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?

  • 1
    The SEP article on mysticism, esp. [the section on kataphatic and apophatic discourse](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/#ApopKataMyst), provides a brief overview of this topic. – Kristian Berry Jul 11 '23 at 00:27
  • 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](http://https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/) for an account of this including something about his silence. – Ludwig V Jul 11 '23 at 08:37
  • 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. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/ – Ludwig V Jul 11 '23 at 09:27
  • "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)." –  Jul 11 '23 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 '23 at 12:00

0 Answers0