{"id":440,"date":"2016-02-28T19:08:27","date_gmt":"2016-02-28T19:08:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/teachingblogs.history.qmul.ac.uk\/hst6347\/?p=440"},"modified":"2016-08-19T05:06:11","modified_gmt":"2016-08-19T05:06:11","slug":"mystic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.history.qmul.ac.uk\/philosophy\/2016\/02\/28\/mystic\/","title":{"rendered":"Mystic"},"content":{"rendered":"

Maya Bhogal took the \u2018Philosophical Britain\u2018 module at Queen Mary in 2016. In this post she writes about \u2018mystic\u2019 as a\u00a0philosophical keyword.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Today, when someone says the word mystic, the most common connotation might be the figure of Mystic Meg, astrologist and psychic for The Sun<\/em>. As in the picture below, Meg is often depicted holding a crystal ball in an ethereal setting. She is the archetype of a\u00a0popular understanding of the word mystic. However, the original ‘mystics’ would be somewhat puzzled over this definition.<\/p>\n

\"Mystic

Mystic Meg with her crystal ball.<\/p><\/div>\n

The online Oxford English Dictionary defines a mystic as a person who can grasp spiritual truths; i.e. something beyond the realm of knowledge. This definition perhaps might explain why Meg is adorned with the title of \u2018Mystic\u2019 beyond its mellifluent alliteration obviously. Through her (alleged) ability as a psychic to tell the future, she is able to transcend the boundaries of her own world in order to gain knowledge or insight into another realm.<\/p>\n

However, earlier definitions of the word mystic, with roots in fifteenth century ecclesiastical history, define a mystic as an exponent of mystical theology. So traditionally, mystics were a phenomenon related to religion and God. The most prominent expounder of the mystic as a religious \u2018experience\u2019 was William James, in his influential work The Varieties of Religious Experience <\/em>(1902).[i]<\/a> He writes that it is an experience which has united many world religions, from Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and most prominently in Britain, Christianity. Yet somewhat paradoxically,\u00a0he also highlights the view that these experiences are so profound that they cannot be communicated through ordinary language, making\u00a0them very isolated and individualistic experiences.<\/p>\n

The ensuing\u00a0definition by the OED, says\u00a0that in its latter usage, a mystic was a person who seeks union with, or absorption into God. We can see this understanding of the word emerge around 1856 in relation to the Christian Mystics. When this is woven with James’ idea\u00a0of the mystical \u2018experience\u2019, we can understand the nineteenth century philosophical understanding of mysticism as the ineffable experience of becoming one with God. Talking about mysticism coincided with the rise in spiritualism in Britain.<\/p>\n

In 1848, Kate and Margaret Fox in New York used a primitive noggin to attempt to establish a dialogue between the spirit of Charles B. Rosma, who they believed had been haunting their home and after excavating their cellar, they found what they believed to be his skeleton. This episode, for many scholars represented\u00a0the turning point where spiritualism began to gain a real following. By 1853 there were over 100,000 converts to spiritualism in the United States, and by 1900 the trend had caught on across the Atlantic with another 100,000 followers.<\/p>\n

Looking at a Google Ngram viewer, we can see that the use of the word \u2018mystic\u2019 in books began to greatly increase from this moment onwards. A facet of spiritualism is the belief\u00a0that a medium has the ability\u00a0to channel a spirit which is separate from themselves, often allowing them to be overcome by that person. This draws distinct parallels with the mystic experience\u00a0which is defined by the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy as:<\/p>\n

\u201cA (purportedly) super sense-perceptual or sub sense-perceptual unitive experience granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of sense-perception, somatosensory modalities, or standard introspection.\u201d[ii]<\/strong><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"Google

Google Ngram depicting the use of the word ‘Mystic’ from 1800 – 2000<\/p><\/div>\n

As the Google Ngram viewer shows, writings about \u2018mysticism\u2019 reached their peak at the beginning of the twentieth century. Evelyn Underhill was an influential figure during\u00a0this period with her 1911 book, Mysticism: A Study of the Nature and Development of Man\u2019s Spiritual Consciousness,<\/em>\u00a0amongst other works. Mysticism\u00a0<\/em>in particular\u00a0<\/em>became a staple introductory text to the topic\u00a0for the following fifty years.[iii]<\/a> In it, she argues that mysticism is \u201cthe expression of the innate tendency of the human spirit towards complete harmony with the transcendental order.\u201d Following the tendency to regard mysticism as an ineffable experience, Underhill expounds the means to achieve this experience, rather than the nature of the experience itself. Underhill\u2019s extensive writings about mysticism were influential to the aforementioned William James amongst others as she defines it as, explicitly a transcendental experience.<\/p>\n

\"

A rather saintly portrayal of Evelyn Underhill by Ron Dart, no doubt to emphasise her transcendental connection<\/p><\/div>\n

However, Bernard McGinn argues that this nineteenth and early twentieth century definition of mysticism is not accurate. McGinn, and later Ralph Norman, contend that during the Romantic era, mysticism was an academic endeavour, predominantly pursued by German Romantics. They interpreted mystical texts in the context of romanticism, thereby\u00a0imbuing it with their own notions of creating unity and harmony between the self and nature to overcome the evils of modernity. \u201cIt became a form of religious romanticism concentrated on the themes of individual subjectivity and heightened emotional or psychological states.\u201d Norman instead argues that the only, and correct context\u00a0for interpreting these texts is within the Christian doctrine,\u00a0because Christian mysticism is filled with expressions of theological reflection.[iv]<\/a><\/p>\n

The definition of the \u2018mystic\u2019 continued to be misconstrued throughout the majority of the twentieth century. This is evident in Steven Katz\u2019s collection of essays Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis<\/em> (1978). The authors of these essays had all relegated the importance of the primary texts of mysticism in their analysis. These sources normally range from the Hellenistic to the medieval period. Denys Turner argues that the modern interpretations of mysticism have essentially invented the word and that \u201cwe persist on reading back the terms of that conception upon a stock of mediaeval authorities who knew of no such thing.\u201d[v]<\/a>\u00a0On such a reading, established mystics from the modern period, including\u00a0Meister Eckhart<\/a>,\u00a0John of the Cross<\/a>,\u00a0Julian of Norwich<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Dionysius the Areopagite<\/a>\u00a0are not in fact mystics at all!<\/p>\n

After the realisation of this misunderstanding,\u00a0attention for philosophers of mysticism shifted back to the primary texts, revealing what traditional believers in mystic theology actually ascribed to. The word mystikos <\/em>is derived from the Greek myo<\/em> meaning \u201cto close\u201d especially ones eyes. When we apply this understanding to the Hellenistic mystical text, Mystical Theology<\/em> written by Dionysius the Areopagite, it becomes apparent that the pursuit of the mystic was understanding the philosophy behind the idea of an ineffable God, who is hidden from us and therefore beyond our understanding<\/p>\n

\"Dionysius

Dionysius the Areopagite<\/p><\/div>\n

This definition of mysticism then, would arguably make Thomas Aquinas one of the most important Christian mystics as he advocated the theory of negative theology. His\u00a0theory\u00a0argues that Christians should not understand God\u00a0by what he is, but rather what he is not. Aquinas’ teachings are fundamental in Christian theology, which views the essential nature of God as being beyond the capacity of the human mind.<\/p>\n

Modern notions of mysticism tend to be based on the idea of the parting of ways between the theologian and the mystic, but the traditional view does not separate the two. Russian philosopher,\u00a0Vladimir Solovyo argued that mysticism was the remaining aspect of knowledge which reconciled the speculative gaps between rationality and empiricism. In his work\u00a0Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge,<\/em> he rejects rationality and empiricism as the only foundations of knowledge, arguing for mysticism to provide a\u00a0more transcendental understanding of philosophy. Interestingly, the author of this article, writing within the framework of the modern conception of mysticism, argues that it is important to distinguish this from the term mysticism as it denotes to a reflection on that connection with the transcendental. By pursuing such a line of thought, he seems<\/p>\n

This is somewhat in line with the direction of early theological and philosophical discussions of mysticism, which, according to Jerome Gellman, do not obey traditional laws of logic and reason.<\/p>\n

In modern times, mysticism, with its association as an experience that connects one with the divine or supernatural knowledge, has been considered an irrational and superstitious pursuit. Many have dismissed it as a \u201cqueer\u201d phenomenon of sociological or psychological behaviour as it does not operate within modern conceptions of epistemology.[vi]<\/a> Interestingly, Grace Jantzen has argued that a stress on the concept of mystic experiences as ineffable have largely been an attempt to consign it as an \u201cirrational\u201d belief and remove it from rational discourses into the realm of emotions.<\/p>\n

As such, discussion regarding mysticism has dwindled back to the levels of the eighteenth century. The common perception of the mystic as an eccentric fortune-telling figure, but ultimately not someone (one should hope!) that people take too seriously, appears to be a huge anti-climax in the history of mysticism, after having been a philosophy that essentially championed a huge section of Christian theology.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Further Reading<\/p>\n

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Mysticism<\/a><\/p>\n

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Dionysius the Areopagite<\/a><\/p>\n

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography – Evelyn Underhill<\/a><\/p>\n

William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, <\/em>(1902).<\/p>\n

Ralph Norman, “Rediscovery of Mysticism” in, ed. Gareth Jones,\u00a0The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology,\u00a0<\/em>(Blackwell Publishing Ltd: Oxford, 2004).<\/p>\n

Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism: A Study of the Nature and Development of Man\u2019s Spiritual Consciousness<\/em>, (1911)<\/p>\n

\n

References<\/p>\n

[i]<\/a> William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, <\/em>(1902).
\n[ii]<\/a> http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/mysticism\/
\n[iii]<\/a> Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism: A Study of the Nature and Development of Man\u2019s Spiritual Consciousness<\/em>, (1911)
\n[iv]<\/a> Ralph Norman, \u201cRediscovery of Mysticism\u201d
\n[v]<\/a> Denys Turner, The Darkness of God: Negativity in Christian Mysticism<\/em>, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995),
\n[vi]<\/a> Constantinos Athanasopoulos, \u201cThe Validity and Distinctness of the Orthodox Mystical Approach in Philosophy and Theology and Its Opposition to \u2018Esse ipsum subsistens\u2019\u201d, Revista Portuguesa de Filosfia, <\/em>(68:4, 2012).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Maya Bhogal took the \u2018Philosophical Britain\u2018 module at Queen Mary in 2016. In this post she writes about \u2018mystic\u2019 as a\u00a0philosophical keyword.<\/em><\/p>\n

Today, when someone says the word mystic, the most common connotation might be the figure of Mystic Meg, astrologist and psychic for The Sun<\/em>. As in the picture below, Meg is often depicted holding a crystal ball in an ethereal setting. She is the archetype of a\u00a0popular understanding of the word mystic. However, the original ‘mystics’ would be somewhat […]
Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophical-keywords"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.history.qmul.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/440","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.history.qmul.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.history.qmul.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.history.qmul.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.history.qmul.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=440"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.history.qmul.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/440\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":848,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.history.qmul.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/440\/revisions\/848"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.history.qmul.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.history.qmul.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.history.qmul.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}