When we talk about things which are mysterious, or beyond human ken, what do we mean? I would like to point out three different types of mystery, with reference to cause and effect. From this, I will argue that one of these types is essentially mysterious, one is accidentally mysterious, and one is BS.
With regards to cause and effect, the mystery can be either in the cause, in the effect, or in the link between them. I think that when people talk about mysteries simpliciter, or when Aristotle talks about the wonder that drives philosophy, the link between cause and effect is referred to. We see the effect and do not know the cause. There does not have to be anything intrinsic to the situation which makes it thus, and so this is an accidental mystery; we can learn later what the cause is for the effect.
The second type is what I see a lot amongst certain religious circles and artists. I do not indict these groups of people, but those are the circumstances under which I see this "fideistic mystery" as I will call it. This places the mystery in the effect. Either (a) the effect is such that it simply has no explanation, or it would be wrong to try to find one, or (b) there is supposed to be an effect, but I cannot for the life of me see it. Examples of the former are when one tells me that logic doesn't apply to discussions of God, or that it is wrong to investigate matters of faith. Examples of the latter are the supposed wisdom and righteousness of certain communities which are apparently there although inscrutable.
The third kind places mystery in the cause, and this is what I will call "rationalistic mystery". I think this category is ignored oftentimes, but it is important. Rational investigation does not need to dissolve every mystery; there can be mysteries which are supremely rational. I can logically talk about God, talk about God's attributes and creation of the world, and still say that God is essentially beyond knowing and perhaps even beyond speech. This is not something ad hoc as in the case of fideistic mystery. God is not mysterious just because; God is mysterious because an understanding of what God is entails certain restrictions of what can be known and said about God, either due to the (rationally ascertained) limits of our reasoning or the nature of God. I take Plotinus and Kant to be a good examples for this category. One may not agree with them or even like them, but they at least argue for their views and expect rational assessment.
Mysteries simpliciter then can be removed, and there seems to be nothing barring us from doing so if we wish. Rationalistic mysteries cannot be removed and so are the truest mysteries, most worthy of our consideration, but also of our continually probing and testing. Fideistic myteries by their nature cannot establish why we should not test them, and without such testing do not seem to be more than mysteries simpliciter with bouncers.
2 comments:
Very interesting. I wonder if this mystery simpliciter characterization is one that faith-based and artistic communities would agree to, and just what limits (or allowances, if your a glass-half-full kinda person) a faith-based community could have with the rationalistic mystery. Any thoughts?
I don't see why artistic communities should have a problem with it. They have no canon to protect and would seem to appreciate further inquiry. They seem to be mainly rebelling against the overuse of (technical) reason, though often (it seems to me) without understanding the capacity for mystery and awe within (non-technical) reason itself.
The religious communities in question at least have some object of revelation which gives us truth beyond our rational abilities. I don't think that they would like the definition of mystery simpliciter, but it remains that all scriptures have entered into our present world with its rational structures, containing a message that is meant to be rationally understood (I don't know what other kind of understanding there could be, and a message which is not meant to be understood is a poor message).
The problem with the rationalistic mystery, for faith-based communities, is that it doesn't allow for the stability or universal draw which the community needs. First, it probably won't be something accessible or appealing to the average person; Neo-platonism has a remarkably small following in the working class, I would think. Second, rational mysteries can always be questioned, and this would prevent the community from having a single focus.
A fideistic mystery gives a single focus which cannot be moved, and which could be something that appeals to many in the community. However, what it gains in efficacy, it loses in verifiability.
Post a Comment