Abstract

Modern philosophical analyses of mysticism impoverish mysticism with a common understanding that the life and the language of the mystic is a separate category from that of the mystical experience. It is my contention, however, that such an understanding runs counter to what the mystics themselves attest to. ;William James's understanding of mysticism is that it serves as the means towards the circumvention of an individual's religious tradition. This view is contrary to the understanding of mysticism put forth by the sixth century Christian mystic, Dionysius the Areopagite, who stressed the communal nature of the mystical life. Related to this is the analysis of the mystic's language suggested by W. T. Stace. For Stace, the mystic enters into a peculiar mystical state of consciousness, one that is characterized as inherently paradoxical. Because of this, the mystic is "embarrassed" by the language he or she employs. But in contrast, the 13th century Dominican, Meister Eckhart, employs a deliberate apophatic strategy in his use of the paradox. And finally, Steven T. Katz argues that the mystic's life and language "shapes" the mystical experience. But such a view, again, only separates the life and language of the mystic from that of the experience. St. John of the Cross taught that only through a life of love can one come to know God. This is not a contingent relationship for St. John. ;In contrast to these modern philosophical analyses of mysticism, Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophical work can be seen to be in concert with much of what the mystics themselves attest to. Wittgenstein urges one to attend to the "grammar" of a language in order to understand its meaning. Therefore, with an examination and application of Wittgenstein's thought, the philosophical impositions cited above can be avoided. Such an approach is thus more promising to the study of mysticism for it pays attention to the life of the mystic in which the mystic's words ultimately have their meaning.