I think we I think we read his conclusions probably emphasizing the different things that he said which is why it's a little wishy-washy because he gets to that. He says mystics have no right to claim that we ought to accept the deliverance of their peculiar experiences if we are ourselves outsiders and feel no private call there too. It would be odd mystics might say if such a unanimous type of experience should be should prove to be altogether wrong but tamar this is just your argument yes this is my argument for ghostsYeah at bottom however this would only be an appeal to numbers like the appeal of rationalism the other way and the appeal to numbers has no logical force if
David and Tamler talk about William James’ chapter on mysticism from his book "Varieties of Religious Experience." What defines a mystical experience? Why do they defy expression and yet feel like a state of knowledge, a glimpse into the window of some undiscovered aspect of reality? Is Tamler right that David has a little mystic inside of him just waiting to burst forth from his breast?
Plus – another edition of VBW does conceptual analysis and we’re sticking with ‘c’ words – this time the definitive theory of ‘creepy.’
Sponsored By:
Support Very Bad Wizards
Links: