FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2892264675> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2892264675 endingPage "97" @default.
• W2892264675 startingPage "80" @default.
• W2892264675 abstract "Modern Thought and the Sapiential Dimension of Philosophy M. T. Lu (bio) “To be consonant with the word of God, philosophy needs first of all to recover its sapiential dimension as a search for the ultimate and overarching meaning of life.” (fides et ratio 81) This is one of the most striking and important claims in all of Fides et Ratio. It seems to capture with admirable clarity the central task of the Catholic philosopher in the modern world. And yet there has been remarkably little explicit discussion in the professional philosophical literature of just what the “sapiential dimension” of philosophy is, why it was (apparently) lost, and just how we are supposed to recover it.1 In this article, I offer an analysis of what this “sapiential dimension” is and consider how and why modern philosophy seems to have largely abandoned this task. Finally, I will observe some ways in which at least some aspects of this dimension of philosophy may nonetheless be re-emerging in sometimes unexpected places. What Makes Philosophy Sapiential? The claim that philosophy must recover its “sapiential dimension” seems on the surface to be almost tautological. Since sapientia is just [End Page 80] a Latin rendering of sophia, it seems tantamount to saying that the philosophy must recover its philosophical dimension. It seems ridiculous to suggest that the “love of wisdom” has lost its orientation towards wisdom. Nevertheless, I think that is exactly what is being suggested: in some important sense, philosophy—or at least much of the activity that has gone on under that name for the last several centuries—has in fact ceased being philosophical. A key reason for this becomes apparent in the very mention of “the ultimate and overarching meaning of life.” I strongly suspect that many contemporary academic philosophers would regard that phrase—“the meaning of life”—as hopelessly sophomoric. As critics such as MacIntyre and others have pointed out, so much of contemporary academic philosophy (perhaps especially in, but not limited to, the English-speaking world) is aimed at a kind of technical proficiency, especially with a mind to fitting into a university context dominated by the natural sciences.2 Having largely surrendered its traditional role as the highest (natural) science that putatively articulated the relationship of all the other (lower) sciences to each other and the structure of human knowledge as a whole, contemporary academic philosophy has instead largely consented to become the handmaid of the natural sciences. Academic philosophy has ceased being philosophical insofar as many of its practitioners have generally abandoned the traditional task of philosophy to investigate the fundamental meaning of nature, including and especially how that points toward the radical dependency of physical nature upon the supernatural. In short, philosophy ceases to be philosophical when it largely abandons the questions of fundamental ontology out of a despair that human reason can really reach into the heart of being and come to know it in the ways that the ancient and medieval philosophers regarded as the highest exercise of speculative reason. Pope St. John Paul II invites us to see that philosophy becomes corrupted insofar as it fails to recognize its own contingent nature and dependency on something beyond itself. He notes that a theory [End Page 81] of philosophy that regards itself as entirely self-sufficient is “patently invalid” because in “refusing the truth offered by divine Revelation, philosophy only does itself damage, since this is to preclude access to a deeper knowledge of truth” (FR, 75). It is important to recognize exactly what is being attempted here. This papal intervention is not an attempt to impose particular theological conclusions or dogmas upon philosophy. Rather it is a wake-up call, an attempt to recall philosophy to its own proper nature and methods. Properly undertaken, pure philosophical inquiry without the benefit of revelation (as it was done in the classical tradition of the “perennial philosophy”) will reveal much about reason’s proper limits and radical dependency. It is only because the practice of academic philosophy has voluntarily abandoned so many of the questions and tasks of first philosophy traditionally understood that such a call to philosophy—to recover its own nature—was necessary..." @default.
• W2892264675 created "2018-09-27" @default.
• W2892264675 creator A5025327179 @default.
• W2892264675 date "2018-01-01" @default.
• W2892264675 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2892264675 title "Modern Thought and the Sapiential Dimension of Philosophy" @default.
• W2892264675 cites W1543095195 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W1565743895 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W1577392604 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W1606898266 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W1970168079 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W2079652657 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W2091906096 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W2119859848 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W2134397864 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W2979587417 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W567362522 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W613338985 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W626485296 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W647192251 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W657363873 @default.
• W2892264675 cites W2471094269 @default.
• W2892264675 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/log.2018.0026" @default.
• W2892264675 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2892264675 type Work @default.
• W2892264675 sameAs 2892264675 @default.
• W2892264675 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2892264675 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2892264675 hasAuthorship W2892264675A5025327179 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConcept C135646171 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConcept C169756158 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConcept C202444582 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConcept C2778692574 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConcept C33676613 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConcept C522434184 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConceptScore W2892264675C111472728 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConceptScore W2892264675C135646171 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConceptScore W2892264675C138885662 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConceptScore W2892264675C169756158 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConceptScore W2892264675C202444582 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConceptScore W2892264675C2778692574 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConceptScore W2892264675C33676613 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConceptScore W2892264675C33923547 @default.
• W2892264675 hasConceptScore W2892264675C522434184 @default.
• W2892264675 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2892264675 hasLocation W28922646751 @default.
• W2892264675 hasOpenAccess W2892264675 @default.
• W2892264675 hasPrimaryLocation W28922646751 @default.
• W2892264675 hasRelatedWork W1032546331 @default.
• W2892264675 hasRelatedWork W2055890795 @default.
• W2892264675 hasRelatedWork W2466071269 @default.
• W2892264675 hasRelatedWork W2610142057 @default.
• W2892264675 hasRelatedWork W2895772206 @default.
• W2892264675 hasRelatedWork W2949128609 @default.
• W2892264675 hasRelatedWork W3134833962 @default.
• W2892264675 hasRelatedWork W4200435873 @default.
• W2892264675 hasRelatedWork W629449697 @default.
• W2892264675 hasRelatedWork W3087922510 @default.
• W2892264675 hasVolume "21" @default.
• W2892264675 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2892264675 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2892264675 magId "2892264675" @default.
• W2892264675 workType "article" @default.