Two Kinds of Mystical Art in the Age of Scientism
Communications in Humanities Research December 31, 2025 DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/2026.ht30969 (opens in new tab) via OpenAlex
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractMysticism, defined as a tradition of direct, private union with ultimate reality, resurges within modern scientistic culture, especially in art. Historically rooted in medieval Christianity and transformed by Romanticism, it reacts against Enlightenment rationalism and scientism. Scientism, based on empirical methods and exclusion of the supernatural, delegitimizes mystical knowledge but also provokes new mystical quests by generating spiritual emptiness and a crisis of meaning. In art, two forms of mysticism emerge: one treats artworks as vehicles of transcendent knowledge about supernatural realities, directly colliding with scientism's epistemic limits; the other locates mysticism in the creative process and private experience without asserting ontological claims, making it more acceptable to scientism but weakening its claim to genuine transcendence.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Mysticism |
| Keywords | Scientism Enlightenment Rationalism Kabbalah Emptiness |
| Key finding | Argues that mysticism resurges in modern scientistic culture as a reaction to rationalism, and in art it takes two forms—one directly challenging scientism's epistemic limits, the other accommodating scientism by focusing on private experience without ontological claims. |
Abstract
The article explores how mysticism resurges within modern, scientistic culture, especially in art. Mysticism is defined as a tradition of direct, private union with “ultimate reality,” distinct from both secret esoteric teachings and institutional religious ritual. Historically rooted in medieval Christianity and transformed by Romanticism, modern mysticism emerges as a reaction to Enlightenment rationalism and scientism. Scientism, grounded in empirical methods and the exclusion of the supernatural, delegitimizes mystical knowledge yet also provokes new mystical quests by generating a sense of spiritual emptiness and crisis of meaning. In art, the author distinguishes two forms of mysticism. One treats artworks as vehicles of transcendent knowledge about supernatural realities and thus directly collides with scientism’s epistemic limits. The other locates mysticism in the creative process and private experience without asserting ontological claims, making it more acceptable to scientism. However, this acceptance is purchased at the cost of weakening mysticism’s claim to genuine transcendence.