All perfectly true, in my opinion. You will notice that there is generally a strong animus against 'the mystical' in current philosophy; 'mystical' in this context is a pejorative, to describe those who are incapable of scientific or logical rigour. That is understandable, as the mystical fascinates many people who don't really have any understanding of it. But there are genuine mystics. Some people, myself included, are drawn to them, others see nothing in them. I guess that 'goes with the territory' as the saying has it.

I tend to think of such schools as 'philosophical theology' or maybe 'theosophy' - lower-case 't', to distinguish the general approach from the Theosophical Society. It's very hard to define exactly, but when you encounter the writings of its exponents, there are certain insights and themes that are found in all of them. It is associated with what has been called 'the perennial philosophy' which is the idea that there is a kind of current of mystical truth which flows through all of the individual traditions and finds expressions in the writings of the mystics. (Some classics in that genre are for example Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy, William James The Varieties of Religious Experience, and Huston Smith's World Religions.)

(Incidentally, on a more quotidian note, if you wish to share an Amazon book, click on the 'share' hyperlink which will be found on the right or sometimes underneath the cover illustration, which will provide a short permalink e.g. http://a.co/d/g0Av0aL )

True mysticism is never found without some theology — tim wood

Not true at all. Mystic experiences can occur in the absence of theology. Theology is often built around mystic experiences, but theology doesn't require mysticism.

I agree with this. I also think that philosophy does not require theology or mysticism; but should take both into account, in the phenomenological sense. Philosophy, theology and mysticism are three distinct domains of thought.

True mysticism is never found without some theology
— tim wood

Not true at all. Mystic experiences can occur in the absence of theology. Theology is often built around mystic experiences, but theology doesn't require mysticism. — praxis

Not my thought but a quote from a book. Thereby I can ask for examples. Can you "channel" a mystic experience immune from theology? Neither of us has defined "mystic," but I'm pretty sure that neither of us means the merely mysterious. And a theology equally immune to any mysticism at all?

It seems to me that any of the three, taken "neat," are not what their names respectively profess, but are instead all reduced to a science or nothing at all. But the point is that they're not reducible to each other. Indeed, a general starting theme of the book is that theology, logic, and philosophy are, as Janus observes above, different domains. It (the book) starts with the notion that the dividing lines between the three were, at first, not understood to exist - philosophy taken as being a proper "tool" for theology - and on the failure to solve certain problems, then understood to exist but not at all understood clearly.

To be candid, however, what caught my eye was, "it should not only be respected, but protected against the too frequent assaults of superficial minds." A lot of things should be respected and protected from assaults by superficial minds. We know who we are: I'm such a mind. I appreciate contact, even in old books, with minds that are not so superficial

If, as seems to be true, mystical life is one of the permanent needs of human nature. it should not only be respected, but protected against the too frequent assaults of superficial minds. — tim wood

For me, the mystical is not a need, but a fact of reality. It seems to be part of who we are as persons, not all people, but most people have an inclination or an intuition that seems to point to something beyond our everyday reality.

I wonder about the comment that "...it should be protected against the assaults of superficial minds." It's not only under attack from the assaults of superficial minds, but it's also under attack from those minds that are not so superficial. People who are intelligent, but are misguided by a particular world view put forth by intelligent people.

It seems to me that the biggest threat to truth comes from group think, i.e., not being able to think beyond the group, or beyond my comfort zone. Group think is dangerous, whether it's religious thinking, mystical thinking, or any other kind of thinking. We have to be willing to think for ourselves in spite of what others say, in spite of ridicule or even danger.

Finally, I think that reason or evidence should guide our beliefs, but part of the problem goes beyond these words, because it's much deeper. For me much of the disagreements about some of these issues have to do with what is meant by knowledge, i.e., what it means to have knowledge.

True mysticism is never found without some theology, and sound theology always seeks the support of some philosophy; but a philosophy that does not make room for theology is a short-sighted philosophy, and what shall we call a theology wherein no provision is made for at least the possibility of mystical experience." — tim wood

While I think that theology grew out of mystical experiences, I don't think the mystical is necessarily dependent upon theology, although some mystical experiences clearly are. I've spent a lot of time investigating various mystical experiences, and generally I find little in common with religion. In fact, religion seems to be man's way of trying to explain the mystical, his way of reaching out to the metaphysical, but I find it very deficient.

To be candid, however, what caught my eye was, "it should not only be respected, but protected against the too frequent assaults of superficial minds." — tim wood

That is the entire trick of it, as I see it, to quiet the incessant assault of superficial minds (mostly our own).

Fair enough. The author claims the book is on the history of philosophy, and, part of the point of the book is that those folks weren't clear as to the boundaries of the respective territories of theology, logic, and philosophy; argued the wrong questions from he wrong standpoints, and reached impasse. But it's not an argument I'm making, rather my impression of a book. Clearly you're familiar with it. I'm finding a lot of thought-provoking statements in it, which time permitting, I'll start threads with. I invite you to beat me to it.

Neither of us has defined "mystic" — tim wood

The dictionary definition is that it means 'initiate of the mystery religions'. And they were the various participative religious cults of ancient Greece, such as Orphism, into which it is possible that Plato was initiated. Meaning that Plato is actually a textbook example. Another is Plotinus, whose neo-Platonism was a major source of mysticism, proper, in the Christian traditions.

Philosophy, theology and mysticism are three distinct domains of thought. — Janus

It was not nearly so clear-cut at the time these words were coined. Us moderns are expert at making these kinds of distinctions. I remember reading something from Karen Armstrong, about how in many pre-modern cultures there was no word for 'religion' at all - it was all simply 'law'. There was no concept of 'religion' being a separate or specialised domain of discourse. Newton only ever spoke of 'philosophy' - the term 'scientist' was not really coined until the 1830's, long after Newton. And Newton himself didn't have any sense of their being a conflict between natural philosophy and religious revelation, which occupied most of his later life. But the whole subject area is full of blurry lines and porous boundaries.

In any case within Christianity there are many tensions and even outright conflicts between mystics, theologians, and ecclesiasticals. Meister Eckhardt, arguably the greatest of the medieval mystics, was ultimately censured by the Church - not declared heretical, quite, but found guilty of serious error (many would say, the error of teaching people to be self-reliant.) Many other mystics in both Christianity and Islam often skirted heresy, or were declared heretical and some were even martyred for it.

When I studied comparative religion, I used to call the school I was in 'the department of mysticism and heresy', to distinguish it from the Divinity department.

Mystic experiences can occur in the absence of theology. — praxis

Agreed. Theology and other philosophies whether religious or secular are attempts to explain mystic experience. They aren't in themselves mystic experiences.

Explanations of whatever flavor are an attempt to capture and control the experience. But the experience is a living thing, we can't capture it any more than we can capture the wind. Imagine that we hold a bucket up in the breeze so as to capture the wind. Once the air is contained within the bucket, it's no longer the wind. So it is with all explanations of mystic experience, to capture it is to kill it.

That said, I would agree that one doesn't need to be in total either a mystic or philosopher, one or the other. It's only in the moment that this choice is necessary.

Neither of us has defined "mystic" — tim wood

To me, mysticism is just a fancy word for experience of the real world. All the other stuff are various explanations of the experience. The experience is real, the explanations are symbolic. It's like the relationship between you and your name, or you and your life story etc.

If you want to behold a mystical experience, leave the room where your (say, 10-months old) baby is playing, and look at her face when you return.

What happens in her psyche is the influx of extrinsic, overwhelming joy. The result in her behavior is to be overcome with laughter. Any mystical experience is similar to this. And the notion that there is a difference of kind (perhaps involving distinctions such as natural vs. supernatural) between the various instances of mystical experiences is a confusion between causes and effects. The experience is the same (or very similar), regardless of what is causing it.

To me, mysticism is just a fancy word for experience of the real world. All the other stuff are various explanations of the experience. The experience is real, the explanations are symbolic. It's like the relationship between you and your name, or you and your life story etc. — Jake

This could (should) have been its own thread. At once it's obvious, and one can appreciate both the common and uncommon sense of it. But is it right? It seems it must be all right or all wrong, or both, or something in between! I'm going to stand with my own sense - understanding - of it, on the assumption that I understand my own understanding of it.
'

It was not nearly so clear-cut at the time these words were coined. Us moderns are expert at making these kinds of distinctions. — Wayfarer

Sure, but finer distinctions lead to greater clarity.

It was not nearly so clear-cut at the time these words were coined. Us moderns are expert at making these kinds of distinctions.
— Wayfarer

Sure, but finer distinctions lead to greater clarity. — Janus

Or greater confusion. The author's point - in part, I'm still reading - is that philosophies can lead to dead ends. Philosophies dead long enough to be forgot can rise again - that is, there is a cyclic aspect. And dead ends, singular or cyclic, lead to a fatal skepticism.

Can you explain how finer distinctions could lead to greater confusion (apart from what might be considered to be temporary confusions occasioned by the questioning of presently accepted more or less unexamined paradigms based on more or less inadequate distinctions)? It should be noted I am not arguing for gratuitous distinctions to be drawn; they should be well justified by critical reasoning.