One Answer

  1. Yes, it's over.” If you split the question into two, you get, first, mysticism and rationalism, and second, mysticism and materialism.

    Let's define working definitions. Without going into details, by mysticism we will understand a set of teachings that affirm the possibility of obtaining special, reliable knowledge about the nature of reality by non-rational means (insight, mystical intuition, meeting with angels, etc.) and the special value of this knowledge. Rationalism is a set of teachings that affirm that the most reliable source of reliable knowledge about the world is reason and recognize the value and necessity of rational knowledge. Mod materialism is an ontological doctrine that asserts the primacy of matter in nature.

    The first one is easier. For example, in ancient philosophy, neo-Platonists may well be considered mystics and rationalists at the same time. Among the more modern figures, perhaps the most obvious is Hegel , who seems to be a purely rationalist, but whose ideas were based on mystics like Boehme. So, if you are a Hegel, then yes, it is quite possible to assume that the world obeys the laws of logic, is arranged intelligently and is known by reason, and at the same time that this rational structure of the world was revealed to the mystics of the past in their intuitions, but they still expressed it too allegorically, because they did not have the appropriate language.

    With materialism, too, nothing complicated. Here the easiest way is to turn to the history of Western esotericism and find out what one of its main ideas is. And it consists in the fact that there is no fundamental difference between spirit and matter. And what is there? There are a certain number of intermediate states. But since one thing can be transformed into another in principle, it means that most likely they have the same nature. Which one? One of the possible answers may well be “material “(and there will be gradations like “subtle material”, “dense material”, etc.). We will get variations on the theme of “magical materialism” – why not?

Leave a Reply