How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science
Chris Letheby, Jaipreet Mattu, Eric Hochstein
January 1, 2024 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-65790-0_8 (opens in new tab) via OpenAlex
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThe authors argue for retaining mystical concepts in psychedelic science, countering critics who would abandon them. They contend that critiques of the pro-mystical-concepts position can be resolved through conceptual clarification and recognizing basic distinctions. The paper aims to end the "mysticism wars" between researchers who employ mystical concepts to describe psychedelic experiences and those who do not, siding with the former on grounds that there are no good reasons to abandon such concepts and plenty of good reasons to keep them.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Topics | Mysticism |
| Keywords | Art Psychology Psychoanalysis Philosophy |
| Citations | 4 |
| Key finding | Argues that there are no good reasons to abandon mystical concepts in psychedelic science and that critiques of their use can be resolved through conceptual clarification and recognizing basic distinctions. |
Abstract
Hochstein try to put an end to the “mysticism wars,” by which they mean the battle between psychedelic researchers who hold that mystical concepts ought to be employed in attempts to describe and understand psychedelic experiences and those who do not hold this. Letheby, Mattu, and Hochstein side with the former and do so on the grounds that (as they put it), “there are no good reasons to abandon mystical concepts in psychedelic science, and plenty of good reasons to keep them.” At bottom, they contend that critiques of the pro-mystical-concepts view can be solved via clarifying concepts and recognizing basic (though significant) distinctions.