Spiritual versus Religious
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
"‘Spirituality’ is a word that, in broad terms, stands for lifestyles and practices that embody a vision of human existence and of how the human spirit is to achieve its full potential. In that sense, ‘spirituality’ embraces an aspirational approach, whether religious or secular, to the meaning and conduct of human life."
(p. 1)
"How is ‘spirituality’ defined today? The answer is not simple because the word is used in such different contexts. However, contemporary literature on ‘spirituality’ regularly includes the following. Spirituality concerns what is holistic—that is, a fully integrated approach to life. This fits with the fact that historically ‘the spiritual’ relates to ‘the holy’ from the Greek word ‘holos’, ‘the whole’. Thus, rather than being simply one element among others in human existence, ‘the spiritual’ is best understood as the integrating factor—‘life as a whole’. Then spirituality is also understood to be engaged with a quest for the ‘sacred’. This includes beliefs about God but also refers more broadly to the numinous, the depths of human existence, or the boundless mysteries of the cosmos.
Further, spirituality is frequently understood to involve a quest for meaning (including the purpose of life) as a response to the decline of traditional religious or social authorities. Because of its association with meaning, contemporary spirituality implicitly suggests an understanding of human identity and of personality development. One interesting example is the concept of ‘spiritual development’ in documentation for English secondary schools from the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). Here, spirituality refers to the development of the non-material element of life. ‘Life’ is more than biology.
Spirituality is also regularly linked to ‘thriving’—what it means to thrive and how we come to thrive. Finally, contemporary definitions of spirituality relate it to a sense of ultimate values in contrast to an instrumentalized attitude to life. This suggests a self-reflective existence as opposed to an unexamined life."
(pp. 5-6)
"In summary, at first sight the notion of ‘spirituality’ is confusing simply because of its breadth and diffuse nature. Hopefully, three important points about contemporary understandings of spirituality have been established.
First, spirituality is inherently related to context and culture. The way we talk about spirituality reflects the priorities of the different contexts in which it is used. For example, the dominant themes are different in health care and education. Equally, spirituality has a distinct flavour in Africa, Asia, and Latin America as opposed to Europe or North America.
Second, despite these varied approaches, there are certain ‘family resemblances’ which make it possible to offer a tentative definition of spirituality. Thus we saw that spirituality concerns a fully integrated approach to life (holism), involves a quest for the ‘sacred’, underpins a desire for meaning, and implies some understanding of human identity, purpose, and thriving. Finally, spirituality points to a desire for ultimate values and involves the intentional pursuit of a principled rather than purely pragmatic way of life.
Third, contemporary approaches to spirituality take many forms partly because spirituality has become egalitarian or at least anti-authoritarian. People on a spiritual quest often reject traditional sources of authority and their association with fixed dogmatic systems in favour of the authority of personal, inner experience. This makes it increasingly common for people to borrow from more than one spiritual tradition and even to talk about ‘double belonging’—‘I am Christian and Buddhist’."
(pp. 22-3)
"It should now be clear both that spirituality is an increasingly widespread and influential idea and that its forms are extremely varied. In general terms, spirituality implies an understanding of what is, or should be, central to human existence and how the human spirit may reach its full potential. Spirituality is an aspirational concept in that it suggests that leading a fully human life demands goals that are more than purely materially enhancing. It speaks of integration rather than fragmentation, of a sense of ultimate purpose in place of an instinctual or unexamined life, of the existence and relevance of a deeper level of meaning and fulfilment beyond immediate happiness. All of these things seem self-evidently good. However, further than this, spirituality is also seen in certain quarters as a useful term that takes us beyond the limitations of a formalistic approach to ethics."
(p. 114)
(Sheldrake, Philip. Spirituality: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.)
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
The question is What am I? (which is different from Who am I?). Of course, I'm a subject, but this doesn't answer the ontological question of my real essence, my true nature. What kind of entities are subjects (or egos or selves)? My down-to-earth answer is that they are (conscious) animals (animal organisms): I qua subject (ego/self/person) am a conscious human animal. This view is called animalism.Tamminen wrote: ↑February 10th, 2018, 9:42 amThe transcendental subject is not supernatural, it is the ontological precondition of nature itself. And it was detected by Descartes, Kant, Husserl, Wittgenstein and others, perhaps with slightly different interpretations. It was also behind Heidegger's Dasein, although he criticized Husserl's interpretation of it. In fact it is quite easy to detect with a little reflection. But I have never seen anyone detect a material subject, unless it is a material organism interpreted as subject, which has nothing to do with subjectivity.
The transcendental subject is the 'I' of the 'I am such and such'. The 'such and such' varies in the universe, but the 'I' does not change or cease to be. It is the permanent reference point of our changing experiences of the world.
The subject is "transcendent(al)" only insofar as it is not part of the content of its consciousness. It is "content-transcendent", but not "world-transcendent". Note that to call the subject content-transcendent is not to say that its mind/consciousness doesn't contain any mental representations (percepts or concepts, "impressions" or "ideas") of it. It does, but the point is that the subject of mentality is not itself an item or a bundle of items of mentality, and is hence content-transcendent rather than content-immanent.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
Yes, the word "spirituality" is weighed down by various semantics and vague interpretations, not in any small part due to the difficulty of adequately articulating the internal. It seems to me that spirituality (and science, and philosophy) ideally entails the appreciation of aspects of existence that are usually taken for granted when one is "busy making other plans". To some extent, spirituality is a preparation for death, or at least an acknowledgement of the temporal nature of life, where there is focus on things that will not lead to regrets when dying.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
I would put it this way: The basic ontological structure of reality is the relation of the subject to objects of the material world. This relation is expressed by my immediate reality or consciousness as the subjective side of it, and my body as the objective side of it. This means that my body and my mind are parallel but conceptually incompatible ways of seeing one and the same basic relation. So my immediate reality, immanence, gets transcended in two directions: the world and the subject. I am conscious of the world by my body, and the elements of this relation are: (1) I, the transcendental subject (2) my individual consciousness (3) my body, as part of the material world. And the main difference from your view is that the subject, the 'I', has nothing to do with matter or any other substance or substrate. It is the original and eternal point of view to the world, where the 'point' is permanent and without inner structure, but the 'view' changes all the time along with the 'world'.Consul wrote: ↑February 12th, 2018, 3:57 pm The subject is "transcendent(al)" only insofar as it is not part of the content of its consciousness. It is "content-transcendent", but not "world-transcendent". Note that to call the subject content-transcendent is not to say that its mind/consciousness doesn't contain any mental representations (percepts or concepts, "impressions" or "ideas") of it. It does, but the point is that the subject of mentality is not itself an item or a bundle of items of mentality, and is hence content-transcendent rather than content-immanent.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
The ontological concept of an object is different from and not reducible to the psychological concept of an intentional object, an object of thought, of mental representation (perception, conception). Objects in the former sense can but needn't be intentional objects. In a subjectless world no object is an intentional object, since there is nobody who can perceive or think about it; but it doesn't follow that it is an objectless world. Natural objects (and facts) do not depend for their being on being "objects for subjects".Tamminen wrote: ↑February 12th, 2018, 6:14 pmI would put it this way: The basic ontological structure of reality is the relation of the subject to objects of the material world. This relation is expressed by my immediate reality or consciousness as the subjective side of it, and my body as the objective side of it. This means that my body and my mind are parallel but conceptually incompatible ways of seeing one and the same basic relation.
The first-person point of view is the subject's egocentric perspective on the world, but it mustn't be reified because it's not the subject.Tamminen wrote: ↑February 12th, 2018, 6:14 pmSo my immediate reality, immanence, gets transcended in two directions: the world and the subject. I am conscious of the world by my body, and the elements of this relation are: (1) I, the transcendental subject (2) my individual consciousness (3) my body, as part of the material world. And the main difference from your view is that the subject, the 'I', has nothing to do with matter or any other substance or substrate. It is the original and eternal point of view to the world, where the 'point' is permanent and without inner structure, but the 'view' changes all the time along with the 'world'.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
I am speaking about objects in the ontological sense, material objects, and the subject's ontological relation to them.
I think it is the subject, but I am not reifying it. To say that it is not substance means the exact opposite.The first-person point of view is the subject's egocentric perspective on the world, but it mustn't be reified because it's not the subject.
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
What sort of entity are subjects then?
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
I have tried to describe it all the time, but I hope this opens it up somewhat:
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =2&t=15258
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: August 4th, 2013, 1:14 pm
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
In the general sense, it is viewed as an aspect of culture, regardless of its specific details. I think that it is from such a perspective that some nonanthropomorphic systems like Buddhism, particularly Zen, may be classified as religion.
However, in the specific sense, Zen goes beyond any dogma or belief system which is a characteristic of religion:
“No dependence on words and letters. Directly pointing to one’s heart, Seeing into one’s own true nature and thus attaining Spiritual Awakening.”
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: August 4th, 2013, 1:14 pm
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
I stood on the banked shoreline, silently gazing across the sea at the evening sky. The sun was still well above the horizon. The clouds around it were beginning to darken with their edges highlighted by the sunlight. In the foreground, seagulls and pelicans sat quietly on the fishing boats anchored close to the shoreline. It was very peaceful and serene.
As I watched, the sun edged closer to the horizon and the sky around it started to take on a faint pinkish glow. As the sun sank deeper, the pinkish tint turned to orange. This acted as backlighting for the clouds, darkening them to a shade of blue. By then, the sun was sitting just above the horizon, creating a magnificent sunset.
It painted a wide straight band of reddish orange, from where it was setting, on the surface of the water right to the water's edge at the banked shoreline where I was standing. The water's surface, painted by the setting sun, seemed to come alive. The sky surrounding the setting sun was filled with infinite shades of red and orange merging into each other. The setting sun backlighting the clouds from underneath highlighted their edges with a glowing reddish orange tint, imbuing them with a life of their own.
I was caught up in the glory and majesty of the spectacle playing out before me. I felt as if I was transferred to another dimension of consciousness over and above the ordinary day-to-day reality. It was a sheer feeling of ecstasy. My thought activity was suspended and the feeling of ecstasy reigned supreme. Time appeared to stand still.
At that moment, there was no awareness of any connection with the idea of God as espoused by religion.
After a while, I cannot say how long, whether moments or minutes, due to the timeless nature of the experience, I wilfully and consciously began to think of the idea of God as espoused by Christianity. It is important to note that this did not emanate form the mystical nature of the experience but it was something that I deliberately and wilfully imposed on the situation.
In particular, I began to think one-third of this experience was linked with Jesus in keeping with the idea of the Trinity in Christianity.
I became disconnected from the mystery of the experience after that but the feeling evoked in me from the experience persisted for quite some time afterwards.
The most amazing and enjoyable part of the experience was the deep feeling of ecstasy that I felt. I view it as a direct spiritual experience, independent of any connection with religion, and my personal insight into the difference between spirituality and religion.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
Note my thread re DMT.Metathought wrote: ↑March 12th, 2018, 10:05 pm My Sunset Experience
The most amazing and enjoyable part of the experience was the deep feeling of ecstasy that I felt. I view it as a direct spiritual experience, independent of any connection with religion, and my personal insight into the difference between spirituality and religion.
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =4&t=15451
Perhaps there was a sudden surge of DMT in you.
If you want a repeat of such experiences try Ayahuasca [has DMT and is non addictive].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayahuasca
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
Oh, jeez. Give it a rest, Spectrum. Seeing the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action is tiresome at best. (The Dunning–Kruger Effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it is.)Spectrum wrote: ↑March 13th, 2018, 12:36 amNote my thread re DMT.Metathought wrote: ↑March 12th, 2018, 10:05 pm My Sunset Experience
The most amazing and enjoyable part of the experience was the deep feeling of ecstasy that I felt. I view it as a direct spiritual experience, independent of any connection with religion, and my personal insight into the difference between spirituality and religion.
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =4&t=15451
Perhaps there was a sudden surge of DMT in you.
If you want a repeat of such experiences try Ayahuasca [has DMT and is non addictive].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayahuasca
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
Did you experience any of the following leading up to this experience:
- intense concentration (possibly prolonged)
- exhaustion
- fasting
- isolation
- physical stress
- sleep deprivation
- hyperventilation
- any drug intake
- sexual abstinence
- some kind of physical repetition (dancing or chanting)
- personal distress (physical and/or mental trauma)
Thanks
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023