In an era defined by relentless optimization and the pressure to constantly "fix" the world, Stephen West of Philosophize This! offers a startling counter-narrative: the most profound engagement with reality may require us to stop willing it into submission. This piece is not a retreat into religious dogma, but a rigorous philosophical defense of "releasement"—a state of being that challenges the modern obsession with efficiency and control. For the busy professional drowning in the noise of constant productivity, the argument that "freedom from the will" is as vital as "freedom of the will" demands immediate attention.
The Trap of Technological Enframing
West begins by anchoring the discussion in the later work of Martin Heidegger, moving beyond the subject-object dichotomy that dominates modern thought. He posits that we live in a world of "technological enframing," where everything is viewed merely as an object to be manipulated for the most efficient outcome. "If the world around us is made up of a bunch of people that have a technological enframing of everything—where every thing and every one is just an object that we need to will ourselves onto, structure, manipulate, and optimize—then what would happen if someone decided there was more to life than doing that all the time?" West asks. This framing is potent because it diagnoses a specific modern malaise: the exhaustion of trying to be the architect of every outcome. By suggesting that the relentless drive to "save the world" through rational utilitarianism might actually obscure a deeper truth, West forces the listener to question the very engine of their daily productivity.
The piece argues that this constant projection of will is not just exhausting, but potentially alienating. West suggests that a "pre-theoretical, more immediate connection with our existence" is not religious nonsense, but a necessary antidote to a world that has forgotten how to simply "let be." This is a bold claim in a culture that equates stillness with laziness. However, critics might note that dismissing the utility of constant optimization ignores the very real material crises that require active intervention. The challenge, as West implies, is finding a balance where action does not require the total domination of the self over the world.
"Is this just a poorly disguised move of a selfish person who's ignoring all of the really important work we have to do of projecting ourselves onto the world and fixing it? Or could this more meaningful connection with the world be something that we're sadly missing in the modern world?"
Reclaiming Mysticism from the Insult
A significant portion of the commentary is dedicated to dismantling the historical stigma attached to mysticism. West draws on the work of philosopher Simon Critchley to argue that the label "mystic" was largely invented in the 1700s by thinkers like Immanuel Kant, who viewed philosophers as the "policemen of thinking" tasked with protecting society from what they saw as dangerous fanaticism. "Critchley thinks this misunderstanding that was taken up by many thinkers from around this time has led to the term 'mystic' being used, at least in philosophy circles, almost as an insult," West explains. This historical context is crucial; it reveals that the dismissal of mysticism was often a political and cultural maneuver to enforce a specific, rationalist worldview, rather than an objective assessment of the experiences themselves.
West emphasizes that the historical figures we now call mystics were not irrational dreamers, but individuals engaged in highly disciplined, rational practices. He points to medieval Christian mystics like St. Teresa of Ávila, who devoted hours to "contemplative prayer and rational meditation," and Jewish Kabbalists who spent years decoding scriptures. "Most of these people were achieving what we now call 'mystical experiences' by devoting themselves to a highly rational engagement with the texts and practices of their time," West writes. This reframing is the piece's strongest intellectual move. It strips away the caricature of the charlatan and replaces it with the image of the dedicated scholar-practitioner. It suggests that the barrier to entry for these experiences is not a lack of intelligence, but a lack of specific, rigorous discipline.
The Phenomenology of the Experience
The commentary then shifts to the nature of the experience itself, citing theologian Bernard McGinn's description of mysticism as either a transcendence of the self into unity or a dissolution of the self to make room for something greater. West describes the resulting emotions as a flood of "peace, to ecstasy, to love, to awe and connection, to even fear." He acknowledges the skeptic's demand for material proof: "Show me the man in the sky with a staff that they're talking to or else I'm tempted to file this one under the delusional monkey category myself!" But he pivots to a phenomenological defense, arguing that the validity of the experience lies in the subjective transformation, not in a material cause. "The reality of this goes on at the level of subjective transformation," West asserts. This is a critical distinction for the modern mind, which often conflates "real" with "materially measurable." By shifting the metric of truth to the depth of the internal shift, West opens a door for secular individuals to engage with these concepts without adopting a specific theology.
Critics might argue that relying on subjective experience risks solipsism, where personal feelings are elevated above shared, verifiable reality. Yet, West's argument is not that these experiences prove the existence of a deity, but that the experience itself is a profound human phenomenon worthy of study. He challenges the listener to consider: "Is that experience that I'm having not real? Is it less real than the objects that are in the world?" This question strikes at the heart of the modern crisis of meaning, suggesting that our current materialist framework may be too narrow to capture the full spectrum of human consciousness.
"The validity of this type of experience comes down not to whether it connects to some cause in the material world. The reality of this goes on at the level of subjective transformation."
Bottom Line
Stephen West's commentary succeeds in decoupling mysticism from superstition, recasting it instead as a rigorous, rational discipline of "letting-be" that offers a necessary counterweight to the modern obsession with control. The piece's greatest strength is its historical reclamation of the mystic as a disciplined thinker rather than a delusional dreamer, though it leaves the reader with the difficult task of integrating this passive receptivity into an active, high-stakes world. The ultimate takeaway is that true freedom may not be the ability to will the world into shape, but the capacity to let the world reveal itself.