Page 173 [173]
OCR
MYSTICISM AND RATIONALITY. A NEOPLATONIC PERSPECTIVE ——~o » —_—_ GERD VAN RIEL ABSTRACT It is often argued that later Neoplatonists, and especially Proclus and Damascius, were mystics rather than philosophers, meaning that, despite their rational philosophical endeavours, they ultimately engaged in an irrational encounter with the divine. This claim is easily made on the basis of the emphasis these authors put on theurgy, on worshipping the gods as instances of the One ineffable principle, etc. This contribution aims to challenge overly facile views of Damascius’ mysticism. Starting from explicit references to the need to find the right balance between theurgy and philosophy (in Damascius’ Vita Isidori and in his Phaedo commentary) and studying Damascius’ account of the ascent towards the highest principle, I argue that mysticism in this case is the outcome of a thoroughly rational project, which explores the limits of rational discourse and which, in its mystical experience, never fails to account for the mystical experience in a rational way. When Europe was trembling—as it always seems to be doing—at the beginning of the 20" century, various attempts were made to uncover ideology, unmask nonsensical but genuinely dangerous language, and allow scientific rationality to prevail as a safe haven in which the distinction between true propositions and nonsense could be made. Today, I have to add, a similar nonsensical discourse seems to have taken the lead in Europe, driven not so much by ideology but by populistic tenets, and the outcome seems to be the same all over again: the detriment of the most vulnerable people—will we ever learn? In any event, in this early 20'*-century endeavour to unmask nonsensical language, Wittgenstein’s Tractatus played a major role. He provided philosophers and scientists with a helpful tool to demarcate the boundaries + 171 + Daréczi-Sepsi-Vassänyi_Initiation_155x240.indb 171 6 2020.06.15. 11:04:19
