Does "spiritual" even have a real definition?

[Lord Kenneth]

A definition of spirituality leads me to this:

The state, quality, manner, or fact of being spiritual.

Spiritual leads me to this:

Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. S

Okay, how can one be a "spiritual" person?

Anyhow:

1.
a.The vital principle or animating force within living beings.
b.Incorporeal consciousness.

2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death.

Again, this definitions are non-sensical... what is this "animating force"??? "Incorporeal conciousness"???

1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

Number one only gives us the definition of what a soul supposedly is, but one wonders what the evidence is for it being an "immaterial entity". This definition seems to basically resemble "personality and thought mixed into one.

Number two is completely incoherent. What is this "spiritual nature"? How does that fit in with number one? Again, people feel emotions, but how does that relate to "spirituality"?

I think this is like a trick of language, a meaningless concept, given with association of religion, tricks people into thinking it's something, but they can never seem to define what precisely it is.

Or am I wrong?

[Mercutio]

I hate the word "spiritual". It is, too often, seen as a neutral stance that nobody would object to--and sometimes is watered down to serve different occasions. I've had people (when I complained) say "oh, I only mean that we all recognize we are part of something greater than ourselves"...which to me is either quite an assumption (do we all recognize?) or a complete denial of the "spirit" half of the word, or both. Why not admit it is a religious phrase, and admit that people like me will be offended by it?

[Lord Kenneth]

It is a phrase, I think, sometimes used to describe religiousity but as something beyond emotion. It just doesn't seem to make sense.

[triadboy]

Don't ask me - I don't get it. Does 'spiritual' mean being in touch with another dimension? Or is it just that tingley feeling you get when you clench your butt muscles together?

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by triadboy
Or is it just that tingley feeling you get when you clench your butt muscles together?

Well, I'll be, I'm a very spiritual person...

[Pyrian]

Oh, c'mon, at least try, you're just applying your own assumptions to the definitions and declaring them non-sensical because you don't believe in spirits in the first place.

What I'm saying is that normal spirituality does not and cannot make any sense from a viewpoint that denies the existence of any sort of spirit. That's not profound, that's semantic.Again, this definitions are non-sensical... what is this "animating force"??? "Incorporeal conciousness"???A living person walks around. A dead (or comatose!) person does not - even while their muscles are perfectly functional. That's what animated means. If we define spirit in these terms, then we could equate it with what I'd call a set of patterns occurring in the brain - essentially synonymous with consciousness.

Historically, the spirit (or soul if you prefer) was regarded as that entity which provided consciousness, as was widely attributed with the quality of being incorporeal (thus incorporeal consciousness). Attributing consciousness entirely to the brain is a relatively recent phenomenon not particularly reflected in nomenclature.

In a nearby thread you'll find that this attribution is contested to this day - albeit not always well. The spirit is a hypothesized incorporeal (i.e. mostly intangible) entity which interacts weakly with matter in general, but more strongly with the body in general and the brain in particular. It is used in the same way as God and other supernatural phenomena are used - to explain what hasn't yet been (or, in a few cases, cannot be) otherwise explained.

However, it doesn't stop there.

Spirit is roughly synonymous with essence, and can also be used to distinguish between what a psychologist might call different levels of consciousness. Humans have a number of instinctual desires which commonly get ignored or deemed irrelevant in modern society, probably because we can't yet measure and quantify them in a predictable and meaningful way. A lot of what is called "spiritual" appeals to these instincts which make up what a spiritualist might call our "inner essence" or spirit.

I deride religion for thinking itself correct, but respect it for its profound influence upon humanity.Number one only gives us the definition of what a soul supposedly is, but one wonders what the evidence is for it being an "immaterial entity". This definition seems to basically resemble "personality and thought mixed into one.Since when does a definition require evidence? I can define phlogiston just fine without believing it exists.What is this "spiritual nature"?Uh, the rest of the definition told you: "immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state". You can argue that such an entity does not exist, but I don't see what about it you fail to understand.How does that fit in with number one?I think they fit together just fine, but that's besides the point, since there is no reason why two definitions of the same word have to have anything in common at all.I think this is like a trick of language, a meaningless concept, given with association of religion, tricks people into thinking it's something, but they can never seem to define what precisely it is.I think it was a perfectly reasonable assumption from a culture which had no way of even imagining that something like consciousness could derive from a wet, squishy mass of grey.

[Bikewer]

I always thought Spiritual was one of those "blab" words. (Marshal McCluhan, I think)
That is, words that everyone uses, yet no one can clearly define.

Little phrases like "God is love."

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Pyrian
Oh, c'mon, at least try, you're just applying your own assumptions to the definitions and declaring them non-sensical because you don't believe in spirits in the first place.

What I'm saying is that normal spirituality does not and cannot make any sense from a viewpoint that denies the existence of any sort of spirit. That's not profound, that's semantic.A living person walks around. A dead (or comatose!) person does not - even while their muscles are perfectly functional. That's what animated means. If we define spirit in these terms, then we could equate it with what I'd call a set of patterns occurring in the brain - essentially synonymous with consciousness.



But how does "being spiritual" relate to that?



Historically, the spirit (or soul if you prefer) was regarded as that entity which provided consciousness, as was widely attributed with the quality of being incorporeal (thus incorporeal consciousness). Attributing consciousness entirely to the brain is a relatively recent phenomenon not particularly reflected in nomenclature.



But I still don't see what people mean when they say "growing spiritually" or "feeling spiritual"!



In a nearby thread you'll find that this attribution is contested to this day - albeit not always well. The spirit is a hypothesized incorporeal (i.e. mostly intangible) entity which interacts weakly with matter in general, but more strongly with the body in general and the brain in particular. It is used in the same way as God and other supernatural phenomena are used - to explain what hasn't yet been (or, in a few cases, cannot be) otherwise explained.



Yes, I know what a soul/spirit are, and how they relate to conciousness...



However, it doesn't stop there.

Spirit is roughly synonymous with essence, and can also be used to distinguish between what a psychologist might call different levels of consciousness. Humans have a number of instinctual desires which commonly get ignored or deemed irrelevant in modern society, probably because we can't yet measure and quantify them in a predictable and meaningful way. A lot of what is called "spiritual" appeals to these instincts which make up what a spiritualist might call our "inner essence" or spirit.



Again, I know what you're saying, but it doesn't seem to make sense.

I cannot find a coherent definition of "spiritual" as relating to "growing spiritually" or the like.



I deride religion for thinking itself correct, but respect it for its profound influence upon humanity.Since when does a definition require evidence? I can define phlogiston just fine without believing it exists.Uh, the rest of the definition told you: "immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state". You can argue that such an entity does not exist, but I don't see what about it you fail to understand.I think they fit together just fine, but that's besides the point, since there is no reason why two definitions of the same word have to have anything in common at all.I think it was a perfectly reasonable assumption from a culture which had no way of even imagining that something like consciousness could derive from a wet, squishy mass of grey. [/B]

I didn't say it needed evidence, I was referring to the concept itself, not the defining of the concept. Almost like a disclaimer for Interesting Ian, who is bound to come in here and change the subject.

Again, what does one mean when they say "growing spiritually", "feeling spiritual", etc? The first would imply a type of level of thought, but of what?

[Yahweh]

Does "spiritual" even have a real definition?
For practical purposes, I use my own definition: Significant emotional attachment.

Its not limited to that definition, its just the one I like best...

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Yahweh

For practical purposes, I use my own definition: Significant emotional attachment.

Its not limited to that definition, its just the one I like best...

Please do not talk to me again, or post in any of my topics.

[Dancing David]

LK, I first apologise for yanking your chain in the past. Maybe I regret the falme war thread.


I tend to define 'spiritual' as being a subset of the human experience. They certainly aren't anything other than a set of human experience. They tend to revolve around a sense of connection, sel awareness and other 'profound' adventures of the mind.

You can tell by this definition, I don't beieve in 'spirit' as the previous definitions list it. I would argue that rationality and reductive thought it a tool, the intuition, pattern recognition and 'spirit' are other tools. they have different uses in different places.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Please do not talk to me again, or post in any of my topics.
I dont think it is in your place to tell me what I can or cannot do. Play nice.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Yahweh

For practical purposes, I use my own definition: Significant emotional attachment.

Its not limited to that definition, its just the one I like best...

Please , pay attention to my threads.

Please respond to my posts.

But keep your sinai blood soaked hands off my pagan soul!

[Lord Kenneth]

I think it is perfectly acceptable to make that kind of request regarding the circumstances.

Follow your own advice, concerning "play nice". I'm completely done with you. You are now on ignore, and I will never be talking to you again, both off and on here.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Please , pay attention to my threads.
I read everything, including your threads :).

Please respond to my posts.
Sure, why not.

But keep your sinai blood soaked hands off my pagan soul!
When I said "YOUR SOUL IS MINE", you took what I said completely out of context, I meant it as a metaphor... damn...

[T'ai Chi]

Lord Kenneth, for 'spiritual', I'd personally define it as someone experiencing (temporarily, ongoing, or permanently) the feelings brought on by religiousity, but without that person necessarily being religious, through a variety of thoughts or actions.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Lord Kenneth, for 'spiritual', I'd personally define it as someone experiencing (temporarily, ongoing, or permanently) the feelings brought on by religiousity, but without that person necessarily being religious, through a variety of thoughts or actions. It is exactly this type of thing (and Pyrian's post, too, although I intend this much more generally and not as a specific reaction to your posts) that I don't get. In another thread (I think it was "what can replace religious awe?" or something similar) I was told that some of my experiences were "spiritual" in nature. By T'C's or Pyrian's definition (and, of course, by colloquial usage in general society) perhaps they were. But it is precisely the implications, the baggage, that comes from the etymology of the word, which I find offensive. I do not wish a secular use of the term "spiritual". It would be roughly equivalent to refering to every wish I might have as a "prayer". This does sometimes happen in colloquial usage, and I find it offensive as well. It assumes the "normalcy" of religious thought, and a particular religion's thought at that. If, instead of "this team doesn't have a prayer" in colloquial speech, I said "this team needs to sacrifice another goat", it would be seen for what it is. "Spiritual" attempts to enter by the back way, unseen and undetected; I'll none of it. It is closer to "religious" than to "secular awe", and it should remain that way. I'd rather have extraordinary, incredible, awesome or fan-expletive-tastic experiences than spiritual experiences any day.

[Pyrian]

Lord Kenneth:Pyrian:
Spirit is roughly synonymous with essence, and can also be used to distinguish between what a psychologist might call different levels of consciousness. Humans have a number of instinctual desires which commonly get ignored or deemed irrelevant in modern society, probably because we can't yet measure and quantify them in a predictable and meaningful way. A lot of what is called "spiritual" appeals to these instincts which make up what a spiritualist might call our "inner essence" or spirit.Again, I know what you're saying, but it doesn't seem to make sense.

I cannot find a coherent definition of "spiritual" as relating to "growing spiritually" or the like.Okay, in the context of my quote above, I would describe "growing spiritually" as becoming more in tune or harmony with an under-recognized instinctive desire. By "in tune or harmony" I don't mean anything more profound than, say, eating a hamburger to satisfy hunger - and that that differs only in that hunger is a clearly recognized and universally acknowledged instinctual function.

A simple example would be someone deciding to embrace a belief in their connection to a loving God - they feel good about it and interpret it as "growing spiritually". They have "grown" in the sense that their world-view has encompassed something new, and it's spiritual in several senses as God may be considered a spirit and their connection to God is considered (by them) to be a function of their incorporeal spirit.

Now, little 'ol me would describe this process as that individual becoming happier as they are more in harmony with their instinctual desire to have an alpha male to take care of them - even though they have no recognition that that is an inherent instinct of theirs.

I have no doubt and do not mean to question the assertion that terms like "growing spiritually" are bandied about as buzzwords with no relation to anything else and no purpose other than to promote a questionable product or service. Still, like any good buzzword, they are meant to evoke a real meaning - otherwise they wouldn't be useful in marketing.

[TruthSeeker]

Kenneth,

I am currently reading "The Spirituality of Imperfection" by Ernest Kurtz and Katherine Ketcham. They spend a chapter struggling to define "spirituality". I'll provide some representative quotes and you can make of them what you will.

They open with this quote:
"Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell; spirituality is for those whose who have been there"

"spirituality, like truth, wisdom, goodness, beauty and the fragrance of a rose, are intangible, ineffable realities. We may know them but we can never grasp them with our hands or with our words."

"Traditions as diverse as the Buddhist, the Christian and the Muslim agree that we speak most truly of the divine and therefore of "the spiritual" by recognizing what it is not."

"Spirituality is not religion
~ religion connotes boundaries while spirituality's borders seem haphazard and ill-defined
~spirituality as a contrast to the punishments and rewards, the motives of fear and greed, the sense of "us' against "them" of religion.
~spirituality cam to be seen as the attempt to find a middle ground between religion and irreligion

Spirituality is not therapy
~both are concerned with making whole, a mending of our brokenness, some soothing relief for our "torn-to-pieces" hood
~therapy offers explanations; spirituality offers forgiveness
~the therapeutic approach looks to origins, to the environment and to motives. Spirituality in contrast, attends to directions, to drawing forward, ideals, hope
~Therapy may release from [distress]; spirituality releases for life
~Therapy's goal is happiness...while spirituality suggests the more realistic goal is ... finding a real fit between self and reality outside of self...in the sense of discovering and embracing the whole of which one is part

Spirituality involves first seeing ourselves truly, as the paradoxical and imperfect beings that we are, and then discovering that it is only within our very imperfection that we can find the peace and serenity that is available to us

[Pyrian]

Mercutio:
It is exactly this type of thing (and Pyrian's post, too, although I intend this much more generally and not as a specific reaction to your posts) that I don't get. In another thread (I think it was "what can replace religious awe?" or something similar) I was told that some of my experiences were "spiritual" in nature. By T'C's or Pyrian's definition (and, of course, by colloquial usage in general society) perhaps they were. But it is precisely the implications, the baggage, that comes from the etymology of the word, which I find offensive. I do not wish a secular use of the term "spiritual". It would be roughly equivalent to refering to every wish I might have as a "prayer". This does sometimes happen in colloquial usage, and I find it offensive as well. It assumes the "normalcy" of religious thought, and a particular religion's thought at that. If, instead of "this team doesn't have a prayer" in colloquial speech, I said "this team needs to sacrifice another goat", it would be seen for what it is. "Spiritual" attempts to enter by the back way, unseen and undetected; I'll none of it. It is closer to "religious" than to "secular awe", and it should remain that way. I'd rather have extraordinary, incredible, awesome or fan-expletive-tastic experiences than spiritual experiences any day.I'm sorry, you're right, I essentially perverted the definition by applying what is actually my own interpretation of what I consider to be a deeper meaning of the terms, and I should have kept them more separate than I did.

The truth is that I have a great deal of respect for many of the things labeled spirituality, and explaining them in atheistic terms is kind of my way of expressing that. I wanted to say that I think some of that stuff is important, even if the underlying explanations prove to ultimately be totally untrue (as I suspect they are).

[UnrepentantSinner]

Without reading the whole thread, I'll just add this comment about a friend of mine. He's Eastern Orthodox and a skeptic. He's what I consider "spritual," he's also very secular in his analysis of this world we live in. For him - at least as I see it - his spiritual side exists in a world of the unseen, the untouched and is something he exhibits moreso than is something he "is."

I, despite denying the validity of the sensations and sensations of "spirituality," don't decry those who claim to feel it.

[RichardR]

Spirituality was defined very well some time ago by another poster – I think it was Flatworm (whatever happened to him?) –

"the subset of human emotions that superstitious people ascribe to supernatural causes"

[hammegk]

"Spiritual"; the complete antithesis to materialism/atheism. Scientific Naturalism (& TLOP) is at least a subset of "the spiritual" imo. (Could be the entire set don't ya know?)

Just my thoughts of course, but it works for me. :)

[Bentspoon]

"the subset of human emotions that superstitious people ascribe to supernatural causes"

That defines it perfectly for me. I get spiritual feelings from redwood forests, inspirational (that doesn't mean religious) music, beautiful cathedrals and documentaries on human hand transplants. All the same deep emotional impact.

Bentspoon

[Nyarlathotep]

From reading the posts on this thread I begin to suspect that my own theory is correct, that "spiritual" is one of those vague words that people can force to mean anything they want. it may well have a dictionary meaning, but in actual practice it really doesn't

[Bikewer]

Which was pretty much how Marshall McCluhan described his "blab word" idea.

Glad to see there's a few Lovecraft fans still about. I'm an artist, and created a series of small sculptures depicting various "mythos" characters.

Whenever I show em' at one of the local arts fairs, I have to spend hours explaining....

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Which was pretty much how Marshall McCluhan described his "blab word" idea.

Glad to see there's a few Lovecraft fans still about. I'm an artist, and created a series of small sculptures depicting various "mythos" characters.

Whenever I show em' at one of the local arts fairs, I have to spend hours explaining....

I have never heard of Marshal McCluhan but it sounds like he has the right idea, because there are lots of words and phrases that people do that to.

BTW, I have found that there are actually a lot of Lovecraft fans on this board. There are three other posters that I can think of with Lovecraftian names, and a handful of others who I know from either their sig lines or from comments they have made in past threads that they are also Lovecraft fans.

[Uther]

The definition RichardR gives is good, but I agree that "spirituality" is a pretty flexible term, that can mean pretty much whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

Also, you'll note I've got ol' squidface as my avatar.

-Uther

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Uther
The definition RichardR gives is good, but I agree that "spirituality" is a pretty flexible term, that can mean pretty much whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

Also, you'll note I've got ol' squidface as my avatar.

-Uther

Yep, you were one of the people I thought of. I have always felt the hat was a nice touch.

[Walter Wayne]

I thought definitions at dictionary.com were pretty good.
And there aren't argumentative. :pspir·i·tu·al
adj.
1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

n.

1a. A religious folk song of African-American origin.
1b. A work composed in imitation of such a song.
2. Religious, spiritual, or ecclesiastical matters. Often used in the plural.Walt