The Philosopher and the Mystic

Academic philosophy and mysticism do not go hand in hand. One of the first subjects in any philosophy course in the analytic tradition is logic. Students are taught the strict rules of reasoning, as applied by philosophers for about 2500 years. Students are also taught that every philosophy must comply with these rules.

These strict rules of logic are many times at odds with what mysticism teaches us. One of the foundation rules of 'proper thinking' is that there can be no internal contradiction, e.g. either A or not A - there is no third option. Mysticism, however, unites the dualism of opposites into a wider embrace, a higher truth.

As I wrote earlier, academic philosophy is forced through the politics of funding by governments to stick to the accepted rules of scientific logic. Mystical philosophy can therefore not be taught at university level, besides in neutral, non engaging, phenomenological way.

One of the questions to be asked is whether philosophy can be merged with mysticism. Can the philosopher and the mystic be one and the same person?

In classical Indian Philosophy, tension between religion and reason is not as pronounced as in the West. Reason and religion were in a constant debate, which has led to a philosophy with clear strands of mysticism.

Philosophy and mysticism have been separated in the Western tradition since the beginning of philosophy. Early Greek philosophy contained some kernels of mystic thought, but slowly but surely, mysticism has disappeared from the philosophical landscape.

Can a truly mystical philosophy exist? The problem with mysticism is that anything seems to be allowed and every uterance can be true, as there are no rules concerning how to determine what is true and what is not. But maybe, the strict rules of logic accept to little as true knowledge? Many people find strength and inspiration in the mystic realm. The big question to be asked next is what is truth anyway? Isn't truth just whatever complies with basically arbitrary rules?

The Occult in Modern Culture

The occult - literally the hidden - plays a very minor role in cotemporary society. This is , however, only a recent phenomenon as esotericism has played an important role in Western culture until the early twentieth century. Several well known artists such as Mondriaan, Duchamp and Kandinsky were heavily influenced by esoteric traditions. Nowdays, believers in occultism are put in the same category as those who believe that Elvis is still alive. Occultism has come down in the world and the most important cause of this, according to Gibbons (2003), the meeting between the Beatles and the Maharashi Mahesh Yogi in 1967 and the subsequent mass-popularisation and vulgarisation of esotric knowledge. This popularisation of esotericism is commonly known as New Age.

The explosion of New Age as a social movement and vulgarisation of the estoric knowledge is most likely one of the reasons why esotericism is now not acknowledged as one of the major sources of Western culture.

During a recent visit to Poland I came across some nice examples of esoteric symbolism. This photo is taken at Malbork castle, a former stronghold of the Teutonic knights. This is a detail of a headstone showing some Masonic symbols. The Teutonic knights were a crusading order of knights under Roman Catholic religious vows.

Their christianity obviously did not prevent them from using occult symbolism, a combination which nowdays would be met with great suspicion.
The serious study of esotericism unveils forces within the history of Western culture that contemporary cultural studies ignore. Whether you are a believer or not, the occult can not be ignored.
Some further reading:

• For some excellent studies in Western esotericism, read Esoterica, a free online scholary journal.
• Tom Gibbons, The occult and early modernism, Quadrant (November 2003), p. 82-84.
  

Academic Philosophy

I have been studying philosophy at university level for eight years now. See my previous Blog,The Philosohy Race, on why I have been so slow :)

At the odd occasion, however, I doubt whether I should actually continue studying. Studying a university degree and having a full time job is quite a task, which does not leave much time for philosophical reflection outside the curriculum. The 'train' relentlessly keeps on going and there is simply no time to stop along the way and explore some side avenues.

Sometimes I am also disenchanted with academic philosophy as it tends to be extremely technical and tedious. Although I understand that issues can become complicated and convoluted - specially with 2500 years of history behind them - a philosopher should be able to break free from these bounds and create new philosophy.

There are thus two kinds of philosophy. Passive philosophy: the reflection upon what has been written and the subsequent academic analysis of this; and active philosophy: the creative process of producing new philosophy.

One of the problems of contemporary philosophy is that it is part of academia and therefore dependent upon government funding. To be be able to continually justify this funding, academic philosophy has become almost like a science, rather than a creative art.

Looking around the media landscape we see pop stars and movie actors proclaiming their philosophy on many subjects. It is interesting to note that one of the first major philosophers also was an artist - a stone mason - proclaiming his philosophy to his fellow Athenians. Academic philosophers of today still use his thoughts as a source but are a long way from his influence upon society.

But Socrates was not loved by most of the Athenians, as he was sentenced to death because he supposedly had a negative influence on the youth of Athens. Are academic philosophers afraid to come out of their ivory tower and join the social debate? Why should we rely on pop stars, actors and politicians as our beacons in life? Philosophy should go back to the market place!

. . . Thus spoke Zarathustra and left his cave, glowing and strong like a morning sun. (Friedrich Nietzsche)

The Philosophy Race

I have a little book by Ludwig Wittgenstein which contains many wonderful aphorisms. One of my favourite is:

Those who are able to walk the slowest win the philosophy race, or those who reach the goal last (My translation from German). Luwig Wittgenstein, 1938.

I recognise myself in this aphorism, as I am the world's slowest philosophy student :)

There is a kernel of wisdom in this aphorism, as it implies that philosophy can only be digested very slowly.

"How do you eat an elephant?" - "Bit by bit."

Peter

The Epistemology of Religious Experience

The question of the epistemology of religious experience deals with the question whether information obtained through religious experiences can be considered valid knowledge. For a brief introduction into different forms of religious experience, see my paper on that subject.

Information obtained through religious experiences, which I shall further refer to as Revelation, is not considered valid knowledge in contemporary society mainly because the information obtained through revelation can not be verified. Religious experience is thus a very personal experience and unique knowledge, only available to the person receiving the revelation. The receiver of the information is the only one who is able to interpret the revelation and communicates it as thus to the wider world.

In pre-industrial society power was vested in the intermediaries between the transcendent and the immanent. The Latin word Pontifex (priest) illustrates this beautifully as it also means 'bridge'.

Knowledge gained through revelation is unique and invests power into the person receiving that knowledge as they are the only ones capable of interpreting the information. Knowledge in this sense is esoteric -- only available to a small group of people.

Empirical philosophy -- in combination with rationalism has revolutionised human knowledge of the material world. This combination has been an important and powerful tool to

Where does this all leave revelation? Can we simply say that revelation is not relevant and that religious experiences are mere delusions?

Because revelation is always esoteric knowledge, every experience is interpreted different -- depending on the cultural and psychological dispositions of the person receiving the revelation. An important question to be asked is why a Hindu does not receive revelations concerning Jesus Christ or any other cross cultural experiences?

Religious experiences are particular and esoteric. In a society where knowledge is available to anyone through empiricism (although this is not completely true as we do not all have a particle accelerator in our backyard) the Pontifex has lost his power over society as the sole interpreter of knowledge.

The consequence of this, however, is that we have thrown the baby with the bathwater by ignoring religious experience as a valid source of knowledge.

I believe that religious experience can be a valid source of information to make decisions about non material things. It can people guidance about their life, which can have a very profound impact on their lives in the 'real' world. Religious experiences also have an effect on how we interpret the material world which shapes our world views.

Why a Weblog?

This weblog is the more informal part of my website where I can collect my thoughts and by writing sort out the debris of miscellaneous thoughts in my mind. My website contains a collection of articles and essays on different subjects. This blog is also a way of developing ideas for new work and make connections between existing work.

The other reason I think a weblog is a good idea is because I am currently studying Philosophy at Monash University. Studying part time and working full time can be hard at times. There is just not enough time to explore topics. It is like sitting on a train, driving through beautiful countryside. But the train does not stop to be able to explore some of the interesting things along the way. This is how I feel about studying as well. I hope that through writing some of my personal thoughts down this way I can expand on my philosophical thinking and maybe one day revisit these thoughts . . .