Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

I think I understand that "spirituality" reflects an element in human experience which we all share that is not related to the supernatural.

Now this is interesting, or could be. Are you able/willing to extend this description?

I think you would first have to ask a person who considers themselves to be "spiritual" and gather examples of their spiritual experiences and ask yourself if they were any different than the normal everyday awe and wonder we all get when we look at a sunset or look into the eyes of a puppy!

When I get a warm feeling from hugging my partner, or get excited over some new book, surely this is a stimulus to what others call "spirit". The difference here is that for me there is nothing "supernatural" about it. But it also means that my experience, though unique is not qualitatively different from "spiritual people", except that I have no accretions of the delusions that often seem to accompany their claims.

[Belindi]

I think I understand that "spirituality" reflects an element in human experience which we all share that is not related to the supernatural.

Now this is interesting, or could be. Are you able/willing to extend this description?

I think you would first have to ask a person who considers themselves to be "spiritual" and gather examples of their spiritual experiences and ask yourself if they were any different than the normal everyday awe and wonder we all get when we look at a sunset or look into the eyes of a puppy!

When I get a warm feeling from hugging my partner, or get excited over some new book, surely this is a stimulus to what others call "spirit". The difference here is that for me there is nothing "supernatural" about it. But it also means that my experience, though unique is not qualitatively different from "spiritual people", except that I have no accretions of the delusions that often seem to accompany their claims.

I like that definition. Would you agree that the s word is often used in a judgemental context, pejorative or quite otherwise?

[FrankSophia]

I am rejecting the idea that I could reach the ideal, just as any philosopher would. I am not rejecting the idea that we can approach the ideal. Approaching is the process. As the scientist approaches knowledge, the philosopher approaches wisdom. Gains are tentative and subject to review--forever!

I mean, when it's actualized it ceases to be an ideal...

Wisdom and virtue are a function of experiencing the one, it is not a process but a transformation.

One you're apparently unwilling to actually encounter.

I agree, but I don't think being that 'liberated' is the most productive path. I think some restraint is called for--at least for me it is. His example, like that of Jesus or Socrates, should give people pause and cause them to examine their own actions and motives. I don't there is any cause to discard our cups or to live in a pot, though.

You are suggesting that being productive is your ideal...

Lao Tzu says if you make yourself useful you will be used...

Why is that how you think all should live? We already have rampant global exploitation.

You've already claimed that I have no accord and no distinct life. On your terms, I will do only what the universe and the past dictates. So, I find it odd that you would get angry with people who disagree with you or try so hard to convince them to join you in your dead end beliefs. How can you be angry with folks for doing the only thing they could do, for believing the only thing they could believe?

I'm not angry but you always act on present beliefs so they should be as accurate as possible else you're going to do harm.

I'll gladly accept the judgement of Epictetus as to what the outcome of my hard work in philosophy should be. This is fully rational when you consider that I have concluded that he is wiser than me. I can grow by emulating him because he is greater than me. You evidently can't go this way because you seem to have concluded that nobody is or ever was greater than you (see below).

You don't follow him though because you reject ataraxia...

I feel like I am talking to the ghost of Rush Limbaugh. There are few requirements for a philosopher. I won't try to list them all, but things like intellectual honesty and an attempt to be objective jump to mind. When you look at the world this way, you quickly see that no man can know a materially significant subset of the available knowledge. Nobody can be objective. We are al subject to cognitive bias and prejudice. The philosopher tries to overcome these obstacles, but he knows he can only make progress and get better, never claiming victory.

Thus, one glaring requirement for a philosopher is humility. Look back at the way that @LuckyR and @Pattern-chaser conducted themselves in their discussion with you about free will. Bertrand Russel said something like "the problem with the world is that fools are so damned sure of themselves while the wise have so many doubts." To be wise, you must be humble. If you say you are a sage, you are not wise.

For me humility is just arrogance on its head.

Those I value point at complete naturalness, not a modified artificialness.

[Pattern-chaser]

It seems to me that if you have ever stopped to look at a sunset then you are "spiritual". No supernatural belief needed.
But people want to try to explain things and so gather such experiences under one convenient word, as if nominating them is an explanation.

********************************

I think I understand that "spirituality" reflects an element in human experience which we all share that is not related to the supernatural.

Now this is interesting, or could be. Are you able/willing to extend this description?

I think you would first have to ask a person who considers themselves to be "spiritual" and gather examples of their spiritual experiences and ask yourself if they were any different than the normal everyday awe and wonder we all get when we look at a sunset or look into the eyes of a puppy!

When I get a warm feeling from hugging my partner, or get excited over some new book, surely this is a stimulus to what others call "spirit". The difference here is that for me there is nothing "supernatural" about it. But it also means that my experience, though unique is not qualitatively different from "spiritual people", except that I have no accretions of the delusions that often seem to accompany their claims.

I think that, these days, "supernatural" is just a 'trigger word', whose only purpose is to provoke knee-jerk emotional responses. So, with your permission, I'll sideline that word and continue in a more considered way?

In many ways, I think "spiritual" is used to describe any/all things that are not physical or 'scientific' in nature. Perhaps the "awe" that you describe could be considered so? But it is also used to describe things that are more to do with religious beliefs too. [I use "religious" there in its widest and most all-encompassing meaning, very much not limited to traditional and established religions, and the like.] I can see this leads to problems for you and your own beliefs, to which I intend no challenge.

it also means that my experience, though unique, is not qualitatively different from "spiritual people"

Exactly what I'm saying here.

[FrankSophia]

For the record though the entire point of engaging is that I know this can happen to anyone...

I do not consider myself superior in any way, but I do not assume inferiority either...

For me it's just normal human maturation and everything wrong in society is a result of this being ignored.

[Sculptor1]

I think I understand that "spirituality" reflects an element in human experience which we all share that is not related to the supernatural.

Now this is interesting, or could be. Are you able/willing to extend this description?

I think you would first have to ask a person who considers themselves to be "spiritual" and gather examples of their spiritual experiences and ask yourself if they were any different than the normal everyday awe and wonder we all get when we look at a sunset or look into the eyes of a puppy!

When I get a warm feeling from hugging my partner, or get excited over some new book, surely this is a stimulus to what others call "spirit". The difference here is that for me there is nothing "supernatural" about it. But it also means that my experience, though unique is not qualitatively different from "spiritual people", except that I have no accretions of the delusions that often seem to accompany their claims.

I like that definition. Would you agree that the s word is often used in a judgemental context, pejorative or quite otherwise?

I'm using two S words spiritual and supernatural.

Both can be used pejoratively; but are used but people positively by those trying to believe and convnce others that spirit is a supernatural thing.
For my money attributing such things as supernatural is not helpful, and somewhat risible.

[Sculptor1]

It seems to me that if you have ever stopped to look at a sunset then you are "spiritual". No supernatural belief needed.
But people want to try to explain things and so gather such experiences under one convenient word, as if nominating them is an explanation.

********************************

I think I understand that "spirituality" reflects an element in human experience which we all share that is not related to the supernatural.

Now this is interesting, or could be. Are you able/willing to extend this description?

I think you would first have to ask a person who considers themselves to be "spiritual" and gather examples of their spiritual experiences and ask yourself if they were any different than the normal everyday awe and wonder we all get when we look at a sunset or look into the eyes of a puppy!

When I get a warm feeling from hugging my partner, or get excited over some new book, surely this is a stimulus to what others call "spirit". The difference here is that for me there is nothing "supernatural" about it. But it also means that my experience, though unique is not qualitatively different from "spiritual people", except that I have no accretions of the delusions that often seem to accompany their claims.

I think that, these days, "supernatural" is just a 'trigger word', whose only purpose is to provoke knee-jerk emotional responses. So, with your permission, I'll sideline that word and continue in a more considered way?

It's not MY word. Are you denying that people think it has meaning? And those that claim to be "spiritual" think that they are some how hooked up to supernatural events?

In many ways, I think "spiritual" is used to describe any/all things that are not physical or 'scientific' in nature. Perhaps the "awe" that you describe could be considered so? But it is also used to describe things that are more to do with religious beliefs too. [I use "religious" there in its widest and most all-encompassing meaning, very much not limited to traditional and established religions, and the like.] I can see this leads to problems for you and your own beliefs, to which I intend no challenge.

Nothing I have talked is beyond the physical or beyind the ability of science to describe. What is the case is that things experienced are not well represented by WORDS used by science and physical descriptions. But I think you will agree that pain cannot be conveyed well by scientific descriptions but the mechanisms, both electircal and biochemical are best understood by science than any other method.
"Spiritual" feelings are actually feelings and science as a means of deccribing what is going on in terms of neurones, hormones and so forth may not "FEEL" very spiritual (whatever tha is suppose to mean) but they are all essentiall physical.

it also means that my experience, though unique, is not qualitatively different from "spiritual people"

Exactly what I'm saying here.

[FrankSophia]

I'm using two S words spiritual and supernatural.

Both can be used pejoratively; but are used but people positively by those trying to believe and convnce others that spirit is a supernatural thing.
For my money attributing such things as supernatural is not helpful, and somewhat risible.

We need to drop this notion of the supernatural, there is nothing that exists outside the nature of things.

Spirit is translated from pneuma and thus affiliated with Nous, the universal intellect... Logos is a portion of Nous but the Stoics made it primary and it was popular when John wrote about it.

For me this is an error of cosmology, but if the same reality is intended it's as valid.

If you mentally transcend opposites this is revealed to you, it is not some special phenomena.

The mind stops projecting distinctions so there cease to be any.

[Sculptor1]

I'm using two S words spiritual and supernatural.

Both can be used pejoratively; but are used but people positively by those trying to believe and convnce others that spirit is a supernatural thing.
For my money attributing such things as supernatural is not helpful, and somewhat risible.

We need to drop this notion of the supernatural, there is nothing that exists outside the nature of things.

Spirit is translated from pneuma and thus affiliated with Nous, the universal intellect... Logos is a portion of Nous but the Stoics made it primary and it was popular when John wrote about it.

And you immediately respond with supernatural concepts.
WHo is John?

For me this is an error of cosmology, but if the same reality is intended it's as valid.

If you mentally transcend opposites this is revealed to you, it is not some special phenomena.

The mind stops projecting distinctions so there cease to be any.

??

[FrankSophia]

And you immediately respond with supernatural concepts.
WHo is John?

My point is that it's specifically not supernatural, that it points at a legitimate phenomena.

The empiricist mind refuses to step out of newtonian thinking, yet the brain is a particular vibration of the electron field.

Why is it so difficult to acknowledge it might be a function of the field and not the result of fatty tissue?

[FrankSophia]

Life is electric not inert.

[Sculptor1]

And you immediately respond with supernatural concepts.
WHo is John?

My point is that it's specifically not supernatural, that it points at a legitimate phenomena.

The empiricist mind refuses to step out of newtonian thinking, yet the brain is a particular vibration of the electron field.

Why is it so difficult to acknowledge it might be a function of the field and not the result of fatty tissue?

Yes
Who is John?

[FrankSophia]

Yes
Who is John?

I don't even get why you're asking...

My point of bringing up John 1 is that it conveys essentially Platonic cosmology...

It positions Christ as the demiurge, thus his father is monad...

The text is unlikely to even be written by anyone named John so he couldn't be less relevant...

What I can say is that the gospel and first letter show he has experienced this.

[FrankSophia]

I suggesting that what others say is supernatural is entirely rational.

I'm not bringing it up to make you Christian, mocking the religion is low hanging fruit imo

[FrankSophia]

To be perfectly clear: I think the common application of Christianity is utterly idiotic.

Yet if you know truth you can see it spattered around, so I'd rather highlight that so that maybe followers can be less problematic.

I don't think that trying to get people to drop their whole identity is very practical, but the fact that actually this better aligns with the source material is something that can really improve the situation.

You aren't impressing anyone by pointing out why it's stupid, you just look ignorant to those who know.