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

[Belindi]

Are you preferring the common usage of 'emotions' as a synonym for 'feelings' perhaps because you choose to include everyone in the conversation? That's not really academic philosophy. I don't think we can do philosophy unless we spend a lot of our time using explicit language.The use of explicit language does not include jokes or poetry so it's also a good thing to intersperse the explicit stuff with the more sociable linguistic register .

True, the title of this conversation is not explicit and a lot of the conversation has been about what is meant by this or that. If I had thought that explicit language was not the proper register I'd not have joined.

I'm not objecting to vocabulary, yours or anyone else's. I'm only making one point. Talking about spirituality, or emotion as it is experienced by humans in their real lives, the medical view is too distanced, I think. It may underlie what's going on, but it lies deeply buried, while experience is what we notice, and respond to.

And if we return to spirituality, I think it's fair and reasonable to observe that a medical or scientific perspective is of little use or value. Does spirituality even exist in a medical/scientific perspective? I suspect not.

I said linguistic register, not vocabulary. Anyone with a smallish vocabulary can be explicit and vice versa;it requires only that the speaker define his terms.

Spinoza's ontology is a double aspect theory of existence. Mind and matter are merely two of an infinite number of “modes” (usually 1.mind and 2. matter) of a single existing substance, which he identified with God. Some medics know nothing about the double aspect theory of existence ,and some medics(I hope only a few!) are Cartesian theistic dualists. Some medics are idealists, and some are physicalists. I never intended to present my preference (for Spinoza's double aspect theory) as "the medical view", although it is peculiarly suitable for psychiatry.
I can't discuss spirituality because the meaning of the word 'spirituality ' relates to its use within a mutually accepted social context .I am happy
philosophers are mainly people who like to ask "what do you mean by xyz?"

[Pattern-chaser]

I can't discuss spirituality because the meaning of the word 'spirituality ' relates to its use within a mutually accepted social context .I am happy
philosophers are mainly people who like to ask "what do you mean by xyz?"

I don't want to seem picky, but this topic is about spirituality. And I'm not sure about the "double aspect theory of existence", because mind, body, spirit, etc., are all one. We are embodied minds, or en-minded bodies. ... Which is not to say that there are not many perspectives (ways of looking at) spirituality, of course.

[Belindi]

I can't discuss spirituality because the meaning of the word 'spirituality ' relates to its use within a mutually accepted social context .I am happy
philosophers are mainly people who like to ask "what do you mean by xyz?"

I don't want to seem picky, but this topic is about spirituality. And I'm not sure about the "double aspect theory of existence", because mind, body, spirit, etc., are all one. We are embodied minds, or en-minded bodies. ... Which is not to say that there are not many perspectives (ways of looking at) spirituality, of course.

If the mind is embodied, is it a substance that is ontologically separable from the body/brain in which it's embodied?

[Sculptor1]

Religious spirituality!

Is it a viable concept at all?

[Belindi]

Religious spirituality!

Is it a viable concept at all?

Do you imply that when what is popularly called "spirituality" is become a definable religion with doctrinal myth , moral code ,and ethnic rituals, then 'spirituality' and religion are incompatible?

[Sculptor1]

Religious spirituality!

Is it a viable concept at all?

Do you imply that when what is popularly called "spirituality" is become a definable religion with doctrinal myth , moral code ,and ethnic rituals, then 'spirituality' and religion are incompatible?

No. I just do not think a "religion" is capable of allowing for spirituality.

[Belindi]

Religious spirituality!

Is it a viable concept at all?

Do you imply that when what is popularly called "spirituality" is become a definable religion with doctrinal myth , moral code ,and ethnic rituals, then 'spirituality' and religion are incompatible?

No. I just do not think a "religion" is capable of allowing for spirituality.

You don't need quotation marks around 'religion' as I used the word! Surely religion is sociologically defined as it exists in all societies!

I would appreciate your opinion on why they are incompatible, for that would be very apropos this conversation.

[Pattern-chaser]

I can't discuss spirituality because the meaning of the word 'spirituality ' relates to its use within a mutually accepted social context .I am happy
philosophers are mainly people who like to ask "what do you mean by xyz?"

I don't want to seem picky, but this topic is about spirituality. And I'm not sure about the "double aspect theory of existence", because mind, body, spirit, etc., are all one. We are embodied minds, or en-minded bodies. ... Which is not to say that there are not many perspectives (ways of looking at) spirituality, of course.

If the mind is embodied, is it a substance that is ontologically separable from the body/brain in which it's embodied?

Hmm. "Substance" can carry the meaning of "The real physical matter of which a person or thing consists", but also other meanings such as "The idea that is intended", so I'm not sure if I can answer your question, as I'm not clear on its meaning. Mind is not a physical substance, of course, that's where most of our misunderstandings come from, I think. For if mind really exists, why can't we (scientists) detect, observe or measure it? They can make heavily-indirect observations that might infer the existence of mind, but that's as close as we can get to 'scientific' evidence of the existence of mind.

And yet, the existence of minds is obvious to anyone who has one, and its presence can be verified by introspection. This isn't a fantasy. We all have real-world experience of having a mind, and doing stuff with it. Perhaps we should accept the conclusion that mind exists, but cannot be detected by science? That is the simplest explanation, toward which William of Occam might direct us?

Alternatively, the zoomed-out version of an answer to your question is that mind is not easily "separable" from "the body/brain", because they aren't separate. Our reductionist separations of just about everything are to compensate for our inability to digest the Universe in one bite. They have no other justification that I know of.

[Belindi]

I can't discuss spirituality because the meaning of the word 'spirituality ' relates to its use within a mutually accepted social context .I am happy
philosophers are mainly people who like to ask "what do you mean by xyz?"

I don't want to seem picky, but this topic is about spirituality. And I'm not sure about the "double aspect theory of existence", because mind, body, spirit, etc., are all one. We are embodied minds, or en-minded bodies. ... Which is not to say that there are not many perspectives (ways of looking at) spirituality, of course.

If the mind is embodied, is it a substance that is ontologically separable from the body/brain in which it's embodied?

Hmm. "Substance" can carry the meaning of "The real physical matter of which a person or thing consists", but also other meanings such as "The idea that is intended", so I'm not sure if I can answer your question, as I'm not clear on its meaning. Mind is not a physical substance, of course, that's where most of our misunderstandings come from, I think. For if mind really exists, why can't we (scientists) detect, observe or measure it? They can make heavily-indirect observations that might infer the existence of mind, but that's as close as we can get to 'scientific' evidence of the existence of mind.

And yet, the existence of minds is obvious to anyone who has one, and its presence can be verified by introspection. This isn't a fantasy. We all have real-world experience of having a mind, and doing stuff with it. Perhaps we should accept the conclusion that mind exists, but cannot be detected by science? That is the simplest explanation, toward which William of Occam might direct us?

Alternatively, the zoomed-out version of an answer to your question is that mind is not easily "separable" from "the body/brain", because they aren't separate. Our reductionist separations of just about everything are to compensate for our inability to digest the Universe in one bite. They have no other justification that I know of.

Ontology is as zoomed out as you can go, PC. Thanks!I Of course I agree they aren't separate. I like your justification for our separating things( differentiating, categorising).

We can't measure mind because measuring is definitely an objective activity. I seem to remember someone said of my mind and of your mind that I and you have privileged access to our respective minds.

[Sculptor1]

Religious spirituality!

Is it a viable concept at all?

Do you imply that when what is popularly called "spirituality" is become a definable religion with doctrinal myth , moral code ,and ethnic rituals, then 'spirituality' and religion are incompatible?

No. I just do not think a "religion" is capable of allowing for spirituality.

You don't need quotation marks around 'religion' as I used the word! Surely religion is sociologically defined as it exists in all societies!

I would appreciate your opinion on why they are incompatible, for that would be very apropos this conversation.

A religion is a "binding", a system of dogma that binds people to adhere and belong. It not only tells people what to think, but waht to do, how to behave, who to sleep with, what to wear. If spirituality means anything I think it ought to mean something about free thinking, not accpeting the dogma of a priestly class.

[Belindi]

Do you imply that when what is popularly called "spirituality" is become a definable religion with doctrinal myth , moral code ,and ethnic rituals, then 'spirituality' and religion are incompatible?

No. I just do not think a "religion" is capable of allowing for spirituality.

You don't need quotation marks around 'religion' as I used the word! Surely religion is sociologically defined as it exists in all societies!

I would appreciate your opinion on why they are incompatible, for that would be very apropos this conversation.

A religion is a "binding", a system of dogma that binds people to adhere and belong. It not only tells people what to think, but waht to do, how to behave, who to sleep with, what to wear. If spirituality means anything I think it ought to mean something about free thinking, not accpeting the dogma of a priestly class.

Thanks for that Sculptor!I like it.

[Sculptor1]

No. I just do not think a "religion" is capable of allowing for spirituality.

You don't need quotation marks around 'religion' as I used the word! Surely religion is sociologically defined as it exists in all societies!

I would appreciate your opinion on why they are incompatible, for that would be very apropos this conversation.

A religion is a "binding", a system of dogma that binds people to adhere and belong. It not only tells people what to think, but waht to do, how to behave, who to sleep with, what to wear. If spirituality means anything I think it ought to mean something about free thinking, not accpeting the dogma of a priestly class.

Thanks for that Sculptor!I like it.

Thank you

[Lagayascienza]

A religion is a "binding", a system of dogma that binds people to adhere and belong. It not only tells people what to think, but what to do, how to behave, who to sleep with, what to wear. If spirituality means anything I think it ought to mean something about free thinking, not accepting the dogma of a priestly class.

I think that’s right. So, I’m wondering whether there is a way for an atheist to be “spiritual”. What would that mean?

As I see it, an atheist is not making any positive claim such as “god(s) don’t exist. An atheist just finds that, given the lack of evidence for god(s), and good arguments for why god(s) don’t exist, there is no reason to believe in god(s) or in religions based on belief in god(s). Then there is all the negative baggage that comes with religion that the atheist wishes to avoid. However, the lack of belief in god(s) and religion does not seem to preclude some other way of being “spiritual” if such a way exits. Maybe “spiritual” can refer to something other than god(s) and religion.

It’s this “other than gods and religion” that is the question of the OP. Can spirituality be god-free and non-religious? Does anyone have any ideas on this?

[Sy Borg]

Religions often act as a conduit through which people can live their lives. It's a tried and tested means of approaching life - with millions in the past leading ostensibly good lives via the lens of a religion, plus it has the advantage of societal approval in most places.

We are thrown into this life without volition, and we arrive here confused and gasping for air (which is also more or less how we leave). Life is hard. Civilisation is complex, capricious and full of traps. The wild is even worse, with many animals meeting their end being eaten alive (often starting with the genitals and anus) as they whimper and struggle. Not to mention parasites. Exposure to the elements.

In the face of all these difficulties, people have come up with all manner of coping mechanisms. Belief that there's a better place to go to after this life is very common. I expect it's a good survival strategy in highly hazardous places with low life expectancies. Hope can help people push through terrible hardships, ultimately enabling them to have more reproductive success than realists. Hence the optimism bias.

A major issue with religions, aside from superstition and dogmatism, is the notion that a one-size-fits-all solution exists that can satisfy all people - from soldiers to cops, nurses, watchmakers, scientists, musicians, salespeople, bricklayers, welfare workers, politicians and executives. According to religions and some ideologies, all people should have the same needs and ascribe to the same values. Religion effectively tries to reign in pluralism, but that is the lifeblood of society. It takes all sorts ...

Spirituality can be whatever people deem it to be. It's personal, subjective. Einstein and some other scientists found physics to be spiritual. Astronauts report spiritual experiences looking down at the obviously-living Earth. Some artists and musician consider their flow state to be spiritual. I can't say if Sagan's famous Pale Blue Dot speech is technically spiritual, but - to me - it's one of the most inspiring and spiritual sentiments I've encountered.

[Lagayascienza]

Spirituality can be whatever people deem it to be. It's personal, subjective. Einstein and some other scientists found physics to be spiritual. Astronauts report spiritual experiences looking down at the obviously-living Earth. Some artists and musician consider their flow state to be spiritual. I can't say if Sagan's famous Pale Blue Dot speech is technically spiritual, but - to me - it's one of the most inspiring and spiritual sentiments I've encountered.

Thanks, Sy Borg. Yes, the insights that science provides can invoke the spiritual. I feel it when I contemplate the vastness and beauty of the cosmos that astronomy reveals to us. And when we consider that every atom in our body came from either the Big Bang or the heart of an exploding star, it’s not hard to feel that the universe and we are one. Then there’s the wave trope: we are part of the immense ocean that is the cosmos - our individual lives are each a wave that travels across this ocean to finally wash up on a beach on earth and then return to the immense ocean to become new waves, again and again… until the end of time.

I also feel something that might be called spiritual when I contemplate the natural world here on earth, when I take in a beautiful landscape of mountains and forest. And also when I’m painting landscapes - I get into that “flow state” you mentioned when I’m in the act of creation and I lose my self.

It seems “Spirituality” has to entail some sort of transcendence, the idea that it is not just this limited body and mind we inhabit. It has to be about feeling a connection, a communion with the cosmos that will endure, a connection with nature, with the whole of humanity, our children, or our art which will continue after us.

And even philosophy can provide a connection of sorts, a sense of oneness with everything. For example, phenomenology sees consciousness, the subjective a priori reality given directly in/as consciousness, as the basis of being and this can help dispel the illusion of our separateness and foster an idea that we are part of everything.

What seems clear is that religion need not have a monopoly on the spiritual.

I’m hoping others will post more ideas on what “spiritual” can mean and on how atheists, too, can experience it.