Imago Dei
Many of my favorite ideas, like existence, are vague. Moreover, it has been my experience that notions of this charmingly vague ilk have the curious property that, when one subjects them to discursive thought or attempts to define them rigorously, one only obscures them further.
Among my favorite vague ideas is that of personhood. As a Catholic, I believe that every person is made in the image of God. Is this not remarkable? What could be more mysterious, and at times more elusive to our understanding, than God?
But one may ask: Has not God revealed Himself to man? To which I reply: God has revealed to man certain things. Does it then follow that man understands God's modus operandi? I should think not!
Similarly, one may know a person, even know him intimately, and glimpse certain facets of his personhood, yet never come any closer to a convincing definition of personhood itself.
It seems to me that personhood, like existence, is too mysterious to be captured by definition. Rather, one must encounter it.
If such mysteries cannot be exhausted by reason, but must instead be encountered, does it follow that the spiritual life requires some degree of mysticism? I do not know the answer to this question, but, as a would-be mystic, I certainly hope so!
But just what does it mean to be a mystic? I have no idea, but I rather like the following characterization, in the spirit of Ray Smullyan: A mystic is one who contemplates the set of propositions equivalent to their own negations. The rationalist holds that this set is empty. The mystic holds that this set is empty if and only if it is not!
There is something remarkably Cusian about this! However, since I am not a mystic, I cannot absolutely vouch for its veracity.