NAGARJUNA V MYSTERIANISM

 A

Here’s a clear comparison table: Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka vs. Philosophical Mysterians (Cognitive Closure / Mind-Body Limits):

Feature / Aspect	Nagarjuna (Madhyamaka)	Mysterians (Cognitive Closure, e.g., Colin McGinn)
Core Insight	All phenomena are empty of inherent existence (śūnyatā)	Human minds are cognitively closed to certain truths (e.g., consciousness or mind-body explanations)
Nature of Reality / Truth	Ultimate reality transcends conceptual extremes; all is relational	Certain truths exist but are inaccessible to human cognition
Limits Highlighted	Conceptual thought cannot grasp ultimate reality	Human cognitive architecture cannot comprehend certain facts
Method / Approach	Dialectical reductio (prasaṅga) to reveal contradictions	Philosophical argument and analogy (limits of cognitive faculties)
Role of Reason / Mind	Reason shows its own limitations, cannot apprehend absolute	Reason is inherently limited by brain and cognitive structures
Outcome / Attitude	Non-attachment, equanimity, acceptance of emptiness	Epistemic humility; acceptance that some truths are forever hidden
Temporal Scope	Transcends temporal and spatial notions; concerns ultimate reality	Concerned with human epistemic limits here and now
Philosophical Implication	No-essence view; all distinctions are conventional	Certain questions (e.g., qualia, consciousness) may remain unsolvable
Ethical / Practical Implication	Cultivates detachment, compassion, equanimity	Encourages epistemic humility, careful theorizing, and avoidance of overconfidence

Synthesis / Tagline:
"Both Nagarjuna and Mysterians confront the limits of human cognition: one through dialectical emptiness, the other through cognitive closure—highlighting the boundaries of reason in grasping ultimate truth."

---

If you want, I can also make a side-by-side “diagram” showing Nagarjuna’s emptiness vs Mysterians’ cognitive closure as a visual map—it makes the parallel striking and intuitive.

Do you want me to do that?