Philosophy Discussion Forums

chewybrian wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2023, 11:20 am When did I read something similar from Socrates? Oh, now I remember-- never!

I mean, Socrates spent his how life proving to people how stupid they were, that's why they killed him.

Why are you so insistent on confining people to a box?

You're Stoic aren't you?

This is precisely why it faded out.

spent his whole life*

Lagayscienza wrote
It may be an indication of my own limitations, but I have trouble getting my head around this section of the middle area of the spectrum. If one does not believe in the supernatural then surely one is an atheist, no? What does it mean, what could it mean, to be a “spiritual” atheist? Is it just trying to keep a foot in both camps? Is there a way to be a spiritual atheist and still maintain a straight face? Are there any spiritual atheists here who could tell us how they manage it?

Look at it like this: You have essentially been "read into" the beliefs that stand in your way toward any meaningful affirmations. It is not as if the world and all of its depth wears all of this on its sleeve. You have to now read yourself out of this doxastic setting it took so long to enculturate. This is about beliefs of your everydayness. The task of rising out of this toward an understanding that can validate your, well, your otherwise compromised spirituality is to read your way out. This begins with Kant, sorry to say, but Kant comes before Heidegger, and Husserl before Heidegger, and on back to Kant. Why Kant? Because it is very likely you are held within a certain naturalistic attitude that has to turned on its head, and this ain't easy to to do...at all!
Kant's Copernican Revolution is the first step toward liberating yourself from the norms of paying taxes, walking the dog and thinking wisdom is something Neil DeGrasse Tyson says.

The next step is getting beyond Kant.. Unless, that is, you thought the matter could be addressed in a glib response to a post. This is the kind of thing that requires time and one has to really care about fundamental religious issues. One has to be a bit like Kierkegaard who loses sleep over basic questions. For me, the original question that that cannot be rationalized away but is at the very foundation of religious possibility is, why are born to suffer and die? This is something Kant is terrible at. One might turn to Wittgenstein's Tractatus in his disavowal of talk about metaphysics. Here, the question throws one into faith, resigned to the impossibility of talking about such a thing. But Wittgenstein was far too committed to positivism, the idea that what can be said must be said clearly or not at all. But Husserl, now there is a beginning. He was, of course, not a religious writer at all, but he made the terms for discovery of a method for seeing beneath the veil of normalcy the center of philosophical concern.

One has to first realize, however, the Kantian turn toward the subject and the way the world is made in the perceptual act itself. This is a powerful move away form the presumption of science into metaphysics (essentially its declaration that one need not bother). Metaphysics is a study of the threshold of spirituality and familiarity, one might say.

What you call spiritual atheism is the deliverance from historical fictions into a proper analytic of our existence. Atheism itself is just more bad metaphysics. One must approach human existence as a scienctist approaches her empirical world: carefully, and with painstaking detail. This is Kant, Kierkegaard, Husserl, and on and to greatness with the post modern French Turn, so called. Not many have the patience or the caring to pursue this. But if you really want to understand spirituality, this is the only way: tons of deprogramming to counter the working assumptions that condition everyday engagement. Not even remotely easy.

What we have is a claim that peak experiences (experiences of "oneness") make it possible to validly comment on non-religious spirituality. Also an argument for philosophy to be a matter of kinaesthetic learning rather than more dry approaches, basically what Hesse was saying in the 1960s.

It is elitist poppycock. Oneness can be achieved via analytical approaches. That kind of oneness might not be appreciated by esotericists, but mystics are hardly the arbiters of existence. Other perspectives existm and matter.

It's one thing to have experiences of oneness, another to learn from them. Not everyone learns because they attach their ego to their capacity for such experiences. Anyone who has actually learned the lessons of transcendent experiences would not be bad-mouthing others.

FrankSophia wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2023, 7:49 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2023, 4:43 am I asked you to site a claim you made about the content of John.
It's very simple

Read the text dude.

You did not cite anything you claimed

It's rather a shame that this thread has degenerated into a scat fight about mystical doctrine and the relevance and meaning of ancient texts. The topic was posted in the hope of discussing the question of whether an atheist could practice and reap the benefits of meditation, or whether that would entail some sort contradiction. It has already logged up 11 pages of discussion (now bogged down in this scat fight) so there must have been some interest in the topic. That is gratifying. Let's hope it can get back on track.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2023, 2:04 pm

Lagayscienza wrote
It may be an indication of my own limitations, but I have trouble getting my head around this section of the middle area of the spectrum. If one does not believe in the supernatural then surely one is an atheist, no? What does it mean, what could it mean, to be a “spiritual” atheist? Is it just trying to keep a foot in both camps? Is there a way to be a spiritual atheist and still maintain a straight face? Are there any spiritual atheists here who could tell us how they manage it?

Look at it like this: You have essentially been "read into" the beliefs that stand in your way toward any meaningful affirmations. It is not as if the world and all of its depth wears all of this on its sleeve. You have to now read yourself out of this doxastic setting it took so long to enculturate. This is about beliefs of your everydayness. The task of rising out of this toward an understanding that can validate your, well, your otherwise compromised spirituality is to read your way out. This begins with Kant, sorry to say, but Kant comes before Heidegger, and Husserl before Heidegger, and on back to Kant. Why Kant? Because it is very likely you are held within a certain naturalistic attitude that has to turned on its head, and this ain't easy to to do...at all!
Kant's Copernican Revolution is the first step toward liberating yourself from the norms of paying taxes, walking the dog and thinking wisdom is something Neil DeGrasse Tyson says.

The next step is getting beyond Kant.. Unless, that is, you thought the matter could be addressed in a glib response to a post. This is the kind of thing that requires time and one has to really care about fundamental religious issues. One has to be a bit like Kierkegaard who loses sleep over basic questions. For me, the original question that that cannot be rationalized away but is at the very foundation of religious possibility is, why are born to suffer and die? This is something Kant is terrible at. One might turn to 's Tractatus in his disavowal of talk about metaphysics. Here, the question throws one into faith, resigned to the impossibility of talking about such a thing. But Kierkegaard was far too committed to positivism, the idea that what can be said must be said clearly or not at all. But Husserl, now there is a beginning. He was, of course, not a religious writer at all, but he made the terms for discovery of a method for seeing beneath the veil of normalcy the center of philosophical concern.

One has to first realize, however, the Kantian turn toward the subject and the way the world is made in the perceptual act itself. This is a powerful move away form the presumption of science into metaphysics (essentially its declaration that one need not bother). Metaphysics is a study of the threshold of spirituality and familiarity, one might say.

What you call spiritual atheism is the deliverance from historical fictions into a proper analytic of our existence. Atheism itself is just more bad metaphysics. One must approach human existence as a scienctist approaches her empirical world: carefully, and with painstaking detail. This is Kant, Kierkegaard, Husserl, and on and to greatness with the post modern French Turn, so called. Not many have the patience or the caring to pursue this. But if you really want to understand spirituality, this is the only way: tons of deprogramming to counter the working assumptions that condition everyday engagement. Not even remotely easy.

Thank you, hereandnow. This is a really intersecting post. I want to read it more carefully. At first glance, though, it seems I need to read more Kant, Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein and some Husserl because whereof I cannot speak, thereof I must remain silent. Heidegger I won't read more of. To me he's just incomprehensible - his writing sounds like nonsense to me. But that may be just an indication of my own limitations.

*sp ...interesting...

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2023, 8:46 pm It's rather a shame that this thread has degenerated into a scat fight about mystical doctrine and the relevance and meaning of ancient texts. The topic was posted in the hope of discussing the question of whether an atheist could practice and reap the benefits of meditation, or whether that would entail some sort contradiction. It has already logged up 11 pages of discussion (now bogged down in this scat fight) so there must have been some interest in the topic. That is gratifying. Let's hope it can get back on track.

Sorry for my part in that, apparently a lot of people around here have deep-seeded religious hangups.

I was trying to drag the sources out of that context, but no one is mature enough here.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2023, 6:02 pm You did not cite anything you claimed

What do you even want me to cite at this point? I don't remember.

I'm unclear how doing so wouldn't be an appeal to authority, but what is most frustrating is I didn't even direct anything at you originally... you've just decided to butt in without actually contributing anything.

What philosopher cites sources? You want a display of knowledge not wisdom, try a science forum.

FrankSophia wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2023, 8:10 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2023, 4:43 am I asked you to site a claim you made about the content of John.
It's very simple

Seriously, why would I even want to engage you further?

[ad hominem cheap shot removed]

Read literally any explanation of the Demiurge not from Gnosticism and compare to John 1 and it is plain they're talking on the same.

Fixating on this instead of my actual point is annoying.

Please cite your claims.

FrankSophia wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2023, 10:08 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2023, 6:02 pm You did not cite anything you claimed

What do you even want me to cite at this point? I don't remember.

LOL
That explains everything

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2023, 6:52 am LOL
That explains everything

Does it?

So we can move on now?

We must hope so. All this has just been esoterica. What do you guys actually think about non-religious spirituality?

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2023, 8:34 am We must hope so. All this has just been esoterica. What do you guys actually think about non-religious spirituality?

I was an atheist before I began seeking.
Now I live as God.

I would recommend considering how religious and spiritual concepts apply to scientific findings, especially the ramifications of quantum field theory that will destroy newtonian constructs.

I would also recommend going around to many traditions armed with these correlations so that your understanding doesn't depend on words at all.

Now this can become a living reality for you, then it won't matter what sounds you make referencing it.