the changing of what is wonder

What really caught my attention in the reading for next class is the changing definition of wonder from Aristotle to the natural philosophers. At first it seems that they are in conflict in what philosophy is and what it should be concerned with but then we see that the definition of wonder has changed and thus the philosophical stance on wonder changed. Aristotle held that wonder was the basis of philosophy while the naturalists thought that wonder was a sign of ignorance that philosophy fought against. But while wonder for the naturalists was the stuff of lore and magic for Aristotle it was the workings of the universe and understanding the causal relations these were what was wonderous and so philosophy worked well with wonder because philosophy was about understanding the world we live in and wonder was about curiosity about the world we live in and the natural things that happen in it. But in the late middle age wonder was a sign of the divine and magic rather than being something of the world that had a causal explanation to be curious about. The chance in definition of wonder then led to a change in rhetoric in philosophy that ultimately lashed out on wonder and all thought about wonder. My question from this is are we in a period of redefining wonder again and if we are how has our definition changed?