Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Understanding why mystical paradoxes affirm and then deny features requires having a mystical experience
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Apophatic theology from Pseudo-Dionysius through Maimonides demonstrates that logical analysis of predication limits suffices to generate mystical paradoxes.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Wittgenstein's analysis of ineffability shows paradoxical language arises from grammar straining against conceptual limits, not from privileged experiential access.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The reasons for affirming certain features of mystical experience are accessible only through mystical experience
?
How convincing is this?
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
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.