Mysticism as Theory
Can taking mysticism seriously as a theory of the nature of reality help us solve common philosophical puzzles?
Around 80 percent of philosophers in the English speaking world are metaphysical realists. Some realists may be religious and think the world is created by God, others may be scientific and think it is governed by natural laws, but the commonality is that all realists believe the world to be composed of a set of objects, entities, or laws that are completely independent of human activity. Most of us who have not studied philosophy are also likely realists of some sort; it is quite a widespread philosophical assumption that the world exists independently of what humans do and how humans think. That being said, if we push even a little bit on this theory, we find all kinds of philosophical issues. I will just point to two.
The first was brought up by Hegel in his famous text The Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel reasoned that we need some kind of instrument, such as the scientific method, religious faith, or philosophical reasoning, to grasp the “real stuff” the world is made of. Hegel also pointed out that since we don’t yet have the truth of reality when we begin our investigation, we have no standard to verify which of these instruments is the right one; all we can do is pick an instrument and blindly trust it. We can also see an ethical dimension to Hegel’s concern. If we look out at the vastness of history we find a plethora of different cosmologies and theories arrived at through different methods; all suggesting the “real world” has a different nature and structure. In order to come down on our community’s model of reality as the only true model, we necessarily commit ourselves to the untruth of these past models; propagating the unfortunately popular notion that the modern west is civilized and rational while past cultures are irrational and superstitious.
If we stick with realism as a fundamental theory, it seems we only have two options; try to argue that one particular cosmology is true or throw our hands up and say reality is unknowable. However, I think there is a third option. Mysticism sees fundamental truth as arising out of direct union with God rather than scientific or philosophical analysis. Even scientists and philosophers who are sympathetic to experiencing union with God themselves, often sideline the mystic’s cosmology as an esoteric explanation of an obscure human possibility that has no bearing on the nature of the “real world.” But what if we took mysticism seriously as a philosophical theory about the nature of reality? Could it help us make sense of this problem of a pluralism of cosmologies and the difficulty of justifying one of them over the others?
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to recontextualize to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.