How can we tell when a practical philosophy practice is “philosophical” or “mystical”?

Question

I've been thinking lately of the fact that a lot of people, many intellectuals included, pretty much dismiss of any kind of "mysticistic" practice.

I'll put the general definition from Wikipedia for "mysticism":

Mysticism is the practice of religious ecstasies (religious experiences during alternate states of consciousness), together with whatever ideologies, ethics, rites, myths, legends, and magic may be related to them. It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.

The second, highlighted part is more important. So, aside from the stuff that relates to magic, myths, rites, legends, that definition seems very similar to what practical philosophy, or more precisely practical aesthetics (in the context of art as revealer of Nature for example).

I'd like to ask then, how do we separate mysticism from practical philosophy? How do we say which is "legit" philosophically, and which is simply nonsense?

Edit: According to Philip's suggestion, I'd like to emphasize that the practical philosophy I'm talking about is, for example, the sort of philosophy of nature that talks about connection to Nature, like Aristotle's "nous", Kant's (and the rest of the German Idealists) "Genius"/"Intellectual Intuition" via art.

Answer 1

It's an interesting question and an important one. I'll identify your definition of mysticism (the bolded sentence) as Yoga, the art of union with reality.

I'd say that Yoga is practical philosophy while what discursive philosophers do is speculative and theoretical. In physics the theorists tend to be disparaging about the experimentalists but in mysticism it's the other way around.

The idea that what professional philosophers do is practical would raise an eyebrow in mysticism. It is pure theory for the most part and after two millenia of work it is clear that it is not at all practical in respect of results. The mystics have the advantage of access to experimental results, viz. the insights and knowledge you mention.

It is difficult to imagine anything less practical than a purely scholastic philosophy. It just goes around and around in circles with no way to move on.

Separating the wheat from the chaff is difficult in religion and mysticism but probably no more difficult than it is in scholastic philosophy and once you get the idea it is usually fairly easy. The problem is only that it takes some study and effort and many people don't bother on the grounds that they already know before they begin that it's all chaff.

As you say, a lot of people, many intellectuals included, pretty much dismiss any kind of mystic practice. They will never know how to sort the wheat from the chaff. They are theorists not interested in a practical approach. Note the degree of success they achieve in philosophy and their inability to understand it.

In short, mysticism is practical philosophy and what universities call philosophy is not. This is true of both its methods and its results.

EDIT: Mysticism normalises on a 'neutral' metaphysical position. This is easily identifiable where it appears since it requires the use of an unusual technical language. It solves all philosophical problems. It is difficult to see how it could be any more practical. Although it can and has been proved in logic it is not a theory for practitioners but an experimental result.

For these reasons I'd agree with Conifold. The idea that the practice of philosophy may be practical or mystical seems to be a category error.