Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you are overstating the case. It's not "whatever they want" - but people's personal views of spirituality are contextually sensitive to their metaphysical assumptions. Thus it isn't a free-for-all, but it is a range of views that you seem to find annoying.
ROFL
read the phrase from above in bold, "people's personal views of spirituality are contextually sensitive to their metaphysical assumptions"
(better make that a double ROFL !!!! )
because that statement =
= it means whatever they decide it means
= a range of views
= people can and do believe whatever they want
my observation of your word usage is spirituality can be anything.
whereas I continue to point out that there is a distinction between the sacred and the secular.
whereas you are fine with secular it is your bailiwick, my observation is that you have an allergic reaction to (and remove, reject, discard, dismiss, deny) the sacred.
when a person or group rejects (or discards or dismisses or denies or removes) the sacred, then what they are left with is the secular. Secular beliefs, secular views, secular framework of meaning, secular understanding, secular scholars, secular definitions, secular fields of study, secular subjects, secular articles. That is where your posts and views land Gaylen, fully and wholly and squarely and firmly and decidedly secular.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-25-2018 at 12:57 PM..
my observation of your word usage is spirituality can be anything.
whereas I continue to point out that there is a distinction between the sacred and the secular.
...
whereas you are fine with secular it is your bailiwick, my observation is that you have an allergic reaction to (and remove, reject, discard, dismiss) the sacred.
Concerning spirituality, I think I've said as much as I can productively say to you, for the moment. I don't think that people need to agree with your particular metaphysics in order to have spiritual experiences, or to follow a spiritual path, etc. Existence is fundamentally mysterious at its core and, when confronting these mysteries in a sincere and self-reflective way, people can have transformative insights. It is fairly common for people to interpret these feelings of insight in terms of theistic ontology - God, angels, demons, immortal souls, etc. - but these interpretations are not necessary.
As for sacred/profane, I don't "reject" the sacred, as such. I remain agnostic about many theistic and/or New Age beliefs. We've been over this ground before. A lack of belief in X is not the same as "rejecting X" or "believing not-X". A lack of belief means I'm on the fence and, at the moment, I see no compelling reason to jump off and land on either side. I see no convincing reason to think that the cheerleaders on either side are routing for the "one and only best" team.
In fact, if I were forced to place a bet, my bet would be that Reality is actually something like "in the middle" - or, to be more precise, the whole business of "taking sides" is messed up right from the git-go because Reality is such that the whole way of thinking that leads to "taking sides" on theism/atheism stems from some deep conceptual confusion. Thus I try to step back from ontological commitments, simply observe what is to be observed, and then try to communicate my intuitions as best as I can.
You're on to something there, Trans. As you well know, this forum was originally titled Religion and Philosophy. I'd guess that discussions about Spirituality often touch on Philosophy.
Undoubtedly. It's not unlike 'evolution'. strictly, it is a particular discipline. Broadly it means a theory of everything from the Big Bang to the Pepper moth.
Actually, what I said was that spirituality is not a well-defined term in philosophy. One could probably fill a library full of academic philosophy books and articles dealing with spirituality, not to mention plenty of popular books in the philosophy sections of book stores. Each author has to stipulate their own definitions of spirituality precisely because it is not a well-defined term in either poplar or academic literature. My main point is that there is certainly no consensus in popular or academic writing about restricting the term 'spiritual' to an assumption of metaphysical substance dualism.
Seems to me that 'Spirituality' is not a well -defined term. period.
P.s Reading your post on Hegel, it seems that it misses out on being about science rather than philosophy (overlapping with religion) in that it says what observed process happens (Transformation) but not what does it. I have an idea at least what does it and even why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
That's why what Gaylen is discussing is philosophy and science. Not religion and spirituality
last sentence in post above is backwards. There is always a philosophy in religion. A religion includes a specific philosophy. However the reverse is not the case. Philosophy does not include or contain religion
Perhaps not. Rather they can overlap. Quite a lot.
Quote:
When you say "uplifts the human spirit" what do you mean by "human spirit" ? What is "the human spirit" to you?
Feelings. There's probably a particular part of the brain that get activated, and a particular chemical gets released. can't recall the name. I'll look it up (dopamine. That's the stuff. It's the one stash you can't get on the street corner here).
I have a theory that music, dance, religious services, rallies, sport and discovery, are all 'things of the spirit' and are related to an instinct about the survival of the tribe, and the place of the individual in it. I could be wrong. But I hope that science (which was once told that it had no business looking into that) will one day tell us.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-25-2018 at 03:39 PM..
and because it is "not a well defined term in philosophy" or in "popular literature" or in "academic literature" people can and do make it mean whatever they want.
as we see on this forum.
that is my point exactly.
I agree. It is very broadly used and is one of those things like 'God'. You can use it to mean all sorts of things. Though 'Spirituality, seems more vague that that. But when you relate it Teligion, it seems to firm up quite a bit
Quote:
I think the term Trans uses (or was it Mordant?) is "fiddling with semantics."
It can certainly lend itself to that, because it can have so many applications. it can lead to misunderstanding like if I say I get a 'spiritual feeling exploring the temples in a remote part of Bagan, someone cas asy "So you are actually worshipping God in those temples? Or Buddha?' I'm not doing either.
Semantic fiddling is a bit different. It's when equivocation fallacy is employed, switching meanings so i could say I get a 'spiritual' feeling in Ananda, Shwe dagon or for that matter in a lot of cathedrals.
"So you are feeling 'spirtual' in those places. That means you are being religious in spirit'.
"Well..."
But not just in Buddhist places, but in Christian places, too..."
"Well..."
"But you have to admit that Christianity is better based in history than Buddhism, so the religion you are actually feeling is Christianity rather than anything else."
So with regards to this question asked about "human spirit"
When you say "uplifts the human spirit" what do you mean by "human spirit" ? What is "the human spirit" to you?
Trans answers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
...Feelings. There's probably a particular part of the brain that get activated, and a particular chemicalgets released. can't recall the name. I'll look it up (dopamine. That's the stuff. It's the one stash you can't get on the street corner here).
I have a theory that music, dance, religious services, rallies, sport and discovery, are all 'things of the spirit' and are related to an instinct about the survival of the tribe, and the place of the individual in it. I could be wrong. But I hope that science (which was once told that it had no business looking into that) will one day tell us.
the items described in bold are addressed and discussed and explored in these fields:
psychology, physiology, anatomy, science, neurology, sociology, anthropology, ethnology, history, the arts, athletics, intellectual pursuits.
However absent from that list is the core element of what is addressed by "Religion and Spirituality." you are describing the physical and the emotional and the intellectual. You have omitted the organizing principle and subject matter of religion and spirituality.
So with regards to this question asked about "human spirit"
When you say "uplifts the human spirit" what do you mean by "human spirit" ? What is "the human spirit" to you?
Trans answers:
the items described in bold are addressed and discussed and explored in these fields:
psychology, physiology, anatomy, science, neurology, sociology, anthropology, ethnology, history, the arts, athletics, intellectual pursuits.
However absent from that list is the core element of what is addressed by "Religion and Spirituality." you are describing the physical and the emotional and the intellectual. You have omitted the organizing principle and subject matter of religion and spirituality.
What is omitted is the magical and superstitious which is what this thread rejects but it does NOT reject God. You seem to need the magical and superstitious and you call it sacred. Belief in God is sacred, but not belief in magic and superstition.
Concerning spirituality, I think I've said as much as I can productively say to you, for the moment. I don't think that people need to agree with your particular metaphysics in order to have spiritual experiences, or to follow a spiritual path, etc. Existence is fundamentally mysterious at its core and, when confronting these mysteries in a sincere and self-reflective way, people can have transformative insights. It is fairly common for people to interpret these feelings of insight in terms of theistic ontology - God, angels, demons, immortal souls, etc. - but these interpretations are not necessary.
Your view is that "theism, immortal souls, heavenly beings" are not necessary.
that is what makes your views and beliefs secular.
What is omitted is the magical and superstitious which is what this thread rejects but it does NOT reject God. You seem to need the magical and superstitious and you call it sacred. Belief in God is sacred, but not belief in magic and superstition.
of course Trans rejects God. (the post of mine you quoted was in reference to Trans' post quoted)
Your view is that "theism, immortal souls, heavenly beings" are not necessary.
that is what makes your views and beliefs secular.
Given your definition of 'secular' you are probably right. But I see another possibility. It could be that you simply fail to recognize a great deal of what is sacred in the world. I would not be surprised if neurochemistry, nuclear fusion, a friendly smile, etc., could turn out to be sacred in a profound sense of the term that you seemingly do not grasp at the moment because you are so narrowly focused on what you see as the one and only correct metaphysics. Perhaps there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreampt of in your philosophy...or mine.
Socrates famously said that philosophy beings in wonder. I suspect that spirituality begins there too - and it never really leaves that realm. (And the best philosophers never really leave it either.) I'm inclined to say that wonder is the beating heart of the sacred, and this beat is the rhythm to which all good philosophers try to dance.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 10-25-2018 at 05:19 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
