现代数学物理学常声称使哲学过时。这次演讲的目的是要表明,现代智慧的概念与笛卡尔的思想有根本的分歧,严格地说,至少在他形而上学的首要原则上,如果不是在他的主要目标上,他可能是一个诡辩家,而不是一个哲学家。笛卡尔否定了对哲学的经典理解,从而将人简化为与身体分离的智力。笛卡尔开创了一种对诡辩的普遍理解,这种理解至今仍在我们现代哲学和科学机构中回响。但是圣托马斯·阿奎那预见到了这种分歧,并在他反对阿威罗伊的著作中为真正的智慧辩护。这篇演讲以圣托马斯·阿奎那提出的真正的哲学和科学的构成为结尾,即创造了对统一体的真正知识的探索的感觉奇迹,统一体负责真正的原因和真正的结果。为了哲学和科学的真正恢复,我们需要重新出现和恢复这种对智慧的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Studia Gilsoniana
Studia Gilsoniana Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信