Does “spirit” exist? If so, what is it?
{Preamble: The question of the existence of God (or gods) may be a fascinating one to some. Even to one who considers it a relevant matter, it may seem a bit “too much all at once”. Like swinging for the fences, or eating an apple all in one bite. However, let us put the God question aside for the moment.
To make the intent of this thread clearer by stating what it is NOT:
This thread is NOT about the existence or non-existence of God. (There are many such threads already).
Or to put it positively, the topic is “The Possible Existence (and Definition) of Spirit”}
To start simply, with something that is (or might be) part of our nature... SPIRIT. Does such a thing exist? Is so, what could it possibly be? Is it by nature mostly undefinable, or only partially “knowable”? Is matter, energy, both, neither? Does the mind, body, actions, and spirit of a person intersect in some way?
If you argue that spirit does NOT exist in any form, please give your definition of it anyway for the sake of clarity and understanding. If not factual, is the idea of spirit symbolic or representative of something in the human experience?
And for those feeling adventurous, compare and contrast the idea of “spirit” with that of “soul”. Could a thing or animal be thought to have a spirit, if perhaps not a soul?
Thoughts? Please feel free to add your own questions (like the ones above) about the topic, for they may spur some insights.
[b]EDIT: THE INTENT OF THIS THREAD IS TO READ AND DISCUSS YOUR DEFINITION OF SPIRIT. But please don’t be distracted if someone else (including me) does not give a definition! :victory: :smile:
What is your definition of spirit? Does it exist?
or... Does spirit exist? What is your definition of it? [/b] Thanks!
To make the intent of this thread clearer by stating what it is NOT:
This thread is NOT about the existence or non-existence of God. (There are many such threads already).
Or to put it positively, the topic is “The Possible Existence (and Definition) of Spirit”}
To start simply, with something that is (or might be) part of our nature... SPIRIT. Does such a thing exist? Is so, what could it possibly be? Is it by nature mostly undefinable, or only partially “knowable”? Is matter, energy, both, neither? Does the mind, body, actions, and spirit of a person intersect in some way?
If you argue that spirit does NOT exist in any form, please give your definition of it anyway for the sake of clarity and understanding. If not factual, is the idea of spirit symbolic or representative of something in the human experience?
And for those feeling adventurous, compare and contrast the idea of “spirit” with that of “soul”. Could a thing or animal be thought to have a spirit, if perhaps not a soul?
Thoughts? Please feel free to add your own questions (like the ones above) about the topic, for they may spur some insights.
[b]EDIT: THE INTENT OF THIS THREAD IS TO READ AND DISCUSS YOUR DEFINITION OF SPIRIT. But please don’t be distracted if someone else (including me) does not give a definition! :victory: :smile:
What is your definition of spirit? Does it exist?
or... Does spirit exist? What is your definition of it? [/b] Thanks!
Comments (238)
In order to ask or answer whether or not something exists, one must first know what that something is.
How do you expect anyone to answer such a poorly framed question?
I think you got the questions backwards. First ask, what is it, and then you can assess whether ot exists.
My personal take:
Supernatural spirits: by definition cannot exist.
Spirit as in character of person, idea, nation, etc.: yes, though it's not physical.
Alcoholic spirits: yes and yum!
First of all, this is a question and a question's purpose is an answer. He/She didn't write a book with mistakes to be pointed down. Criticism is welcomed when it comes with an answer.
I see his question has a mistake. But that doesn't make you a reason to deny it's answer. Hope you understand.
Now, for that question, I could say spirit is existent in everyone. I could say so firmly because all of us are bound by spirits. This is not much than a name. In science, we call it energy. In spirituality we call it a spirit.
Such picky Professors in this university! :blush:
Quoting DingoJones
That’s what I was earnestly attempting to do, in several different ways. How would you frame it?
Quoting NKBJ
I think the questions are valid (if not perfect) as written. It was not necessarily written or intended as a syllogism. But flip around if that helps!
Quoting NKBJ
Interesting. Care to expand upon that statement?
If you want to know what people think “spirit” means, then ask that.
If you want to know if people think a “spirit” exists, define what you mean by spirit and then ask that.
I do not think Im being picky, your framing just wasnt clear, or sensical. Generally, it is the responsibility of the OP to set the terms of the discussion.
Interesting... but (with all due respect) we are intentionally and with IMHO good reason NOT talking about “what created it?”. In the OP, I tried to nip that whole God question in the bud. The first rule of Fight Club is... :wink:
:up: Thank you. You get the gist and intent of the question.
Quoting Tarun
Ok, thanks for your reply. FWIW, I would not disagree with any of it. I also am interested in the possible energy/spirit relationship. Could you expand on what you mean by “all of us are bound by spirits”?
If your question includes the notion, "Are there things involved in REALITY that humans either do not know exist or are not capable of knowing"...then of course the "possibility" of those things existing does occur.
I do question the use of the word "supernatural" in this type of question, though.
Supernatural usually is defined as, "something attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
If it is "beyond scientific understanding"...then by definition it is beyond human understanding.
Surely there ARE things beyond human understanding.
However, the second understanding of "supernatural"..."something beyond the laws of nature" is stickier.
If a thing "exists"...it exists. It IS a part of nature whether humans are capable of understanding it or not.
If "ghosts" or "spirit entities" exist...they ARE part of nature.
Any of the things normally held to be "supernatural"...shouldn't be considered that at all.
IF they exist...they are a part of nature...not other than natural at all.
Ok, that sounds fair enough! Thanks. I see the logic of that line of thinking. (My previous response about “the God question” was with the intent to not open up a can of worms, or put the cart before the horse. But YMMV.) :smile:
There is so much to say.
The material world is the world we construct out of our usual five senses, out of colors sounds touch smell and taste. They are usually correlated in some way, which the mind notices, for instance the motion of a shape may correlate with a sound or a touch or a smell or a taste, or several at once.
Feelings, emotions are less evidently correlated with the above, but some correlation can still be found, for instance the view of a sunset or of a person may give rise to specific emotions, which may change over time.
We tend to separate the world of the senses (the material world) from the world of feelings and emotions, maybe because people agree more about what they sense rather than what they feel, which could be what gives rise to the idea that the material world is external while feelings are internal. But we could also see senses and feelings as two aspects of a whole, both of them resulting from interactions between us and the world around us.
Then there are the desires that drive us, which lead us to react in specific ways depending on the world around us, and which are also impacted by the world around us, but they seem to mostly originate from within, which may be what gives rise to the idea of a soul that exists independently from the material world.
And then there are the spiritual experiences that seem to be yet something else, as if they were experiences of a world beyond the material.
I don't see any reason to believe that only humans have a 'soul' or even a spirit, and not other animals. We can't see directly what other animals feel any more than we can see what other humans feel, but for some reason the majority of humans want to believe that only them feel while other animals don't. Maybe because they want to feel special and "better than".
:up: I didn’t happen to word it so, but that is definitely a good question. (And this might be one of those topics where there are more questions than answers. Thus putting the importance on the questions themselves.)
Quoting Frank Apisa
Yes, the word “supernatural” is a loaded term. Which I tried to avoid in the OP, but was bound to come up eventually. As you suggest, how supernatural is defined makes an enormous difference in any discussion of it.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Yes. I would tend to agree with these statements. I would add that perhaps human understanding is something akin to vision. That some kind of vision, no matter how fuzzy or blurry, is better than none.
But, conversely... a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Like the well-known example of the person who thinks they see a snake, but it is only a rope.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I agree with that. Thanks for your reply. What do you think the spirit (or spiritual nature) within an individual is? Does such possibly exist?
:up: Interesting visual analogy. Thank you. (BTW, I used to be an Eternalist. But it didn’t last too long. :snicker: )
Good topic. Thanks for starting it...and for considering my comments.
Have no idea...not even sure if there is "spirit" within an individual.
I am just the "me" behind the eyes...or the "me" I see when I look in a mirror. If there is a spirituality for me presently...it has to do with the thinking process I experience.
I do not suppose a soul...although there might be something of that sort. I certainly do not have conscious contact with anything like that.
To my way of thinking, anything that has not been established as impossible...
...IS possible.
So, for me, it is possible.
Whether there is or not would be a wild guess on my part...nothing better than a coin toss.
Ok. These statements may in themselves be somewhat of an assertion, but no problem. So are you maybe arguing for a hard materialism? Would you say there a spirit component (for lack of a better term) of humans, analogous with (though perhaps not equivalent to) the mental or emotional aspects? If it helps to clarify the OP a little, personally I am more interested in what’s “here” within us humans rather than what may or may not be “out there” somewhere.
I would agree with that. Two people looking at the same object (a flag, a painting, a person) could maybe agree on the physical aspects or name of what they were looking at. But anything beyond that is most likely personal, individual, idiosyncratic, and particular. Things like feelings, associations, meanings... So I wonder if the spirit of a person is extremely personal? Or is it something trans-personal, beyond the individual? (Like “the Force” in the Star Wars movies, perhaps?) Something in between?
Quoting leo
Do you think the spiritual could (theoretically of course) interact with the material world? Or perhaps influence or affect it? Or are they somewhat polar opposites?
Quoting leo
:up: Yes. Likewise, I am not a big fan of human exceptionalism. Sure, we’re different and unique. Let’s pat ourselves on the back, and proceed to other matters.
Seems like an honest and thoughtful answer. What more can one ask of such a difficult and slippery subject? Thanks. :smile:
Bear in mind the following is an heuristic, not a developed theory. It is based on the idea that what is real is not necessarily the same as what exists.
The argument goes like this. The verb 'to exist' has a specific meaning, 'ex- ' meaning 'outside of or apart from' (cf. exile, external), and 'ist', 'to stand' or 'to be'. So to ex-ist is to have a separate identity, to be 'this thing' as distinct from 'that thing' ('no entity without identity' someone once said.)
'What exists', as a collective noun, is the realm of phenomena, the vast ensemble of existing things, from the atomic to the galactic scale. So loosely speaking, the domain of the natural sciences, or everything in the encyclopedia, is the domain of what exists (the 'ten thousand things' in Taoist philosophy.)
"What is real", by contrast, includes a lot of things - they're not actually things - that are not strictly speaking part of the phenomenal domain. First and foremost among these are the elements of rational thought - numbers, concepts, syntax, logical laws, and so on. If you take the natural numbers as an example, it's not at all clear that these exist; or rather, that they don't exist in the same way that stones and flowers exist.
You might point out a number, '7', and say, 'well that exists'. But what you're pointing to is a symbol. And certainly the symbol exists, it is part of the phenomenal domain. But note that what is represented by a symbol can be represented by other symbols - 'VII', 'seven' - but in all cases, the referent is something that can only be counted. In other words, it is only real for an intelligence capable of counting. And for any such intelligence, it has an invariant meaning, which is the basis of the 'law of identity' (A=A). So, 7 is 7 for you, me, and anyone else. (Hence the unresolved controversy over the ontological status of number.)
The point of such 'laws of thought' is that our thinking is dependent on them, as without them, we couldn't use abstract logic or language. And I say that such intelligible objects of a different order to the domain of phenomenal existents (things that exist). So when we assert the identity of particulars, or say that 'this is that' or 'this means that', this depends on the capacity to abstract and compare using just this inherent faculty of reasoned inference.
This general approach is broadly speaking Platonist. Plato realised that abstract principles (numbers and geometrical forms) possess a kind of reality that is of a different order to the sensory or empirical. One point about such ideas is that they are immediately perceptible to the mind (nous) in a way that is not possible for material objects; when we know a rational truth, then that kind of knowing is of a different order to the knowledge of sensible particulars as we know it immediately, not mediated by sense.
Now, in the grand tradition of Western philosophy, what philosophers mean by 'spirit' is real in the sense that such intelligible and rational truths are real. Whereas in current culture, we tend to think in terms of 'what exists', in terms of the phenomenal domain. So if you assert the reality of 'spirit', the question will arise, 'where could such a being exist ? What kind of phenomena is it?' To which traditionalist philosophy might answer, well it doesn't exist, but it's nevertheless real; that it transcends the empirical domain, in a way analogous to how mathematical order transcends the domain of symbolic forms.
Tricky argument, I know, but I think it says something important.
Why the careful exposition of the meaning of "exists" but none for the equally vague "real". You seem to restrict "exists" by its etymology and yet allow "real" to mean 'that which is born of rational thought' without any supporting philology.
Well I don't know and I don't think we can know for sure, I see it as a matter of belief. Like the belief in an afterlife, some people believe we are irremediably connected to the material world and that the death of the body implies the death of everything else (feelings, the soul, the spirit), while others believe that the soul/spirit can keep going without the material body. How could we know for sure? A given experience can be interpreted in various ways, some will interpret it as evidence of something beyond while others will interpret it as a delusion, how to know for sure?
I think some people were absolutely convinced that the world would end on 21 December 2012, that aliens would come, they saw clearly that it would happen, and yet nothing happened. How can we ever know whether what we see clearly is a premonition or a delusion, until after the fact? And if it does happen we can choose to interpret it as if we could really see beyond the material, or as a coincidence, while if it doesn't happen we can try to save our belief by coming up with some explanation why it didn't happen, or we can interpret it as a delusion.
Likewise, I think a given experience could be interpreted as an interaction between the spiritual and the material, as evidence of a world beyond the material, or as a coincidence, or as a delusion, or as a phenomenon that might eventually be explained within the material world. Then people interpret it in whatever way makes them most comfortable.
Clearly we are not just inert matter, we have feelings we have desires we have sometimes spiritual experiences, if all we are is matter then that matter has the amazing property to give rise to such experiences, and it's quite possible that the matter we see with our eyes, the body, is a tiny part of what we are. It's possible that all our experiences cannot be reduced to electrons moving through the brain. That a lot goes on in the spiritual world and the eyes can see nothing of it. But it's also possible that this spiritual world is a delusion, something we want to believe to feel better, and that once comes the time to leave our material body we will just die with it. Some say that after we die our spirit keeps on living in the people we loved, but some will interpret it as these people having a memory of us and reacting in a way similar to how we reacted through behavioral imitation. How could we know for sure?
It could also be that the spiritual world is something we come up with to cope with the horrors of existence. We encounter horrible things in the material world, which are truly horrible if the material world is all there is, but they seem as much more inconsequential if the material is seen as a lesser aspect of existence, if we believe that what really matters goes on in the spiritual. The spiritual world might be a fantasy world we construct in our minds. After all we are able to construct fantasy worlds with fantastic things and creatures and phenomena that we then tell about in books or in films. But the material world itself is partly constructed too, we imagine that the Sun keeps moving on the other side of the Earth during the night, when we hear some specific sound we imagine there is a car traveling on the street nearby or some bird in a tree even if we don't see it. Then if we get up and look through the window we might see the car or the bird, and so we say that the sound we heard was real and not fantasy, but in what way is that different from imagining a sound and then imagining seeing something consistent with the sound? What makes the material world more real than a world vividly imagined, how could we rule out that the material world is nothing more than a shared imagination?
Existence is mysterious, and anything is possible is what I would say.
I understand that you want to avoid straying from the specific notion of "spirit", but it's important to consider that it falls into a category with numerous other fantasies and delusions in that all of it is unknown, based on emotions such as fear and anxiety, assigned characteristics cherry-picked from natural occurrences, based on concepts and principles subscribed to by primitive humans who thought that the brain was in the chest where we now know the heart is.
There's never been any reason, outside of heightened emotion, to assert that anything invisible or intangible can be described with elaborate detail.
There's nothing wrong with assertion, and I don't see a problem with the assertion that something has never been demonstrated. If you want to argue the existence of something, it might be best to begin with some evidence of a replicable qualitative occurrence of it in reality. Otherwise we're talking about nothing as though it's something.
It's important to consider all fairy tales, not just one specifically, because they're all derived from similar heightened emotions and states of mind, such as fear of predators, fear of death itself, or fear of not having lived fully, etc.
Body (organic mass-energy) has spatiotemporal extension. Mind has temporal, but not spatial, extension. Mind consists of organism events (conditions, actions, and processes) which produce automatic and controlled acts.
As far as I know, the writings of the World's major book religions and systems of moral philosophy are the only source of information about "spirit", or similar concepts.
From such criteria, evidence in terms of observed behaviour may be sufficient to posit "spirit", or similar concepts. It is a philosophical, not empirical, question. So, questions of fact and nature (including the supernatural) are irrelevant.
I could (but would not, due to its controversial nature) incorporate a notion of spirit within a model of cognitive psychology as follows:
1) Like mind, spirit has temporal, but not spatial, extension.
2) It is a moral condition-action feedback loop.
3) Body, mind, and spirit have correlative, but not causal, relations.
4) Soul is mind.
5) Animals possess a soul, but not a spirit.
Fair point.
The etymology of 'real' is given as follows:
The Latin root 'res' (matter, thing) denotes 'something which truly exists', an 'actually existing thing'. However, I think that this sense of 'res' is still rather too close in meaning to 'existing'.
So perhaps the distinction I am seeking to draw is not so much between 'existence' and 'reality', as between 'existence' and 'being'. Perhaps one cognate of the meaning of 'being' I'm trying to convey is not the root 'res' but the Sanskrit root 'sat':
[quote=Wikipedia]Sat (Sanskrit: ???) is a Sanskrit word meaning "the true essence" and that "which is unchangeable" of an entity, species or existence. 'Sat' is a common prefix in ancient Indian literature and variously implies that which is good, true, virtuous, being, happening, real, existing, enduring, lasting, essential[/quote]
I suppose the Latin cognate would be 'esse' or perhaps 'ouisia' which has been translated as 'substance' although that is an unfortunate choice as it is nearer in meaning to 'being' than to 'stuff'. ('Ontology' is derived from 'ousia'.)
What of the relationship between 'being' and rationality? In the Western tradition, this relationship is grounded in the intuition that 'nous' (intellect) is capable of seeing 'what truly is' - or the essence or idea of things. 'What truly is', in turn, is nearer to the source of being (from Neoplatonism), hence of a higher order than what is found in the sensory or empirical domain. But that way of understanding has generally fallen out of favour in the transition to modernity, so it is nowadays instinctive to try and understand 'what is real' in terms of what is natural.
[quote=Ethan Siegel]In science, our goal is to describe everything we observe or measure in the Universe through natural, physical explanations alone. 2 [/quote]
Another aphorism from popular science is Carl Sagan's 'cosmos is all there is'.
That is why I say that nowadays we naturally equate 'what exists' with 'what is real'.
So, the naturalist attitude is based on the conviction that 'nature contains its own causal principle'. So what I'm saying is that if you try and conceive of 'spirit' in those terms, then you're bound to fail, even though you would be quite correct in saying that, from the naturalist perspective, 'spirit' is not something which exists. But you would also be missing the point, even though in another sense you would be correct.
I'm still not seeing the difference. Much of your exploration of the philology of 'real' touches on 'existence' and even where it diverges, it seems to settle on 'having some identity' which is exactly where you started with your definition of 'exists'.
It seems to, if I simply infer the meaning from the claim, that 'real' means 'something which can be rationally conceived of'. Your view seems to be that that which can be rationally conceived of has some claim to be 'what truly is', the essence of the thing. But I don't see how that connects to your definition of real.
If by 'real' we mean 'that which can be coherently concieved' (or something like that), then two people could equally claim X was 'real' on these grounds even though one might go on to conclude that this 'reality' was of great objective significance, whilst the other might see it as nothing more than a subjective artefact of the mind in question.
So with regards to the significance of declaring "spirits" to be real, it seems that the distinction between 'real' and 'exist' is not as relevant as the faith that certain people's intuitive feelings have more merit than others.
This seems a weirdly arbitrary circumscription, am I missing something? Why would 'information' about "spirit" be limited to those two sources, why not your own feelings, for example, or those of your neighbours?
Please define spirit.
Well, my dictionary has it as;
That seems to cover most of the uses I've ever heard, but if you have any more...
We could look to a dictionary, but so many people mean so many things with it, that we'd still need to confirm what the heck we're supposed to be talking about. Otherwise we're left with a yes-no-maybe-dunno, which doesn't seem very helpful.
No, they seem to be of the emotional and psychological "world", but plenty of people wishfully think them to be otherworldly. It's not so different from reading a Harry Potter book and then believing in magic and wizards.
Dear professor, while my school hours are booked with compare and contrast papers, between Algebra and Crisis management, I am going to take a moment to address your pondering.
Yes, I absolutely believe that most humans have "spirit" and I don't mean Rah rah rah :party: I mean an essence of the person. It is the part of the person, that together with another's spirit can create a new combined energy or synergy for the ultra fortunate. Animals are no different in that most have spirits as well.
I use the word "most" as a prequalifier as there are always exceptions to any theory but that does not change my mind about whether or not a spirit exists.
Is there a difference between a spirit and a soul?
On first blush I would say they are almost one in the same but I don't feel comfortable making that differential just yet.
Trying to nail Jell-O to a wall my friend? :grin:
Yes, that's it. That nicely sums up what seems to be going on here.
As ever.
S, have I told you lately what a beautiful person you are? :flower:
Your meaning of "spirit" is the other approach. Not the magic and wizards approach, but rather the approach where it's just something ordinary and uncontroversial, like a personality.
Quoting Isaac
Considering that this thread was posted in the Philosophy of Religion category, and that the OP and subsequent posts contain the words, "God", "soul", "supernatural", "the Force", "Taoist philosophy", "transcend", "worldview", "belief", and "afterlife", it seems reasonable to conclude that "spirit", as used herein, has religious and/or moral connotations.
However, it is obvious that a religious/moral discussion makes many people uncomfortable and combative. For them, it is more comfortable to re-frame the question in terms of psychology, fantasy, or the paranormal.
So, I would welcome information about "spirit" which is based on "your own feelings, for example, or those of your neighbours."
Do you have any you can share?
The only way I'd say it exists would be if someone offered some clear definition, where I thought that what the definition picked out exists.
In lieu of that, I'll pass.
Consider something newly discovered. We, just this second, discovered that it exists, even though we have no idea what it is (yet). Imagine this is our first enquiry into this new discovery.
I think that answers your question.
What is it with you definitionists? These things can be considered - properly considered - without mandating a sequence of discovery. What something is, and whether it exists, are things worth looking into. That someone would deliberately oppose the process of discovery by mandating - "Definition first, then existence!" - the order in which things must be done is unjustifiable and unacceptable. If we can discover or learn something new, it doesn't bloody matter whether we identified it first, or demonstrated its existence. Both provide useful data with which to proceed.
And the OP did just that, setting out a general matter for us to consider. Use the lack of precision, and enjoy a general discussion, whose use, value and direction will become apparent as the contributing posters develop it. If you don't understand how to do this, sit back and watch as others explain by example. :up:
Not really. A new discovery has a place its found or it has something about it...a trait, a relation to something else...it will have something that differentiates it from a figment of imagination. No one discovered “spirit”, someone made it up. If it is something that isnt made up, then just tell me something about it that indicates the difference.
Anyway, besides the point. You cannot sensibly answer a question about somethings nature if it has no definition.
Perhaps you can't. Others seem to have less difficulties with general topics than you do.
* - N.B. we're not actually considering something with no definition, we're considering something with no clear and precise definition. We all know, roughly, the meanings that "spirit" is used to carry.
That really doesn't make a lick of sense. How would you be able to determine whether something exists if you're not quite sure what it is?
Quick, tell me if ******* exists! You can't, because you don't know what that is? Well, duh.
If I choose not to “enjoy a general discussion” that doesnt mean I lack understanding about any aspect of the discussion. This is just you being condescending because I have no respect for the nebulous terminology demanded by a feel good discussion about nothing. You are perfectly welcome to your irrational, substanceless circle jerk, I stepped out and left you all to it after it became clear thats what you were all interested in.
Your desire to bring me back in has nothing to do with actual engagement, but rather a need to satisfy your offended, authoritarian sensibilities.
Sorry, this isn't right. Science is one tool we have to use in the pursuit of understanding. There are others too. The most obvious example is simple, considered, thought; a structured consideration of something, outside of the methods and techniques of science. This is often called "philosophy". Art is also a possible way of exploring things too; it depends on the nature of the thing we're considering. There is more to life than mere science.
Perhaps (and this is only one example) because I've seen it? If I spy something new, I don't collapse into a mire of uncertainty, unsure whether to name it first, or try to demonstrate its existence. I go with what's available, and I do one first, then the other, and then I proceed. There's no problem here, unless you think we're incapable of discovering genuinely new things (even if they're only new to you, or to me)?
Of course it doesn't. :up: But, if you consider this discussion pointless, what are you doing posting here, in this topic? :chin:
Can you substantiate the emboldened part of your text, or is it just your opinion?
Genuinely new? Probably not. But that's beside the point.
Discovery of a thing that exists in the world isn't gonna happen in a theoretical discussion.... but let's pretend we're walking through the woods and neither of us has ever seen a rock before in our entire lives ever. We come upon a rock. We immediately register it's existence and simultaneously we register it's properties (like size, color, smell, etc.) thereby creating, immediately, a rudimentary definition of this thing.
It's impossible, however, to say anything about things for which we have no definition whatsoever.
All of those now passed continue to exist, in the sense that what they said and did during life does not disappear when they die. The influence they had, their contribution to human knowledge and culture, could (but need not always) exist for as long as humans do. I doubt this fully justifies Externalism, but it is a sort of continuing 'existence' that can't be denied. :chin:
Allow me to disagree...as respectfully as possible.
Every scientist...is first and foremost...a human being.
Saying "it is beyond scientific understanding"...is actually saying, "it is beyond the understanding of scientists."
Therefore...it is beyond the understanding of humans.
That is not to say humans cannot do art or poetry or music or philosophizing. But "understanding" as used here, is something else.
THE CONTEXT WAS A COMMENT OF MINE: I do question the use of the word "supernatural" in this type of question, though. Supernatural usually is defined as, "something attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." If it is "beyond scientific understanding"...then by definition it is beyond human understanding. Surely there ARE things beyond human understanding.
If you want to "play" with this for some reason, I'm game for a short while.
OK, that seems to be a reasonable way of looking at things. :smile:
Quoting NKBJ
And yet, when we spied the rock, you suggested that we automatically generate some sort of internal definition. It seems to me we could do that with almost anything, couldn't we?
Yes, but we have to have that definition first.
Thank you :smile:
No, it's saying that it is beyond the understanding of scientists if they apply only science and scientific techniques.
We didn't when we spied the rock. According to you, we immediately (and perhaps unconsciously) generated a working definition of the rock. Why could we not do that with (say) an oboe (assuming we'd never encountered one before)?
You might find it helpful to think before posting, and take the time to read and consider the responses you get. As I just explained, I exited the discussion once I realised it wasnt a discussion of anything of substance but a circle jerk for folks who seek to put some framing on their irrational, feel good conceptions. The only reason Im here responding now is because YOU directly addressed ME.
Its ok to be simple headed, you have no control over that, but its obnoxious to be aggressively simple headed.
Now, if there is nothing else you can go back to your feel good discussion about nothing. I, unlike you, have no problem with simply ignoring people with different sensibilities.
Yes, I think that's a safe presumption. Still not seeing why a particular canon of written work would be the only, or even preferred, source of information on it. Religions are interpreted by ordinary people, and we have yet to delegate moral responsibility to some agreed authority, it seems to just beg the question to presume certain commentators have authority here.
Quoting Galuchat
But a religiou/moral discussion is a discussion about psychology, fantasy, or the paranormal. Morality is just psychology and religion is all about fantasy and the paranormal. I can't see what other frame this could be seen through (within philosophy).
Quoting Galuchat
Spirit, as so many other people have said, is too broad a topic without some parameters set, I could say virtually anything.
No we don't have to have a definition of a rock to espy a rock. But we have to have one in order to talk with each other about it.
Even if we want to talk theoretically about unknown things, we've already given them the definition of things and being unknown to us. But that conversation isn't going to go anywhere special. It stops right there:
"Are there unknown things in the universe?"
"Very likely."
"What can we say about them?"
"They are things and they are unknown to us."
"Anything else?"
"They're.....not any of the things we do know about, and they're not not things."
"Huh."
"Yup, huh."
To have a conversation about spirits and whether they exist, you have to start off with a baseline idea of what a spirit even is. That definition can be subject to change, if you find that it doesn't or can't apply, but you have to start somewhere rather than nowhere.
Instead of first contributing, I find myself addressing the spoilers, those who would prevent this discussion by attacking the topic itself. If you don't find this topic worthwhile, don't post to it. Surely, if others agree with your focussed and logical stance, the thread will fade away due to a lack of interest? If you don't want to play, just take your ball(s) and go. :up:
Which says nothing. Congratulations.
We are done here.
I haven't attacked you, only your approach to this topic. If you want to stop posting here, go ahead. No-one will be offended (except maybe you). :up:
Hmm. If you consider Objective Reality (that which is), you will probably discover that we can (knowingly) have no Objective knowledge of it at all, apart from its existence. In that sense, all things are unknown and unknowable to us. The dialogue you post applies to everything we could know and therefore to everything we could discuss. And yet we've found a way to proceed. It's time philosophers caught up with the rest of humanity on this one. :up:
The question is what anyone is "spying" that they're calling "spirit"?
What is a scientific understanding? It is an explanation given in terms of what scientists deem to be real, of what they deem to exist. But different cultures have different ideas about what is real and what is not real. What one culture may interpret as contacts with another dimension, another culture would interpret as imagination. If someone experiences something that other people don't, scientists are quick to dismiss it as imagination, as something that originated from the person's mind.
Say you hear a sound that other people don't hear. The sound would be real to you but not to other people. Say you keep hearing it. Does the fact other people don't hear it implies you're not really hearing it? Surely not. If other people don't find a scientific explanation for why you're hearing it, that still doesn't mean you're not hearing it. But to other people it doesn't exist, either you're lying, or you're imagining things. As it turns out scientists have eventually come up with an explanation why sometimes some people hear something that others don't, they call it tinnitus. They could come up with an explanation because they found in the range of what they experienced something that could explain why someone could hear something that others don't.
But now let's say everyone was visually blind except for a few people. If you're a scientist making experiments with your senses (without vision), if you've never experienced sight in your life, you wouldn't know what colors are. Those who do see with their eyes would attempt to describe what they see, but they couldn't do it in a language that you could comprehend, because in your language there would be no word to describe colors, what they would describe would seem very vague to you. You wouldn't find any evidence of what they are talking about in the world you see, and so you would conclude that they are crazy and are imagining things. But if you're being scientifically honest, you can't rule out that they might see things that you can't see, that they have a sense you don't have, or that you have that sense but have never found how to use it.
The distinction between real and imaginary is not clear-cut at all, it only appears to be because we arbitrarily classify experiences as real or imaginary, because we impose a clear distinction rather than there existing an absolute clear boundary that we discover.
I already DID stop posting! :lol:
YOU are the one that keeps talking to ME!
Go back to your circle jerk you thoughtless fool, your authoritarian need to be rude and obnoxious under an obvious mask of civility and open mindedness is nauseating. I doubt many people are fooled by your illusion of enlightened virtue, under which resides a disgusting insincerity and pretence.
You go ahead and have the last word, Im done with you.
:smile: Yes, it's easier with rocks. :up: In this case, our spying is not literal. Spirit - at least in some of the many meanings that the word carries (look here: OneLook) - is something we feel. It's not a physical thing we can hit with a (scientific) hammer. But it is a concept that resonates with many people. As such, it is capable of discussion, surely?
But to come back to your specific question, you're asking for a definition of "spirit", even though you've used different words. It's not that there isn't one; it's that there are many. Each of them interesting in its way, and all of them referenced by the general term "spirit" (where a poster does not see fit to narrow or clarify the dictionary definitions we start from). So, what is spirit? It's all the things here, and probably more besides. I think the intention of the OP is to examine and explore these concepts, to see where it takes us. Coming? :smile:
Well, if they're just spying something they feel, if that's all they're referring to, then it's easy to believe that people are feeling however they are.
It might be more difficult to relate to it for someone who doesn't obviously feel an analogous way. But of course it's not easy to convey a feeling to someone else who might not have the same feelings.
Let's take this from a different angle.
What I was attempting to say and may have done a poor job of...
...is that there ARE things that humans may not know about...may not understand...
...BUT THAT ACTUALLY ARE. They exist.
Essentially that is an extension of my comment, "Unless a thing is established as IMPOSSIBLE...it is POSSIBLE.
My response essentially is what I just posted to Leo.
I am answering the question of the OP with:
It is possible.
All of humanity who ask questions and probe the depths and limits of human knowledge are philosophers.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
If by "objective" you actually mean "absolute" or "100% certain" knowledge, then yes. But philosophers (academic and otherwise) don't always or all insist on that narrow definition.
Simple discussions, whose terms can be clearly, completely, and accurately defined, are easy. Discussions like this one are a bit more challenging. Farther away from the lifelines of definition, logic, binary thinking, certainty, and so forth, discussion requires more of us. It's easy to dismiss such things as meaningless frippery, and if you do, I can't prove you wrong. But so what?
For myself, I think I split my mental self into spirit and mind, where spirit has to do with such things as souls, spirits (to use another shade of meaning :wink:), and things that go bump in the night. So spirit follows into spiritual, which I see as a more general version of religion, but without some of the entrapping requirements and conventions. These days, few describe themselves as religious, but many describe themselves as spiritual. So spirit definitely has an aspect that resembles religion.
No, they don't, but they still accept the truth (and the consequences) of what that (admittedly narrow) definition refers to. All is unknown, in absolute terms; it's just a matter of degree. Everything we discuss here is, to some extent, vague and ill-defined: unknown. So it seems pointless to target one topic and say 'we can't discuss that; there are too many unknowns'. Let's just embrace the topic, and see where it leads? :chin:
To say that things are by degrees unknown is to say that some of it is known. Like I said, you have to have to start from somewhere.
But, yeah, seeing where it leads:
Quoting Pattern-chaser
So, I don't buy into any kind of mind/body dualism. The mind is a part of the body. If you want to call the sum total of emotions, thoughts, and consciousness a "spirit," I'm okay with that, but I wouldn't ascribe to it any religious/magical mumbo jumbo.
:up: And I think spirit forms part of the mind, in the context of mind/body. There is a connection, that some people find valuable, to "religious/magical mumbo jumbo" too. But I don't think it's compulsory. :smile: Not that I'm disagreeing with you: mind and body are not distinct. [The universe is not distinct, we only divide it up so that the pieces are of a size we can swallow without choking. So why would mind and body be distinct? :wink: ]
Kind of like what you just did.
Kind of like what you just did.
I'm not sure you've fully thought this through. You mentioned talk of supernatural, yet you call responses about paranormal a "reframing". That seems an inappropriate word to use. The connection between talk of supernatural and God and the like, on the one hand, and psychology and fantasy, on the other, is clear enough. It's not a "reframing", it's just an explanation.
Have I won something?
Exactamundo.
Tell us about it then. Then we can actually make some headway. It's not like you've suddenly lost your ability to describe things.
How absurd.
Indeed, and we need more people speaking out about this sort of thing, not less.
Because he cares about philosophy! Maybe, just maybe, he cares about how we should be doing philosophy. Maybe questioning how many angels can dance on the head of a pin isn't good philosophy.
Did you ever think about that?
You really do not seem to have much of a philosophical attitude. You did a similar thing in the discussion on political correctness. You seemed in support of more of an uncritical, status-quo maintaining, people pleasing approach, instead of a critical and frank approach. Why are [I]you[/I] here?
Its astonishing! The resistance you get for asking simple qualifying questions. I guess I get it, answering pesky questions like “what are you talking about” interfere with the feel good mental masterbation and whats a circle jerk without masterbation but still...you would think a philosophy forum would attract people who can think. Thats why I think Terra might be right about learning and reading disabilities here, are we getting the mentally challenged rejects from other, less tolerant of bad philosophy forums that are out there? Half of the folks don’t seem to know the difference between philosophy and therapy. I seem to remember this Pattern Chaser guy saying he got kicked off another forum by scientific zealots or somesuch. Small wonder! They were probably talking about such zealotous things like “facts” and “rationality”.
In starting this discussion, I wanted to explore the apparently vast if nebulous topic of the spiritual aspect of humans. I was asking for various definitions, opinions, thoughts before giving my own input, such as it is. I will state that I myself have no “definite definition” (so to speak) of spirit. I have in mind descriptions and personal internal dialogue, but have yet to formulate anything concrete. Apologies for any vagueness in my OP or posts. I realize that the topic sentence and OP focus on the word “spirit”. Let us explore some possible synonyms in a historical and philosophical sense. Also, it may be merely symbolic, but I moved this discussion into the “metaphysics and epistemology” category. I feel this is perhaps more accurate for this topic as I envision it. Or maybe at least more helpful if it dispenses with any suspicions of religion per se, justified or not. (Probably justified, at least some skepticism LOL).
But to attempt to expand the discussion a bit in hopes of collectively creating a description of spirit, here is a part of Wikipedia’s entry on Pneuma, the Greek word for both the physical breath and the metaphysical spirit or soul or psyche. It seems relevant to give some context, I think. Thanks for your participation and thoughts... From Wikipedia:
[i]Pneuma (??????) is an ancient Greek word for "breath", and in a religious context for "spirit" or "soul". It has various technical meanings for medical writers and philosophers of classical antiquity, particularly in regard to physiology, and is also used in Greek translations of ruach ??? in the Hebrew Bible, and in the Greek New Testament. In classical philosophy, it is distinguishable from psyche (????), which originally meant "breath of life", but is regularly translated as "spirit" or most often "soul".
Presocratics
Pneuma, "air in motion, breath, wind," is equivalent in the material monism of Anaximenes to aer (???, "air") as the element from which all else originated. This usage is the earliest extant occurrence of the term in philosophy.[4] A quotation from Anaximenes observes that "just as our soul (psyche), being air (aer), holds us together, so do breath (pneuma) and air (aer) encompass the whole world." In this early usage, aer and pneuma are synonymous.[5]
Ancient Greek medical theory
In ancient Greek medicine, pneuma is the form of circulating air necessary for the systemic functioning of vital organs. It is the material that sustains consciousness in a body. According to Diocles and Praxagoras, the psychic pneuma mediates between the heart, regarded as the seat of Mind in some physiological theories of ancient medicine, and the brain.[6]
The disciples of Hippocrates explained the maintenance of vital heat to be the function of the breath within the organism. Around 300 BC, Praxagoras discovered the distinction between the arteries and the veins. In the corpse arteries are empty; hence, in the light of these preconceptions they were declared to be vessels for conveying pneuma to the different parts of the body. A generation afterwards, Erasistratus made this the basis of a new theory of diseases and their treatment. The pneuma, inhaled from the outside air, rushes through the arteries till it reaches the various centres, especially the brain and the heart, and there causes thought and organic movement.[7]
Aristotle
The "connate pneuma" of Aristotle is the warm mobile "air" that in the sperm transmits the capacity for locomotion and certain sensations to the offspring. These movements derive from the soul of the parent and are embodied by the pneuma as a material substance in semen. Pneuma is necessary for life, and as in medical theory is involved with the "vital heat," but the Aristotelian pneuma is less precisely and thoroughly defined than that of the Stoics.[3]
Stoic pneuma
In Stoic philosophy, pneuma is the concept of the "breath of life," a mixture of the elements air (in motion) and fire (as warmth).[8] For the Stoics, pneuma is the active, generative principle that organizes both the individual and the cosmos.[9] In its highest form, pneuma constitutes the human soul (psychê), which is a fragment of the pneuma that is the soul of God (Zeus). As a force that structures matter, it exists even in inanimate objects.[10] In his Introduction to the 1964 book Meditations, the Anglican priest Maxwell Staniforth wrote:
Cleanthes, wishing to give more explicit meaning to Zeno's 'creative fire', had been the first to hit upon the term pneuma, or 'spirit', to describe it. Like fire, this intelligent 'spirit' was imagined as a tenuous substance akin to a current of air or breath, but essentially possessing the quality of warmth; it was immanent in the universe as God, and in man as the soul and life-giving principle. [/i]
Haha. Have you been following the "Morality" discussion lately?
[Technical-sounding philosophy gobbledygook]
Can you translate that?
No.
Well to be honest Im not really behind either side of that debate. Ive been following along, I just don’t think of morality in either terms. That having been said, the mental gymnastics and emotional attachments to “objective” morality you guys are dealing with is pretty painful. You guys are not even able to get a proper understanding of your positions through that stubborn wall, let alone actually debate the sides.
Yeah, it's a shame. You don't have to take sides to see the problems in that discussion. And I don't think that the responsibility for these problems is evenly distributed or tips the scales against those of us in the discussion such as myself, Isaac, and Terrapin. The responsibility very much falls on a handful of people on the other side of the debate. The problem indicated in my last reply to you falls on a single participant, and he is encouraged to continue undeterred by a few others, which just exacerbates the problem. They have isolated themselves from the main discussion at times and refused to engage criticism in a productive manner. Then, of course, there are the countless ingrained misunderstandings which have been corrected a million-and-one times to little avail. And then there's the repetitive crackpottery, dogmatic proclamations, and red herrings - again, mostly down to a single participant, though a different one this time - which really ought to be frowned upon and ideally stamped out, given that this is supposed to be a reputable philosophy forum.
Ya, I agree. Dogmatic folks tend to defend other dogmatic folks so it reinforces their own dogmatism. Everyones beliefs get equal merit so none of them have to really justify their own.
Not that your and Terras sass helps the problem, but Ill be damned if I can blame you lol
Lol. Well at a certain point it becomes impossible not to mock the person. I try to wait until Im pretty much past discussing before going off on someone, but I mostly just observe anyway. You and Terra have much more patience than I do.
Thank you very much for contributions, which add some needed context for this subject. And it helps to address the question of whether spirit can be even said “to exist” or have some dimension of reality.
In researching for this thread, I looked into Hegal’s The Phenomenology of Spirit. I’m not sure it’s helping make the philosophical view of spirit much clearer. (Probably the opposite. :sweat:) Perhaps it is because I hadn’t read it before. Interesting that the word in the title geist in German also can be translated “mind”.
One can view Eastern systems such as Buddhism, Taoism, Vedanta, etc. as philosophical and psychological writings at least as much (if not more) than religious dogma. Do any such relevant ideas from the Eastern traditions concerning spirit come to mind?
I personally find this side discussion fascinating. But if we could please veer back somewhere in the vicinity of the general topic, it might keep the moderators from getting an itchy delete button finger. Gracias. :blush:
Lol, that thought had occured to me. I think we are done anyway.
That is reputed to be an exceedingly difficult book. But you might find Hegel's God, Robert M. Wallace, interesting.
Also have a look at God does not Exist, Bishop Pierre Whalon. This essay also recognises the equation of the phenomenal with what exists.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Again, reminiscent of the Greek 'nous'. One heuristic definition of the rational mind is 'that which sees meaning'. The word 'intelligence' is derived from inter-legere, to 'read between'.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Only that Alan Watts actually wrote some really good stuff on these ideas, notably The Supreme Identity, Beyond Theology and Behold the Spirit.
Dictionaries (as we have agreed, they're only a starting point) seem to support the varied meanings that spirit carries. There is clearly some overlap with "soul", but that's not the only thing we use spirit to represent, apparently. If we allow that all of the above meanings are carried by a single word, is there any benefit in considering the commonalities between them? Or the differences? Or are they just the ways in which a particular word has been/is used?
Interesting. I associate (perhaps vaguely) one’s spirit with behavior, choices, and will. Am hesitant to dive too much into the concept of “evil” here. However, one can theorize that a central and non-physical part of one’s being (let’s call it spirit) can be somewhere on the spectrum between weak or strong, constructive or destructive, wise or foolish, etc. Is this generally what you were referring to by “operative influences” perhaps?
Good point, thanks. The mind itself is invisible and non-material. The brain is matter. The mind is... ? Energy? Plasma? A function? An experience? None of the above? I’m not completely sure or comfortable with any those answers. The mind can be a name we give to certain phenomena. Perhaps, the same goes for the concept of spirit.
Quoting leo
Yes. It seems that we, that life, has some type of organizing process and principle. Some group of tropisms that give some orientation and structure, like a plant growing up towards light and down towards water. I think that there is some actual phenomena present which call be called the life force or psyche or essence or spirit. But, as you mentioned, delusions are definitely possible, as in probably any area one can imagine. Delusions, errors, assumptions, assertions, etc. All part of some experiencing and learning process maybe. But I would propose (as you might agree) that simply because one can have delusions about the spiritual aspect doesn’t necessarily mean that spirit itself is a delusion. Thoughts?
Beautiful, beautiful. It brought a tear to my eye... Can't say anymore right now.... Too emotional...
I'm both crying, yet at the same time jerking off. Let's all join in and form a circle.
Hmmm. Some worthy points there. Thanks for your reply. However, it must be said that I’m not in complete agreement with your post as a whole. I do believe it to be beneficial to have a healthy skepticism about nearly everything. A kind of scientific or philosophical openness to new information and theories. If for no other reason than that things are constantly in motion and changing. And it is important (I think) to remember that alot of this kind of thing is “labeling”. Similar to taking an “educated guess”, there can be a “theoretical/creative labeling”. Or as @Wayfarer put it a “heuristic” approach, ie. experimental or trial-and-error. I am not sure that accuracy is the only metric in play here, as important as it is. Usefulness and cohesiveness of theory might be other ways to measure such ideas.
Jung proposed the concept of anima and animus, perhaps inspired by mythology. I’d wager that many have lived full, productive, intelligent lives without giving this particular theory much thought. It is not strictly necessary. Maybe what people call spirit is a particular function of the mind. Not imaginary, just specific. Like memories or the unconscious. I am not necessarily or particularly saying anything certain and definite about spirit. This is something that should be made clear. Some have commented that the OP lacked a definition of spirit. That was more or less intentional. Nothing has been completely defined, let alone proven, or is really expected to be so. It is at least (for me at this point) a concept. A concept that may potentially be useful or helpful. If we can collectively come up with a working definition or description, that would be great. If not, that’s fine too.
Like I mentioned in a previous post, delusions can be piled onto the concept of spirit like they can be piled on any concept or thing. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the thing itself is a delusion. As an example, the eyes can deceive one, but the eyes are not a delusion. Labeling a particular spiritual belief as a delusion is a matter of preference or belief or opinion. Labeling the mere possibility of spirit as “fantasies and delusions” seems in my opinion a rather premature and unscientific approach. Or at least a somewhat unphilosophical approach, it would appear. Thoughts?
You could've just said that the concept influences how we think and feel in ways which you judge to be of importance.
You should learn to speak more plainly.
:smirk: Alright... you had me going for a moment. Though I wondered if perhaps you’d bumped your head or saw the Ghost of Christmas Future last night. April Fools continues!
Seriously though... in response I think my above post to @whollyrolling about covers my thoughts about this general position.
I'm a good writer. Others could take a leaf out of my book.
Hint, hint, @creativesoul.
From your "eyes" analogy--what is the analogous physical object in the discussion of "spirit"?
Physical object? Probably not “physical” at all, such as the mind is generally thought of as being non-physical in and of itself. What object of any kind? I’m not entirely sure... possibly an internal process or function. Maybe a better analogy was the one used previously: when someone mistakes a rope for being a snake. It’s something, just not exactly what was initially perceived.
Again, a rope and a snake are each something. Somewhere in the analogy there needs to be a nothing that is treated as if it was a something.
:ok: Thanks. Can’t disagree with that. Although I would quibble only slightly with the words “only source of information”. A large source certainly, but maybe even that is a secondary source, as useful and thoroughly described as it may be. Because in a way, isn’t that somewhat putting the cart before the horse? Doesn’t the experience come before the writing? Since “spirit” (in its manifold terms and interpretations) seems to be such a widespread experience, belief, or phenomena that it may an archetypal image present our collective unconscious, if you give any credence to Carl Jung’s approach. (Although of course some do not).
Well, that is probably where we differ on this particular point. If I’m reading correctly, in your analogies (and probably your opinion as well) it is an absolute nothing being treated as something. Made up and wholly fantastical. Cut, dried, end of story. If you are convinced of that and happy about it, then I am convinced that you are happy and happy you are convinced. But I am not claiming that there is a literal Santa Claus living on a melting glacier at the North Pole. It is not yet a settled matter one way or another as far as I’m concerned however. Hope that answers this specific question at least somewhat... Thanks for your reply.
Alright. What is it that we're saying exists, then? Let's define terms. It's obviously not Santa Claus we're discussing. So then, what is it?
Fair enough! Thanks for your reply. :smile:
We are starting to go around in circles, it seems... As I wrote above in the post about the Wikipedia entry on pneuma is the general idea. Or the dictionary definition of spirit, if you’d like. Though again, I am not asserting anything specifically. Maybe question someone who has made a definite claim? As I put it before:
Quoting 0 thru 9
Experience is an awareness event.
Perception and cognisance are the complements of awareness.
In other words: what you know affects what you perceive.
Gregory, Richard. 1987. "Perception" in Oxford Companion to the Mind (ed. with Zangwill, O.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 598–601.
The dictionary doesn't define spirit substantially because there is no way to define something that is unknown except by way of perception, which results in circular and nonsensical discussion based on subjectivity.
I could generally go along with that statement. But now the tricky part... how could one relate that to the concept of spirit?
(And please remember that you are under oath, and what you say could be used against you. No pressure though. :sweat: )
Agreed. The dictionary definition is a mere starting point. That is why this thread was started.
Quoting whollyrolling
That (with regards to the subject of spirit) is what you have asserted numerous times, which you have not come close to explaining, let alone proving. Asserting again will not help much, and has lost its novelty and interest, IMHO. So please understand if I don’t reply further.
:up: Ha! Well said, thanks. Definitionistas... as passionate and unrelenting as fashionistas, only perhaps not as well dressed. :wink:
Not tricky at all.
I explained that here: "From such criteria, evidence in terms of observed behaviour may be sufficient to posit "spirit", or similar concepts."
I'll treat your dismissal and accompanying commentary as an admittance that the only aim of this thread is to request a string of short fiction entries, and that you're displeased that I didn't add a short fiction entry to it.
:up: :rofl:
Speak for yourself! :rofl: :flower:
The intent of this thread was to read and discuss members’ definition of spirit and whether they thought spirit exists. (Or vice versa. Substitute a suitable synonym for spirit if you’d like). I thought this basic idea was straight forward. Many others have understood it, and contributed. The topic may be complicated, but the question isn’t. But I edited the OP to attempt to make it even clearer. I may or may not eventually come up with a suitable working definition. (I’m working on it. Please don’t let that throw you. Although you probably aren’t going to be impressed or convinced by anything I say. :sweat: )
I've given the broad answer to the question already, and I don't think that there's much more to be said. It is an ambiguous term, and it will either mean something of the magic and wizard sort, in which case the answer will be no, there's no good reason to believe that it actually exists, or it will be the deflated, "nothing to see here", ordinary phenomenon type of answer, where it's a feeling or a personality or consciousness or something along those lines.
Question answered? Can we move on now? Is there an answer which you don't think is covered by my analysis?
Ok. Thanks. I think we're on the same page now. :up:
Quoting NKBJ
What are you trying to say here? If you know what something is then there is no need to ask yourself if it exists because it certainly does.
I think that if you ask yourself about the existence of something, it necessarily exists-at least at some level. So, I believe the spirit exists. I do not believe that it can exist without a body, though. I think that the unique character of a body makes the spirit. In other words, the spirit is the consequence of everything that's led one to the present moment, and that includes the body. I am convinced that my spirit cannot be my spirit without my body. However, the spirit is not the body nor does it live within it. So, we could say it is similar to an idea. So, for me, the spirit is an idea of a body. But not of any body, but one that has been able to sense itself or reasoned to the nature of its existence. So, for me, every single living organism (including viruses) have a spirit. The idea of a spirit arises because there must be a process that's led to its enquiry. So, it'd say that every process has a spirit, and its complexity gives the spirit its complexity. So, it'd say the human spirit is the process-or sum of processes-that's led to the sensing or enquiring of its own existence-a very complex process.
Hegel presented the spirit as something that lived both as a possibility and as an agent of history.
In the religious register, spirit is either with you or not. Fate and devotion struggle to get the upper hand. I don't prefer fatalism but it beats creating the entire scope of existence with a single idea.
But I mostly think about it as the traces of lost friends. And how I will join them soon in my own disappearance.
Do unicorns exist? Cuz I know what those are. Please spare me any “unicorns exist in our minds” silliness, unless you are a fool you know very well thats not what we mean.
“Spirit” has even less going for it than fictional creatures.
But they are also examples of number as distinguished form any particular number, just as any number of objects is an example of number in general; so I think it is quite reasonable to say that number exists, as opposed to saying that each number apart from its symbolic representations and instantiations, has a unique existence. Framed that way, I think the apparent paradox is dissolved, and the need for Platonic realms is obviated.
What is a unicorn?
'Existences'??
Quoting Janus
But the very fact that different symbols designate the same value is essential to mathematics and language. If in each system, each symbol had a different meaning, then they would be incommensurable. But surely they're not. Otherwise, you couldn't have an exchange rate, or you couldn't represent the same proposition in different symbolic form.
That is why 7 = 7, which is basically the law of identity, is true for all observers.
In respect of Platonic realms - I think there is such a thing as 'the domain of natural numbers', is there not? The fact that this domain doesn't exist in time in space is one of the points that Platonist philosophy makes.
I know what Santa Claus is, doesn't mean he exists....
For the love....I call troll.
You do not know what Santa Claus is. You have an idea of it that you have formed by using shapes that you have seen and things that you have heard and textures that you have felt. So, the idea of it exists; but it itself does not. And I am not saying that Santa Claus or unicorns exist just in our minds; do not misinterpret me. I am saying the idea of those things exists.
You're just all over the place.
I can't know something that is just an idea? If something is just an idea, then all it IS is what we KNOW about it.
What's the question?
Quoting Wayfarer
I agree.
Yes, all of that would seem to be self-evident; these are logical findings, but I still can't see what point you seem to be suggesting it entails.
The domain of natural numbers is a logical domain. Platonist philosophy does not claim merely this, but wants to say that it is an ontological domain.
By asking what it is, you are already assuming its existence; for how in the world could you inquire about something that does not exist. If you as a human being are able to assume the existence of something, it is because it exists, or how in the world would you be able to assume the existence of something that does not exist. Then, does Santa Claus exists because we are asking about its existence? Yes, but not as a particular person but as an idea of a person constructed from many other ideas. Now, does energy exist. Yes, but not just as an idea. We can measure temperature, and prove its existence through reasoning, and even though we cannot feel some of them we still know they exist.
An idea is something that exists, because we produce them. And we exist.
Your conclusion is not logically entailed, but we would need good reason to think that something which is just an idea could be more than our thinking it, believing it and/or knowing about it.
If something IS just an idea, then it can by definition not be more than our thinking.
I assume the idea of it exists. That does not mean the Ding an sich exists.
Indeed!
So you agree with me.
All ideas are our ideas. They cannot exist apart from cogent beings.
You're going to have to elaborate more clearly than that.
Only in philosophy.
Does mathematics exist? It seems to have the same existential justification: it's a human invention, which exists only in our minds.... :chin:
Interesting post, thanks! That is exactly what the OP was requesting. Like you, the (possible) relationship between mind and spirit is worthy of some examination, I think. I don’t think anyone disagrees with the existence of mind? And the concept of mind is large enough to encompass a myriad of sub-components, such as memory, critical thinking, subconscious, emotions, etc. Proposing spirit as one of those components does not seem to be especially radical. Sure this is mainly a matter of semantics. But such naming and distinguishing can have a purpose. Let us not be anti-semantic! (sorry :wink: )
So now to venture some very rough, first draft descriptions. (I like that word better than “definition” in matters like this. Seems less legalistic.) Some word associations or synonyms with the word “spirit”: essence, essential, morals, energy, center, personal, trans-personal, character, will, etheric, enduring, growth, being. So from that word jumble of free-association one could cobble a number of different descriptions of spirit:
[i]Spirit is (or can be thought of as, or functions as)...
a central aspect of one’s self , being and exhibiting one’s character while also shaping and changing that character.
the essence of a person. Person : spirit :: plant : essential oil.
the deepest, the highest, and most true nature of an individual.
both the innermost aspect of one’s mind, and the outermost effect of one’s character.
the shape and contents of one’s mind, and the purpose to which it is put.
the direction of the mind.
the central intersection of will, thought, feeling, sensation, and consciousness.
the created self, drawn from the material and energy of the earth, radiating outward.[/i]
To be perfectly clear to all reading this... These descriptions are of course partial and incomplete. They are theoretical and speculative, and therefore not necessarily scientific. But hopefully respectful of science. (Science being the study and knowledge of the physical. Metaphysics the study and knowledge of the non-physical). I attempted to use individual words whose meaning is relatively clear. And avoided words with religious implications, such as sacred, soul, divine, eternal, infinite, God, etc. which would probably only make the descriptions more vague and confusing. I wanted to make it amenable to both theists and atheists, and anyone in between, if possible.
Thoughts?
Nice! Pithy yet profound. Thanks.
Sure.
Thanks for providing the opportunity to refine some ideas.
Yes, I am assuming the very much established definition of a common word.
I realize I'm pointing out the obvious. You're the one trying to redefine the word. Proving that definition is your job, not mine.
I think the problem is I wouldn't know how to make the difference between reality and imagination, between what exists and what does not. Sure I can believe that something is real and that some other thing is imaginary, I can believe that something exists and some other thing doesn't, but how can I know if I'm not mistaken? How can I know if I'm wrong, how can I know if there isn't something I haven't noticed yet that makes me wrong?
I'm saying this, because it seems what we classify as real or not, what we classify as existing or not, is based a lot on conventions. Usually we say something is real when most people agree they're experiencing it. And the things that are experienced by only one person, or by a small minority, we say they are imagination, that they do not exist, but all we're saying really is they do not exist for the majority. But they do exist for the minority experiencing it, they are real for them.
Then this leads me to think, what we call the material world is the subset of experiences that the majority somewhat agrees on. But what makes experiences that the majority agrees on any more real than those experienced by a minority? It's always real to the subject experiencing it. It's only after the fact that the subject might say, ok this experience wasn't real, it was just my imagination, but in saying that how are we saying anything more than we can't fit well this experience into the range of experiences that we deem to be real?
I just can't clearly make a difference between reality and imagination that is devoid of convention. Experiences that the majority deems to be imagination do have the power to have a 'real' impact on the person experiencing it, on how they behave on how they feel, so we can't say that what's 'real' is what has an observable effect. To materialists any experience we have corresponds to electrons firing in the brain, different patterns of electron motion correspond to different experiences, there is a one-to-one equivalence, but if we start from that premise then how can there ever be a distinction between reality and imagination? From that premise every experience is on the same level of reality, there is nothing to differentiate between a world that is real and a world that is not.
So I feel like I can't hang on to any stable conception of reality. What people call the material world seems to me to be a range of experiences that they somewhat agree on. What people call the spiritual world seems to me to be another range of experiences that they somewhat agree on. Different people have different ideas about what experiences they classify as real and what experiences they classify as imaginary. And it seems that all we can ever do is relate experiences to one another, find relationships within our experiences, commonalities, similarities, and that it is meaningless to talk about what exists or what is real in some absolute sense, it is always subjective, what we experience is real to us, what is part of our experiences exists to us.
If there is something I sometimes see with my eyes closed but never when my eyes are open, do I have to call it imaginary, not part of the 'real' world, or can't I simply say that it is real to me? That sometimes I do see it, that when I do see it it exists, and when I don't see it it exists as a memory, just like there are things I sometimes see with my eyes open but never when my eyes are closed, what makes these things any more real? They're more real just because there are more people who say they see these things than the others? How does this make reality anything more than a social convention?
Your concise maxim expresses something that has gone through my mind, and probably that of many others. That what we are doing here on this forum, and elsewhere, is hopefully MORE than a mere clash of ideas, looking for the winning school of thought to emerge like some intellectual gladiator proudly covered with the blood of the illogical, ignorant, and misguided. Talking and writing and communicating not only ABOUT ethics but WITH ethics and sense of fairness. Competition without aggression, let alone warfare. Otherwise, philosophy devolves into polemic and propaganda, mere pushing and pulling. One could define philosophy as the spirit of wisdom.
(But I may be misinterpreting your words by a mile. :lol: )
I agree (you have not misinterpreted me).
- Existence is to be in the flow of consciousness. Examples: when you are reading this post, you exist. When you are in a dreamless sleep, you do not exist. To die is to cease to exist forever.
- Science is knowledge from evidence and from deduction that is reproducible and rigorous.
- Matter can impress the senses and can be coerced into repetition under rigorous conditions.
- Spirit is non-material existence.
I think the underlying question of this thread is "can we have scientific knowledge about spirit?"
By this, I mean, can we investigate rigorously and reproducibly matters of the spirit?
One could say there is no science of the spirit because the investigation of the spirit has to deal with beliefs, and not evidence. (It is funny that such a materialistic point of view could be said to be accusing spiritualists of having bitten off of the forbidden fruit).
It could be said that there is a science of the spirit if we suppose (for arguments' sake) as few beliefs as possible, and deduct scientifically from this basis. In other words, the investigation of the spirit would proceed deductively.
Having evidence only for "that which is not spirit" we are left only with the capacity of deducing how spirit works. I think that when we rigorously abide by deduction and clearly identify when a belief is necessary to advance an argument, we have a science of the spirit.
I think we can all agree (?) that the answer is "no".
If Science of Mind (Psychology), then why not Science of Spirit (Pneumology)?
Of course, many will object that Psychology is a soft science which is experiencing a replication crisis, and that a Science of Spirit would be no different.
Paul Bloom has an interesting reply to the replication charge here.
If the OP determines that this question is off-topic, it would at least be interesting to discuss in a new thread.
Or if a general Science of Spirit could even possibly build itself from the ashes, it might face an even steeper challenge. I dare say very few doubt whether Mind exists (despite the important issue of the hard question whether it exists in some way apart from the brain. But that’s a whole ‘nother thread.) But how many would say that a “Spirit” aspect / nature of humans exist which is roughly parallel to “Mind”. And yes, the particular definition used for Spirit is CRITICAL. The “definitionistas” admittedly have a point there, lol. I will come out and say my mind is still open on the matter. I’m re-reading some of Ken Wilber’s stuff in hopes of seeing some kind of framework, where spirit is not completely dismissed or relegated to the “for entertainment purposes only” section. His AQAL diagram and theories are quite interesting. And a bit more nuanced than the usual subjective vs objective perspective.
Quoting Galuchat
Oh good [s]Lord[/s] golly, by all means continue! Definitely part of the topic, probably an interesting and important one at that, IMHO. We can proceed here if you’d like, and if the topic seems ready to fork into a burgeoning new thread, then by all means to so. Whatever you think best! :up:
Very interesting and honest reply you have written. Most appreciated. (If I can, later I’ll go into more detail).
So... Would a poll like this have any use? What input / suggestions do you have concerning questions such a poll might have? What definition(s) of “spirit” could be used? Just wondering if this approach might give a tangible goal to an admittedly intangible subject. And perhaps yield some results not yet seen in this thread, or others similar to it... Thanks!
Maybe ask first whether the non-material can exist. I'm of the opinion that it can (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5606/could-god-be-non-material). Maybe ask if the spirit world can interact with the real world. Maybe ask if they (or anyone they know) has ever seen a ghost (or aliens might be interesting too).
[hide]Quoting leo[/hide]
Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Since you wrote the post in an honestly subjective way and neatly avoided any sweeping statements or assertions (usually easier said than done), I can’t disagree with any of it. Even if a phrase or two of it hasn’t been in my particular experience or my current opinion, which is to be expected. (I appreciate good questions as much good answers, if not more so. A good question is like the beginning of a favorite movie, where a new world and characters unfold before one. The answer is like the finale or resolution of the movie, and while necessary and perhaps climatic, signifies a closing up of the story and it particular created world.)
Anyway, in reply to your post... I would agree that it is a tightrope we walk between reality and fantasy, between the subject and the objective. Not saying that the subjective tends to be unreal fantasy, and the objective is always factual and real. Or maybe it is like being in a hall of mirrors... subjects looking at objects reflecting subjects... Anyway one puts it, if a every type of spade could simply be called a spade, the need for further speculation and clarification would have ended millennia ago. Or maybe it is like Alice in Wonderland...
So we are in a world that is arguably so multi-dimensional that we cannot even reach a consensus on how many dimensions there are. Add to the mix that everything is constantly changing, though sometimes imperceptibly. So usually the best I can do is have some “yardsticks” to hopefully gain some perspective. As mentioned above, I find Ken Wilber’s quadrants and levels to be helpful concerning organizing phenomena into both the “interior and exterior”, and the “individual and collective”. (And all within a handy sliding scale that fits neatly into your pocket, lol.) It seems to give validity to the areas of matter, mind, and spirt simultaneously as fairly and distinctly as one could hope for. But no diagram or model of the universe is without its compromises, of course.
There are some other models and metrics I have found useful. The Buddhist concept of the Two Truths, the Absolute and the Relative, is simple yet elegant. Pithy yet profound. As is the concept of Yin and Yang. Like is said of chess, it takes an hour to learn, but a lifetime to master (and explore, and explore some more... )
Interesting. Thank you for the feedback on the idea of a poll. Wil be considering your suggestions and ideas. :victory:
"Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Since you wrote the post in an honestly subject way and neatly avoided any sweeping statements or assertions (usually easier said than done), I can’t disagree with any of it. Even if a phrase or two of it hasn’t been in my particular experience or my current opinion, which is to be expected. (I appreciate good questions as much good answers, if not more so. A good question is like the beginning of a favorite movie, where a new world and characters unfold before one. The answer is like the finale or resolution of the movie, and while necessary and perhaps climatic, signifies a closing up of the story and it particular created world.)
Anyway, in reply to your post... I would agree that it is a tightrope we walk between reality and fantasy, between the subject and the objective. Not saying that the subjective tends to be unreal fantasy, and the objective is always factual and real. Or maybe it is like being in a hall of mirrors... subjects looking at objects reflecting subjects... Anyway one puts it, if a every type of spade could simply be called a spade, the need for further speculation and clarification would have ended millennia ago. Or maybe it is like Alice in Wonderland...
So we are in a world that is arguably so multi-dimensional that we cannot even reach a consensus on how many dimensions there are. Add to the mix that everything is constantly changing, though sometimes imperceptibly. So usually the best I can do is have some “yardsticks” to hopefully gain some perspective. As mentioned above, I find Ken Wilber’s quadrants and levels to be helpful concerning organizing phenomena into both the “interior and exterior”, and the “individual and collective”. (And all within a handy sliding scale that fits neatly into your pocket, lol.) It seems to give validity to the areas of matter, mind, and spirt simultaneously as fairly and distinctly as one could hope for. But no diagram or model of the universe is without its compromises, of course.
There are some other models and metrics I have found useful. The Buddhist concept of the Two Truths, the Absolute and the Relative, is simple yet elegant. Pithy yet profound. As is the concept of Yin and Yang. Like is said of chess, it takes an hour to learn, but a lifetime to master (and explore, and explore some more... ) "
that was well said.
Muchos gracias! :smile:
Me too. :up: My concept of (say) justice is non-material, but it exists. It doesn't exist physically, of course, but you didn't mean that, did you?
When I'm thinking about intellectual, fact-based stuff, I think of "mind". When I think along the lines of wisdom, understanding and feeling - including religion - I think of "spirit".
Two different words to refer to the same thing, but in very different contexts. Does this resonate with anyone else, I wonder? :chin:
Please pardon the cut & paste, Dr. Dennis says it better, and I'm open for discussion.
Neuroscience and Spirituality
Let's turn to the nascent neuroscience of spirituality. To interpret this work properly, we need to note a distinction, made by John of the Cross and others, distinction between _meditation_ and _contemplation._ Meditation uses sensory contents to direct the mind toward God. Thus, one might meditate on images, stories, or experiences as a means of focusing on, and intensifying love for, God. In contemplation, sensory images, words and other contents are left behind, and love and awareness are directed toward God without sensory images. Neuroscientists studying spirituality seem unaware of this distinction. Only contemplation is relevant to introvertive mysticism. We would expect brain activity patterns to differ between meditation on an image or story, and contemplation absent such contents.
In chapter 9 of _The Spiritual Brain,_ Beauregard and O'Leary discuss studies of Carmelite nuns during spiritual exercises. One used fMRI, while another used quantitative EEGs (QEEG). In the first, the nuns "reported the presence of visual and motor imagery during both the mystical and control conditions."176 In the second, one nun reported hearing Pachelbel's Canon.177 Clearly, neither study dealt with contentless mystical experience. One goal of the studies was to test the hypothesis that a "God spot" in the temporal lobes is the locus of religious experience.178 The study falsified that hypothesis.179 Still, it did not "identify the neural correlates of mystical experience"180 if that term is understood as referring to Stace's introvertive mystical experience, or those described by St. John of the Cross.
176 Op. cit., p. 271
177 Op. cit., p. 274
178 In 1997, Ramachandran's team claimed a specific "God module" in the brain explained humans' religious propensity: "There may be dedicated neural machinery in the temporal lobes concerned with religion. This may have evolved to impose order and stability on society." (Connor (1997), "'God Spot' in found in the brain.")
179 The "God Spot" was further falsified by Kapogiannis, _et al._ (2009), "Cognitive and Neural Foundations of Religious Belief." "The findings support the view that religiosity is integrated in cognitive processes and brain networks used in social cognition, rather than being _sui generis."_ Related concepts, religious or not, are processed in the same centers. Coauthor Grafman explained, "Religion doesn't have a 'God Spot' as such, instead it's embedded in a whole range of other belief systems in the brain that we use everyday."
180 Beauregard and Paquette (2006), "Neural Correlates of a Mystical Experience in Carmelite Nuns."
God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, Ph.D.
Hi,
I also saw it early on in the first HBO True Detective series, "We need to separate what we know is a fact from what we are merely speculating."
In my participation at the mental clinic I've found that they are very unclear on where mental illness comes from. They claim, "Mental illness is a brain disorder" and then remedy it with cognitive therapies pushing forward their claim of naturalism, the belief in psychoneural identity theory.
There are lots of instances where we fit stuff into a gap that is never true.
I think the Western intellectual tradition tries to address this question by 'using reason to point to something superior to reason'. To try and compress it into a form that is readable in this medium: 'mind' in the sense conveyed by 'nous', is 'that which sees reason/meaning'. I say 'reason/meaning' because in this understanding, things exist for a reason, and the reason for their existence is what makes them meaningful. You will note that in modern discourse, it is almost universally assumed that nothing exists for any ultimate reason, and that both 'reason' and 'meaning' are constructed or projected by the individual or society against the 'tabula rasa' of a meaningless universe.
In any case, in the Western intellectual tradition, reason pointed at something beyond reason, the source of reason, as it were. This became assimilated into Christian theology such that 'the source of reason' was then identified with 'God' simpliciter, to be subsumed under the assumption 'oh, that's religion, we know what that means'. But if you go back and re-consider the original tradition, it's much deeper than anything our scientific-secular culture will generally be able to entertain.
I sometimes meditate on the similarities between 'gist' and 'geist'. The German word Geist, often used by Hegel, can be translated into either 'mind' or 'spirit', depending on the context. It is part of the delightful compound word 'zeitgeist', the 'spirit of the times' (perhaps Hegel's best-known contribution to popular culture.) The word 'gist' is etymologically unrelated - it comes from a French root meaning 'to lie' as in 'lie of the land' - but nevertheless, I like to think there's a semantic connection between 'gist' and 'geist', which is that when we 'get the gist' of something, then we know what it means. If someone explains something to us, there is a moment when we 'get the gist' - we understand or comprehend the meaning. And that is geist/nous/mind in action. It is at that moment the mind 'sees meaning' or 'sees reason'. 'Aha', we say. 'I get it.'
The Western tradition proper aspired to 'see reason' in the broadest sense possible - the reason underlying the Universe as a whole. Realising that vision of the ultimate, something akin to Spinoza's 'intellectual love of God', was held up as the guiding ideal of the Western philosophical tradition proper. Alas, seems now a distant dream.
Quoting Daniel Cox
OK. I can see that you replied to my post rather than to the thread in general. But I'm not quite grokking how what I said lead to what you cut-and-pasted. Can you enlighten me?
Yes, there's often much to be gained simply by contrasting two words. :up: "Geist" is also "ghost", real or imagined for the theatre. E.g. "Geisterkabinett".
:up: Thanks for your reply and for giving this thread a jump start. I can completely see using the words “spirit” and “mind” interchangeably. Especially when referring to the higher levels of mind. The term “higher consciousness” to me is nearly interchangeable with spirit. As is the term “soul”. They seem intimately related, if not synonymous. Many have created useful terminologies and systems of these terms. I like the “self-help” writer Thomas Moore’s distinction between spirit and soul. It is almost a yin-yang complementary pair. He says spirit is young, energetic and volatile, like the elements of fire and air. He paints the concept of soul as very Yin, ancient, quiet, and deep, like the elements of water and earth. (I picture the union of the two like the meeting of Luke Skywalker and Yoda.)
"No evangelizing." <= WTH is that? IT's an attempt at prior restraint. Thanks for not "grokking", kind of got that part. I apologize for talking out of turn.
Some have a theory that mental illnesses, minor and major, (which I’ve been aquatinted with now and then) come from “above and below” the brain, in a way. Below meaning food, toxins, exercise, etc (or lack thereof). Above meaning thinking patterns, ethical choices, mental stress, etc. The mental and physical collide in the physical brain, so to speak.
Quoting Daniel Cox
Just my two cents, but I noticed nothing wrong with your posts. My take on the evangelizing prohibition thing is to prevent closed-minded cultist types. (As opposed to open-minded cultist types such as myself. :snicker: )
My mentor, my physics & philosophy professor, says, "Spirituality is intentionality" and distinguishes that reality from our brain as a data processor.
I understand his point because I'm diagnosed bipolar, probably not much worse than the average person. There is the chemical imbalance in the brain as you aptly point out, something is happening in the brain when we don't get enough rest & exercise, eat crappy foods (atheist = eat shit), but that reality can't gain any traction on our noetic subsystem of mind, the sum of which is evaluative and supervisory.
My family built a castle across the freeway from The Castle miniature golf course. We did land, mobile homes & financing. Both buildings were styled after castles, we wanted our architecture to match that of the golf course castle. So, long time coming, my point is that the women in my life wanted to be princesses. They saw me as the heir apparent and would control their conduct against what they felt each moment. I only recognized it later. For instance, none of my girlfriends ever got their period, they hid it from me 100%. I never really understood what it was until one lady who wanted to get with me presented it to me not realizing the effect it would have. She campaigned more or less about how men were not understanding of the woman's period. She lost the sale.
The clinic lists these "factors" in addition to their emphatic belief mental illness comes from the brain. They're begging the question on causality and correlation.
I'm here burning time, it helps me focus, and benefits me, but it's a guilty pleasure, I should be working.
Have a look at the really-rather-good Wikipedia entry on that idea.
Thanks! I found this section most insightful:
[i]In 1812 Schopenhauer started to use the term "the better consciousness", a consciousness
...[that] lies beyond all experience and thus all reason, both theoretical and practical (instinct).[3]
According to Yasuo Kamata, Schopenhauer's idea of "the better consciousness" finds its origin in Fichte's idea of a "higher consciousness" (höhere Bewusstsein)[4] or "higher intuition",[5] and also bears resemblance to Schelling's notion of "intellectual intuition".[4] According to Schopenhauer himself, his notion of a "better consciousness" was different from Schelling's notion of "intellectual intuition", since Schelling's notion required intellectual development of the understanding, while his notion of a "better consciousness" was "like a flash of insight, with no connection to the understanding."[4]
According to Schopenhauer,
The better consciousness in me lifts me into a world where there is no longer personality and causality or subject or object. My hope and my belief is that this better (supersensible and extra-temporal) consciousness will become my only one, and for that reason I hope that it is not God. But if anyone wants to use the expression God symbolically for the better consciousness itself or for much that we are able to separate or name, so let it be, yet not among philosophers I would have thought.[6][/i]
One may compare it to wind.
Now, consider the following:
If you should sever your hand, you would no longer be able to move it.
Yet you will move the rest of your body just fine.
This is severing the flesh from the spirit; something that happens at death, when the spirit leaves the body and the body becomes a lump of flesh, a steak if you will.
If a gust of wind blew by your severed hand, it would move it.
If it blew in a specific manner, it could even make it wave at you or give you a thumbs up.
So I say: spirit is like a soft, silent wind that moves things.
That's a really interesting passage, isn't it? You can almost see Schopenhauer struggling with the implications of this "better consciousness", which he is obliged to acknowledge. 'Let's hope this is not what is meant by "God", but if so, then so be it.' But he hopes that philosophers are able to recognise it as something else.
There is a series of aphorisms in one Upani?ad, along the lines that 'the eye cannot see itself, the hand cannot grasp itself'. I think it's an important pointer to how we go about thinking about 'spirit' because what is often done is what I consider 'objectification'. But there is no such object of perception or cognition - it is never a 'that' (or even 'it'!) I think in non-dualist philosophy, spirit is the 'being' of beings, so not an objective reality.
Zen Teachings of Huang-Po
Quoting Shamshir
[quote=Wikipedia]Pneuma (??????) is an ancient Greek word for "breath", and in a religious context for "spirit" or "soul". It has varied technical meanings for medical writers and philosophers of classical antiquity, particularly in regard to physiology, and is also used in Greek translations of ruach ??? in the Hebrew Bible, and in the Greek New Testament. In classical philosophy, it is distinguishable from psyche (????), which originally meant "breath of life", but is regularly translated as "spirit" or most often "soul".[/quote]
Sure, that works.
I'd only say, I find spirit and soul to be different things - like the light of a flame and its heat.
Thank you for that. Well put. The mysterious spark of life. Without it, even the strongest brain and body is an abandoned house.
:up: Consciousness is our truest identity, if we have one at all, I would say. The empty space in which everything else unfolds, if it can even be roughly and vaguely described. And it would seem possible that “one” consciousness is somehow in some way connected with “all” consciousness...
Without trying to define or explain what consciousness is (we understand it well enough for anything except a direct investigation of consciousness itself), how would you incorporate our unconscious minds into what you say? Our current understanding is that most of our mental abilities are unconscious, so it might be a little rash to assume that "Consciousness is our truest identity", without further qualification?
This is a sincere question, not a criticism of what you say. :chin:
It was VERY rash of me to say so! Lol. Rash, premature, primative theory about something perhaps indescribable. Almost certainly unprovable. Like a caveman making a crude paper bag out of leaves, and constructing one of those little floating “hot-air balloons” powered by a flame underneath, in a crude attempt to model a flying machine. It might need a whole book to answer, or more likely years of silent meditation. In other words, I need some time to chew on this excellent question... leaving the floor open to @Wayfarer or someone else to field it.
Thank you much for your reply. :smile:
Thanks again for the most relevant question. I think the term used to describe this luminous mind or pure consciousness is “the witness”. This refers not to the objects of the mind, but to the clear awareness itself, said to be as empty as the sky. It could be described as the consciousness of consciousness. The light itself, prior to and beyond anything illuminated by that light. Or perhaps the mirror, not the reflections. I would imagine this is central to our very being. All others aspects of self and mind (such as unconscious, memory, perception, sensation, etc.) remain as present, important, and functional as always. Perhaps the scope of the light could widen, bringing that which was unconscious into consciousness. That would nice. But in either case, the center is the witness rather than any content. This, to me, seems to be the essence of an individual self. If there could said to be a “next step”, I would say it would be Non-dualistic awareness, as taught in Advaita Vendanta. Also relevant (and more clearly worded than my attempts) are the teachings concerning Buddha-nature and Emptiness.
From The Tao Te Ching (chapter 2), trans. by S. Mitchell:
Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn't possess,
acts but doesn't expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever.
From Wikipedia on Buddha Nature:
[i]According to Wayman, the idea of the tathagatagarbha is grounded on sayings by the Buddha that there is something called the luminous mind "which is only adventitiously covered over by defilements (agantukaklesa)"[20] The luminous mind is mentioned in a passage from the Anguttara Nikaya: "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements." The Mah?s??ghika school coupled this idea of the luminous mind with the idea of the mulavijnana, the substratum consciousness that serves as the basis consciousness.
From the idea of the luminous mind emerged the idea that the awakened mind is the pure (visuddhi), undefiled mind. In the tathagatagarbha-sutras it is this pure consciousness that is regarded to be the seed from which Buddhahood grows: When this intrinsically pure consciousness came to be regarded as an element capable of growing into Buddhahood, there was the "embryo (garbha) of the Tathagata (=Buddha)" doctrine, whether or not this term is employed.[/i]
1. I don’t know. Perhaps.
2. It might depend on who you are asking.
3. Who is the one asking this question? (don’t we all enjoy an answerless koan on occasion? :smile: )
In other words, let's say I provide an adequate explanation to the OP's question. "This X is the true spirit." Ok fine. Let's pretend you agree.
But then, how do we know we're thinking of the "same" X? Maybe each of us is thinking of a different X, but is instead calling it by the same name.
Quoting YuZhonglu
Well, the point about any traditional understanding of spirit is that it is situated in a domain of discourse. This means a domain of shared understanding among other things. So for example in the Biblical tradition the idea of spirit is understood through various psalms, verses, sayings, writings, and so on, which are coherent within that domain of discourse.
What’s different now is the fact that we all have pretty well instant access to all of the literature of those traditions in a way which would have been inconceivable in the past. So that naturally leads to an enormous variety of interpretations and speculations about the meaning of such terms. I think that is why the Continental schools of philosophy put such emphasis on the discipline of hermeneutics, meaning, interpretation of texts - more so than the English-speaking world.
But I think through such disciplines as comparative religion you can discern common ideas and themes across different traditions, but it takes a fair amount of reading and reflection to make it out.
After all, that's what the evidence shows.
Christianity: Spirit is the Holy Ghost. Etc. etc.
Islam: No. It comes from the indivisible God.
Neuroscientist: It's a product of the brain.
Hinduism: It was granted to us from the Great Soul.
Etc. etc.
Consequently, since everyone writes about "spirit" differently, I conclude that each side is writing about a different spirit.
If everyone is blind, how would anyone know that it's actually an elephant? The parable makes no sense.
When you have no meaning and no predators to contend with anymore, you have to pretend there are bad guys lurking in the shadows.
When you think that you and your tribe are the most important aspect of an incomprehensibly vast universe, you have to pretend there's something out there to dignify your larger than life egos.
We don't know. Just as we don't know if you experience red as I do, or what it is like to be a bat. Your objection - and it is a valid one - applies to many (most? all?) issues, and is not specific to this discussion.
Soul, Spirit, Apathy, Wisdom all of it means something else today than it did in the past. What does spirit mean today ? Don't ask a philosopher ask a new age shithead or an evangelical christian.... For it is that vile spawn that took the word and arrested it to their own vile word soup they dare call truth.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-neuroscience-of-comas-or-what-it-means-to-be-trapp-5966630
But terms like "spirit" are too vague. Like, I can potentially use a FMRI scanner to see if you're thinking of the color red. But there's no way to check if you're thinking of thoughts "This Spirit is Jesus Christ. Or maybe it's a big huffaluffudus apple." Etc. etc.
There aren't many books out there that surpass the aforementioned book in its exposition of spiritual phenomena. So maybe it can help with this discussion.
For example, when it says, I realise just how precise it is even scientifically. Because everything we infer and refer to through the meaning of intelligence, from consciousness to mind, is arrived at through interaction with matter. So, even intelligence itself is derivative, often as a product of deduction. So, unless we're speaking the same language (terminology and articulation not tongue) there's bound to be misunderstanding.
That's not what I said. I referred to the (human) experience of seeing red. It's a very different thing.
But nothing whatsoever to do with "ghosts". I dont believe in all that rubbish. I realise this is all very subjective! It is an interesting question.
I’m afraid that is something that bodhisattvas do not suppose. The hallmark of the bodhisattva path is no essential self. So by all means believe it, but do at least consider changing your forum name.
How the word "idea" is defined reflects what people ordinarily think an idea is. If you think that ideas are only had by humans and you conclude from that that they cannot be anything other than what we know about them by virtue of having them, you are ruling out the possibility that animals or advanced alien species have ideas.You are also ruling out the possibility that they may exist in their own right somehow, perhaps in the way that Plato imagined. However implausible such possibilities may seem the refutation of them is not given by mere logic or definition, as you have suggested.
Thanks for that. I similarly think that there is some correlation and/or connection between spirit and energy. They both seem to be the invisible “yin” to matter’s (mostly) visible “yang”, to be speculative for a moment. Of course, I don’t think spirit and energy are close to being synonymous. But there might be some kind of Venn diagram type overlap. (This is all metaphysics, so I hope no one is waiting for charts, graphs, and hard numbers! :grin: )
Thanks for your input, as always. I see your point, and wouldn’t necessarily completely disagree. But... with all due respect, your reply could perhaps come across to some as a little terse, narrow, or cut-and-dried. Most likely unintentional. One would think an answer to that question might be more nuanced. If you could expound upon your answer, that might leaven the bread a bit (so to speak). Your reply to me earlier in this thread was a helpful thumbnail sketch:
Quoting Wayfarer
I think the concept/teaching of anatta is most relevant to this thread. And (to risk a metaphor), our culture in general is suffering a scurvy-like disease from the general lack of this “nutrient”. (IMHO, we construct vast cities and tall buildings on the murky swampland of “self”. The separate self may be the archetypal fiat currency, the foundation of our civilization... as well as its discontents).
To be perhaps overly general.... it appears to me that the crux of the concept is on there not being a permanent, unchanging, and separate self. The relative self could be said to exist, as in “the small self”. A non-absolute self, with a lowercase “s”, always in the state of flux, and interdependent with the rest of life and existence. That’s just my quick take (and open to revision or correction) on this very profound teaching...
This article from Tricycle magazine is interesting. (a little long, rest of it is hidden):
[i]The Buddha was careful to classify questions according to how they should be answered, based on how helpful they were to gaining awakening. Some questions deserved a categorical answer, that is, one that holds true across the board. Some he answered analytically, redefining or refining the terms before answering. Some required counter-questioning, to clarify the issue in the questioner’s mind. But if the question was an obstacle on the path, the Buddha put it aside.
When Vacchagotta the wanderer asked him point-blank whether or not there is a self, the Buddha remained silent, which means that the question has no helpful answer. As he later explained to Ananda, to respond either yes or no to this question would be to side with opposite extremes of wrong view (Samyutta Nikaya 44.10). Some have argued that the Buddha didn’t answer with “no” because Vacchagotta wouldn’t have understood the answer. But there’s another passage where the Buddha advises all the monks to avoid getting involved in questions such as “What am I?” “Do I exist?” “Do I not exist?” because they lead to answers like “I have a self” and “I have no self,” both of which are a “thicket of views, a writhing of views, a contortion of views” that get in the way of awakening (Majjhima Nikaya 2). [/i]
[hide] [i] So how did we get the idea that the Buddha said that there is no self? The main culprit seems to be the debate culture of ancient India. Religious teachers often held public debates on the hot questions of the day, both to draw adherents and to angle for royal patronage. The Buddha warned his followers not to enter into these debates (Sutta Nipata 4.8), partly because once the sponsor of a debate had set a question, the debaters couldn’t follow the Buddha’s policy of putting useless questions aside.
Later generations of monks forgot the warning and soon found themselves in debates where they had to devise a Buddhist answer to the question of whether there is or isn’t a self. The Kathavatthu, an Abhidhamma text attributed to the time of King Ashoka, contains the earliest extant version of the answer “no.” Two popular literary works, the Buddhacharita and Milinda Panha, both from around the first century CE, place this “no” at the center of the Buddha’s message. Later texts, like the Abhidharmakosha Bhashya, provide analytical answers to the question of whether there is a self, saying that there’s no personal self but that each person has a “dharma-self” composed of five aggregates: material form, feelings, perceptions, mental fabrications, and consciousness. At present we have our own analytical answers to the question, such as the teaching that although we have no separate self, we do have a cosmic self—a teaching, by the way, that the Buddha singled out for special ridicule (MN 22).
“There is no self” is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes. It has survived so long because of its superficial resemblance to the teaching on anatta, or not-self, which was one of the Buddha’s tools for putting an end to clinging. Even though he neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a self, he did talk of the process by which the mind creates many senses of self—what he called “I-making” and “my-making”—as it pursues its desires.
In other words, he focused on the karma of selfing. Because clinging lies at the heart of suffering, and because there’s clinging in each sense of self, he advised using the perception of not-self as a strategy to dismantle that clinging. Whenever you see yourself identifying with anything stressful and inconstant, you remind yourself that it’s not-self: not worth clinging to, not worth calling your self (SN 22.59). This helps you let go of it. When you do this thoroughly enough, it can lead to awakening. In this way, the not-self teaching is an answer—not to the question of whether there’s a self, but to the question that the Buddha said lies at the heart of discernment: “What, when I do it, will lead to my long-term welfare and happiness?” (MN 135). You find true happiness by letting go.
Some ways of selfing, the Buddha and his disciples found, are useful along the path, as when you develop a sense of self that’s heedful and responsible, confident that you can manage the practice (Anguttara Nikaya4.159). While you’re on the path, you apply the perception of not-self to anything that would pull you astray. Only at the end do you apply that perception to the path itself. As for the goal, it’s possible to develop a sense of clinging around the experience of the deathless, so the Buddha advises that you regard even the deathless as not-self (AN 9.36). But when there’s no more clinging, you have no need for perceptions either of self or not-self. You see no point in answering the question of whether there is or isn’t a self because you’ve found the ultimate happiness.
The belief that there is no self can actually get in the way of awakening. As the Buddha noted, the contemplation of not-self can lead to an experience of nothingness (MN 106). If your purpose in practicing is to disprove the self—perhaps from wanting to escape the responsibilities of having a self—you can easily interpret the experience of nothingness as the proof you’re looking for: a sign you’ve reached the end of the path. Yet the Buddha warned that subtle clinging can persist in that experience. If you think you’ve reached awakening, you won’t look for the clinging. But if you learn to keep looking for clinging, even in the experience of nothingness, you’ll have a chance of finding it. Only when you find it can you then let it go.
So it’s important to remember which questions the not-self teaching was meant to answer and which ones it wasn’t. Getting clear on this point can mean the difference between a false awakening and the real thing. [i] [/hide]
Nothing to do with the topic, but I like the new avatar. Curiously, for some reason I was just thinking about Wacky Packages yesterday, thinking I need to look for info about them online because I hadn't seen them in so long. And then I see your avatar. ;-)
I was kind of 'testing the water'. However, in your case, it's worth discussing in depth, because I think you're seeing the point.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Bhikkhu Thanissaro's interpretation is always reliable, but I will put it a slightly different way.
The underlying problem in the Buddhist view is 'objectification' - that we seize upon objects, often in the form of ideas, and say 'this is it!' or 'this is not it!' 'Higher self' is one of those ideas; 'spirit' another. When we name them, we 'make something of them', so to speak. 'Look! That's the important thing to understand!' But that is the process of reification, of making something out of a concept. (A lot of talk about 'God' is exactly like this.)
In this sense, Buddhism is near to some themes found in existentialism. It's not as if there is some 'self-essence' which we have to apprehend somehow; it's rather that there's nothing that can be grasped, and we demonstrate our understanding of that by not grasping at it. So it's actually a stance or a dynamic action - the dynamic of not clinging. That becomes, in Mahayana Buddhist terminology, a skill or a mental competency - the skill of non-attachment.
(In saying that, I don't want to come across as all sage-like - my own skills are rudimentary. But I completed an MA in the subject, and I'm also a technical writer, so I can express it in words. But I'm certainly not claiming any mastery.)
Quoting 0 thru 9
What's happened, as I think I said earlier in this thread, is the consequence of a dialectical process. One side of the dialectic is theistic religion, the other side is atheism. Atheism has grown out of the rejection of dogmatic belief so has become dogmatic unbelief, if you like. Whereas Buddhism never set itself up in those terms to begin with (which is not to say that Buddhists can't be dogmatic, as they most certainly can.)
All thanks to Google images. :smile: Like the saying goes... leave ‘em laughing, and leave ‘em thinking. With a silly avatar, there is a chance for the former. If one can’t even leave ‘em laughing, then just leave!
:up: Thanks for the in-depth reply. Much appreciated. Oh yes, not grasping is absolutely central. (Noble Truth #2, the cause of suffering, IIRC). At the very least or as a start, seeing how comically pathetic it is! We laugh at the naive fool in a movie, but usually the character learns their lesson by the end of the two-hour film. We should be so lucky! :blush:
I tend to think that (outside of meditation, but perhaps even there at times) some reification is perhaps inevitable, and not necessarily a problem. Being so omnipresent in the calculating and naming part of the brain, that recognition/awareness of the process (and the attendant skepticism or caution) is usually sufficient to avoid confusion, I would think. I can have a model toy 1957 Chevy convertible and enjoy it. As long as I don’t try to cruise the boulevard in it, everything is fine. If Lao-Tsu would have stopped after writing “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao”, we would have been the poorer for it. Form is emptiness, emptiness no other than form, as the mind-bending (but strangely comforting) sutra whispers to us.
We call energy, dreams, rivers, music, and evolution “its”. We make nouns out of verbs and adjectives. We want to freeze the dynamic interdependent world into little solid bite-sized nuggets. We make language, and language returns the favor. It may be part of our reptilian brain, seeing the world as food, shelter, danger, or background. I would love to shed my reptilian mind like a snake sheds its skin, but until then perhaps the helpful thing would be to see all things and concepts as empty. But wonderfully empty, for the emptiness is the flow of unlimited energy and connection. In a way, it is like our cosmic electricity, Wi-Fi, and food delivery all rolled into one, times a million (to wax poetic for a moment).
The reason for this is, that to assert the existence of something, is to say that it is this, as opposed to that. In Western philosophy, this became formularised through Cartesian dualism as 'spirit, as distinct from body'. Then this lead to a false conception of the nature of 'spirit', because of the subsequent question of how 'spirit' could relate to 'body' when they're so utterly different (this is the 'ghost in the machine'). It made it a relatively simple matter to then dispose of the notion of spirit altogether, as it couldn't be seen or measured and appeared to make no difference, and to then assume only the reality of 'body', which can indeed be seen and measured - which is precisely the basis of today's scientific materialism.
But Buddhism subverts this, not by asserting the existence of spirit or any kind of 'immaterial substance' (which is an oxymoron) but by re-examining the process which lead to the division in the first place. But that re-examination is not a matter verbal or a discursive analysis, but of perceiving the way in which the mind and language divides up the world into these conceptual categories. So it takes a kind of meta-cognitive act, by which the mind begins to understand the way in which it construes experience (usually unconsciously) - leading to confusion about meaning, symbol, reality, concept, and so on, in which modern cultural discourse (and we ourselves) finds ourselves enmeshed.
(It's interesting to reflect that this is comparable in many ways to Heidegger's attempt to understand the nature of being-in-the-world which likewise attempts to articulate or make explicit the background assumptions through which the process is instinctively grasped.)
Of course, as you say, that doesn't necessarily undermine the usefulness of discursive analysis in place. There are many areas where it is indispensable. But it also has limits, and these limits are exactly what modern philosophy has tended to lose sight of.
Thanks for the reply. That covers it nicely: “it does not exist, but it also does not not exist” , as you put it. There are times that words seem to fail, are just too imprecise. Like trying to perform eye surgery with blocks of wood. Dark matter and dark energy might be under our control before that which people call spirit is even satisfactorily described. Kant’s concept of noumenon (as contrasted with the observable phenomenon) might be helpful. (Though I use Kant only in case of emergency, lol). The whole Transcendentist movement tiptoes in this area, of course. Internal experience vs external “stuff”. Ken Wilber’s Four Quadrants (comprising interior and exterior, individual and collective) I find to be a useful and balanced way of considering matter and mind. He acknowledges that mental events have physical aspects (neurological chemicals and so forth) but refuses to “collapse” the mental/spiritual to merely being (and wholly explainable) in terms of their material components. Denying the extreme scientific materialism, as you also alluded to.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes. Dividing any whole into parts, and naming them is theoretically an endless process, with arguably diminishing returns. Dissect the golden goose, or not? All things being equal, having scientific data about X is a wonderful thing. But in our relative world, all things are rarely if ever completely equal. How could it be if everything is constantly changing in some way? I’m curious about subatomic particles and space travel. But the skepticism about the amount and priority of such research being militarily useful is difficult to ignore, for one thing. We apply math to the world. Dividing, multiplying, adding, and subtracting this, that, and the other. Which is fine, as long as we can turn off the calculator now and then, and see what happens.
I said:
Quoting NKBJ
Animals are, to varying degrees, cogent beings, and advanced alien life probably are as well.
A brain doesn't function without the heartbeat.
When the heart and brain are *linked*, what is that phenomenon?
Mind and body are created out of the spirit of heart and brain! Soul, is different from spirit, soul is something the mind and body can create.
The question is if heart and mind are *necessary* for spirit, and what forms of spirit might exist.
A hell for a spirit may be that you have no free will but you are this moving thing that crawls on elbows and kneecaps.
Show him the picture...