Skip to content

Topics Thinkers Changes ContributorsLoading account…

Carmelics

A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

Navigate

Topics
Search
Recent Changes
Contribute
How It Works
Glossary
Thinkers
Contributors
About
Statistics
Terms
Privacy

Database

Statements: —
Perspectives: —
Topics: —

Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

Made within

DC&

Austin

Understanding why mystical paradoxes affirm and then deny... — Carmelics

Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

Home/Skepticism

History Edit See Inverse

Understanding why mystical paradoxes affirm and then deny features requires having a mystical experience

Religious Experience

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

2 reasons against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

?

1.The reasons for affirming certain features of mystical experience are accessible only through mystical experience
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.The reasons for denying those same features as not truly applicable are likewise accessible only through mystical experience
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

2 perspectives

Reason against 1 of 2

?

1.Apophatic theology from Pseudo-Dionysius through Maimonides demonstrates that logical analysis of predication limits suffices to generate mystical paradoxes.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.The via negativa tradition shows trained theological reasoning, not experiential states, historically produced the affirmation-then-denial structure.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reason against 2 of 2

?

1.Wittgenstein's analysis of ineffability shows paradoxical language arises from grammar straining against conceptual limits, not from privileged experiential access.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.If paradoxes were experientially gated, cross-traditional convergence on identical paradoxical structures across isolated mystics would be inexplicable without positing shared linguistic-conceptual constraints.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Strongest counterpoint

Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

Topics

Skepticism Religious Experience

Related

Apophatic theology from Pseudo-Dionysius through Maimonides demonstrates that lo...If paradoxes were experientially gated, cross-traditional convergence on identic...The reasons for affirming certain features of mystical experience are accessible...The reasons for denying those same features as not truly applicable are likewise...

+2 moreShow less

The via negativa tradition shows trained theological reasoning, not experiential...Wittgenstein's analysis of ineffability shows paradoxical language arises from g...

Similar

The reasons for affirming certain features of mystical experience are ...85%Reports of mystical experiences may be paradoxical in the sense of bei...81%The reasons for denying those same features as not truly applicable ar...80%If theistic mystical experiences lead to contradictory results, they c...80%

Source

AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid

View source passageHide passage

But paradox is only natural in mystical discourse: mystics want to affirm something of the nature of what they experienced, but they must utilize language originally designed for phenomenal realities and so must then deny the ascriptions as not actually applicable. Thus, the paradox of affirming something and then denying it is not irrational or nonsense. But we would need to have a mystical experience to see why the features were affirmed and why they are denied as not truly applicable.

Extraction notes

Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 3 (1 for, 2 against)
Edits: 1 edit