Skip to content

Critical Mysticism or Critical Ethos? Intercultural Reflections on Stephen Palmquist’s Kant and Mysticism

E. Nelson

Kantian Review December 16, 2020 DOI: 10.1017/s136941542000045x (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed
Topics Mysticism
Key points Argues that Kant's commitment to rationality, ethical personhood, and a 'critical ethos' is in tension with mysticism, and that Kant's understanding of mysticism is inadequate in light of South and East Asian philosophical and religious discourses, indicating a need for an intercultural turn in the philosophy of religion.

Abstract

Abstract This contribution offers a sympathetic historical and intercultural reflection on Stephen Palmquist’s work Kant and Mysticism. It examines (1) the appropriateness of this portrayal of Kant and mysticism in relation to its historical context (which encompasses figures such as Malebranche, Spinoza and Swedenborg), suggesting that Kant is committed to an account of rationality, ethical personhood and a ‘critical ethos’ in tension with mysticism; and (2) the inadequacy of Kant’s understanding of mysticism in the context of South and East Asian philosophical and religious discourses, indicating the need for an intercultural turn in the philosophy of religion.

Comparable studies

Other theoretical and historical papers on mysticism, most cited first.

Explore topics