William DesmondGuest
Philosophy begins in wonder, and it's often trotted out again and again, introductions to philosophy, et cetera, making reference to people like Aristotle and the metaphysics.

But I don't think a deep reflection or analysis of what wonder means is offered.

So I try to distinguish between wonder as astonishment, wonder as perplexity, wonder as curiosity.

And again, the view that I'm presenting is that the opening of human mindfulness occurs in an astonishment that is not a product of ourselves in the sense that we don't self-determine our very mind into astonishment, but there's a happening that opens us to something in the otherness of being.

Now again, I should just say, when you look at traditional understandings of the desire to know and the take on wonder, they are all teleologically oriented to the end of achieved knowledge.

Whereas I'm trying to offer what I call an archaeology of the very desire itself.

Out of what does the desire to know emerge? And I think that by dwelling on astonishment, there's an opening again that isn't itself a desire, but opens desire.

Of course, we're then indeed in the second modality of wonder I call perplexity.

And perplexity is when we're overcome by a sense of the too muchness of things, where we can't quite get a handle.

There's too much in our orientation to it, and we can't make it precise and determinate.

Now, again, I only just mentioned it here, but I think perplexity is extremely important because one of my views is that very often the scientific enterprise is very um allergic to perplexities that persist in our condition and we can come back to that because i think that great art and or religious orientation are responses to a perplexity that isn't reducible to a a straightforward scientific question And the third mode of wonder I call curiosity.

We want to know, is it this? Is it that? Is it the other? So there's a movement from something that is, in my language, overdeterminant, something that's too much towards determinacy, to be sure.

But what can happen is that we identify curiosity with the full happening of wonder.

And when that happens, forms of curiosity can take shape that look on what is mysteriously other as the occasion of an intrusion into its mystery.

Again, it can be driven by the desire for its intelligibility, but often the modality of relation to what presents itself perplexingly is to master it in as determinate form as possible.

We want to make it determinate such that we can be the measure of its determinacy.

And I try to argue actually that modern science in particular is a powerful development of curiosity, methodologically supported by not only practices but also by institutions.

But there is a hidden metaphysical orientation at work in it that easily lifts off and loses touch with the more original sense of astonishment and also that sense of perplexity that will not leave us alone in relation to the mysteries, especially of the human condition.

Philosophy begins in wonder, and it's often trotted out again and again, introductions to philosophy, et cetera, making reference to people like Aristotle and the metaphysics.

But I don't think a deep reflection or analysis of what wonder means is offered.

So I try to distinguish between wonder as astonishment, wonder as perplexity, wonder as curiosity.

And again, the view that I'm presenting is that the opening of human mindfulness occurs in an astonishment that is not a product of ourselves in the sense that we don't self-determine our very mind into astonishment, but there's a happening that opens us to something in the otherness of being.

Now again, I should just say, when you look at traditional understandings of the desire to know and the take on wonder, they are all teleologically oriented to the end of achieved knowledge.

Whereas I'm trying to offer what I call an archaeology of the very desire itself.

Out of what does the desire to know emerge? And I think that by dwelling on astonishment, there's an opening again that isn't itself a desire, but opens desire.

Of course, we're then indeed in the second modality of wonder I call perplexity.

And perplexity is when we're overcome by a sense of the too muchness of things, where we can't quite get a handle.

There's too much in our orientation to it, and we can't make it precise and determinate.

Now, again, I only just mentioned it here, but I think perplexity is extremely important because one of my views is that very often the scientific enterprise is very um allergic to perplexities that persist in our condition and we can come back to that because i think that great art and or religious orientation are responses to a perplexity that isn't reducible to a a straightforward scientific question And the third mode of wonder I call curiosity.

We want to know, is it this? Is it that? Is it the other? So there's a movement from something that is, in my language, overdeterminant, something that's too much towards determinacy, to be sure.

But what can happen is that we identify curiosity with the full happening of wonder.

And when that happens, forms of curiosity can take shape that look on what is mysteriously other as the occasion of an intrusion into its mystery.

Again, it can be driven by the desire for its intelligibility, but often the modality of relation to what presents itself perplexingly is to master it in as determinate form as possible.

We want to make it determinate such that we can be the measure of its determinacy.

And I try to argue actually that modern science in particular is a powerful development of curiosity, methodologically supported by not only practices but also by institutions.

But there is a hidden metaphysical orientation at work in it that easily lifts off and loses touch with the more original sense of astonishment and also that sense of perplexity that will not leave us alone in relation to the mysteries, especially of the human condition.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.