RE: Temporal lobe epilepsy & religious experience.
September 1, 2021 at 1:39 pm
(This post was last modified: September 1, 2021 at 1:59 pm by vulcanlogician.)
(September 1, 2021 at 1:16 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(September 1, 2021 at 12:58 pm)Ranjr Wrote: Gentle meds totally prevent seizures and auras for me.
If medication would stop someone's visionary experiences, would someone like William James still say that those visions were authentic? I suppose that he would, as he appears to have advocated belief in belief. Or, as Dwight Eisenhower once quipped that it didn't matter to him what religion people had, as long as they had one.
James would be highly suspicious of a vision of God telling people to do things. James starts his investigation from the skeptical position. Namely, we can agree that "visions" have material causes... neurological causes, we'd say nowadays. He does explore the notion of otherworldly influence, but I think his arguments are weak on this account. And (most importantly) his thesis does not depend on God or any otherworldly entity being responsible for such visions. Such visions can be valuable without God.
From this perspective... and acknowledging the strength of skeptical arguments, James asks, "Can these visions be useful to the individual?" Not to dominate others with, but to escape one's own melancholy and despair. Can mystical visions play a transformative role in a person (as in taking them from a state of despair to a state of optimism)? If so, James says they have value. And he explores them in this capacity.
He also doesn't exclude atheists in all this. While the religious use a body of symbols to interpret their experiences (Christ etc.), an atheist can also find meaning in such experiences... merely using a different set of symbols (whatever is meaningful to them). He also, famously explores psychoactive drugs and their ability to induce such experiences. He's a sort of "proto-Tim Leary" in that way.
I approach his work with great skepticism, but the cool thing about James is, he matches my skepticism. At every point along the line, he makes it clear that he understands the skeptical position and even points out its merits. So (unlike Tim Leary) he doesn't get all "Froot Loops." His analysis is very grounded.
I have serious objections to James's ideas, but he's fascinating to read nonetheless.