Wonders Intro and Ch. 1

When reading the beginning of this book, I noticed a few things that reminded me of topics we've discussed before. The link between emotion and wonders was stressed multiple times by the authors. They write, "As theorized by medieval and early modern intellectuals, wonder was a cognitive passion, as much about knowing as about feeling" (14). From my understanding (which could be off) they suggest that wonders worked to somehow map out nature because they looked at the periphery of nature and our knowledge of it. In this way, wonders seem to structure nature. If this is the case, and wonders are an integral part of our understanding, does this mean that emotion can have a great impact on our structuring of nature as well?

Emotion is brought up again in chapter one. At the beginning of the chapter, the authors give Gervase of Tilbury's list of wonders and explain that the only thing the wonders have in common is "the emotion evoked by all of them" (21-23). This seems to make sense, that our reactions to wonders are often intense ones, like repulsion or passion. The authors also note that wonders are that which are out of the ordinary. So, can we take this to mean that a wonder is something that is different from what we have encountered that also evokes a strong emotion in us?

On a somewhat unrelated note, what most intrigued me about this section is something I know will be discussed in more depth later. The authors note that wonders became "vulgar" and sort of died out. I wonder how the wonders discussed in this book relate to things we encounter today. The authors, in their discussion of wonder and belief, note that, "Like novels or movies today, they [wonders] demanded emotional and intellectual consent rather than a dogmatic commitment to belief" (60). It is suggested that we are still able to suspend disbelief. Do we, then, still have our own wonders?