This discussion of philosophy–in ancient times and on the nightly news–appears in the current edition of “Phronesis in Pieces,” my Substack publication at billschmitt.substack.com.

Eric Voegelin

I want to point out a link I have added to the “Defining Phronesis” section of my Bookshelf of resources. A paper by David D. Corey, Ph.D., professor of political science at Baylor University, deserves special attention in this Substack because I found especially insightful his analysis of a noted scholar’s writing on phronesis.

That scholar is the distinguished political philosopher Eric Voegelin (1901-1985), who “devoted his life to understanding the spiritual disorders and political violence which began in the fifteenth century and reached their apogee in our own time,” as described at the website of the Voegelin Society.

Corey points out that a seminal essay by Voegelin, “Right by Nature,” found in The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, approaches Aristotle’s concept of phronesis (“prudence” or “practical wisdom”) with a special appreciation of its spiritual dimension.

Most contemporary scholars, including Corey himself, see this wisdom discussed in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics as a virtue of ethical and political reasoning that is essentially secular.

But Corey says Voegelin’s spiritual insight into phronesis is “nevertheless worth taking seriously.” It raises questions “about the extent to which Aristotle’s ethical-political theory is, or is not, transcendently oriented.”

Readers of this Substack already know my non-scholarly embrace of phronesis understands the virtue as a driving force for exploring the pursuit of wisdom in contemporary public affairs; wisdom is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit (CCC 1831). As described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, those gifts make man responsive to the Spirit’s leadings and sustain a Christian’s moral life (CCC 1830).

Prudence is listed as one of the four “cardinal virtues,” derived from the wisdom of God for all those who “love righteousness” (CCC 1805).

I understand that the Catechism’s descriptions and definitions of wisdom and prudence stand separate from Aristotle’s, It is hardly my goal to misinterpret or rewrite his philosophy as “fake muse” adapted to my tastes. But I eagerly accept any intersections that might enlighten a Catholic’s engagement in, and contributions to, important discussions of public policy and the common good.

Not only is the participation essential at this time when much of the reasoning in society veers away from reality and responsibility, but reminders of the Church’s values and virtues bring evangelization and encouragement to people in search of God and authentic meaning.

Allow me to use my Catholic imagination—and faith in Christ’s incarnation in our minds and hearts—to “take seriously” the Voegelin interpretation of phronesis, which you can read about in the excellent critique from Corey.

Chris Cuomo

NewsNation anchor Chris Cuomo, in an opening monologue for his nightly show Cuomo, recently demonstrated that my aspiration for more vigorous applications of phronesis in public affairs is shared by some thought-leaders in the secular world. He did not use Aristotle’s term, and I do not know whether he was consciously engaging his own Catholic imagination, but he made a compelling appeal for deeper, values-centered reasoning in America’s media and citizenry.

The plot of the new Hollywood film Oppenheimer helped to launch his commentary. He said the movie reflected how serious moral questions, particularly about the use of the atomic bomb in this case, simply don’t get publicly addressed. In the present day, politics functions largely to generate engagement through enragement, with stories focusing on relatively unimportant developments which divide voters and help only the few who are manufacturing opinions.

“We’re ignoring the big questions,” Cuomo said. “There’s no philosophy. There’s no real talk about what the principles are that matter.” Those in power avoid dealing with key issues “because they’re allowed to make mountains out of molehills—even if it means ignoring actual volcanoes.”

He continued, “When does life begin? Instead of a cheap argument about who respects life, and ‘I’m pro-life’—like anybody’s anti-life—why don’t we deal with the hard part of defining what that actually means and how it’s reflected and what we allow in our society that goes way beyond a single medical procedure?”

Recalling Oppenheimer, he said, “It reminds me of how we have abandoned the aspect of moral responsibility in the name of progress for self-defense or some temporary suggestion of principle or advantage, just like we did” in developing nuclear weapons.

Cuomo concluded that, in lieu of real leaders, we’re “replacing principles and philosophy and methodology with popularity and pressure from opponents.” By avoiding “de minimis divisions,” he advised his viewers, “give yourself a chance of making better determinations going forward.”

Image from ClipSafari.com, a collection of Creative Commons designs.