1

Is mysticism a confusion of language, in Wittgenstein's sense? You'd have thought it was, especially if it makes any positive claims. But does it not ever "show" things, ever?

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    The SEP article on mysticism, esp. the section on kataphatic and apophatic discourse, provides a brief overview of this topic.
    – Kristian Berry
    Jul 11 at 0:27
  • 1
    It's important to remember that Wittgenstein (in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) had a very narrow definition of language, restricting it to what is true or false. It is in this context that he speaks about silence. See link for an account of this including something about his silence.
    – Ludwig V
    Jul 11 at 8:37
  • 1
    It seems the link in my previous comment doesn't work. It was intended to go to the SEP entry "Ludwig Wittgenstein". Here it is again. plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein
    – Ludwig V
    Jul 11 at 9:27
  • "Even the unsayable (metaphysical, ethical, aesthetic) propositions of philosophy belong in this group—which Wittgenstein finally describes as “things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical” (TLP 6.522)."
    – user66760
    Jul 11 at 15:49
  • I believe mysticism is very much like Caligo. Plus, all roads seem to lead to Rome if you catch me drift.
    – Agent Smith
    Jul 12 at 12:00

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.