The word "spiritual"

[DMB]

What does it mean? What does "spirituality" mean? Do you have to be a dualist to attach any meaning to these words. I ask this because all my life I have had difficulty understanding these terms. You will get a perfectly serious discussion about, say, education or hospital care and there will be demands for spiritual provision for children or patients and I don't know what the hell it means.

If I just think spiritual = woo, will that be right or wrong? Please help me out over this.

[Ray Moscow]

I don't think the word "spiritual" necessarily or always means woo-woo, but it usually does. It's also used to describe religious beliefs or practices while dodging the criticisms leveled at organised religions.

It can mean, for example, a view or feeling of wonder toward the world or a deeply felt connection to all other living things. But one can just say so without using the word "spiritual".

[David B]

What does it mean? What does "spirituality" mean? Do you have to be a dualist to attach any meaning to these words. I ask this because all my life I have had difficulty understanding these terms. You will get a perfectly serious discussion about, say, education or hospital care and there will be demands for spiritual provision for children or patients and I don't know what the hell it means.

If I just think spiritual = woo, will that be right or wrong? Please help me out over this.

In that sort of context, I think that you are right.

In other contexts, though, not necessarily, the word 'spiritual' being so fuzzy. It could refer to being entranced by music or literature, to a feeling of awe and wonder contemplating life, the universe and everything, .... as well as woo, which it often refers to.

David

[Faerie]

I associate it with emotional care. So whatever it takes for the person to accept/justify/understand circumstances on an emotional level spells spiritual care to me. I dont think you're wrong about the woo aspect though, a lot of it is, very few people can accept everything logically.

[Rilx]

I think it originates from ancient beliefs concerning life. When you die, what happens to the life? Your breathing, spiritus, ends, and your living soul which dwells in breathing, leaves you. Where it goes - just choose your religion.

[Alex]

It can mean (and this is woolly) having a deep sense of belonging somewhere - including a place that perhaps you've never even visited: e.g. "Antarctica has always been my spiritual home".

[willynilly]

If someone tells me they are spiritual I usually assume they mean they believe in everyone being connected by something outside the natural. That could mean many things so I would probably ask them to elaborate.

[DMB]

The sense of oneness, of belonging and so on is something we can all experience and understand. But what does it mean, for example to demand that schools fulfill children's spiritual needs? In practice this seems to mean having compulsory religious asemblies and RE lessons. But I don't see any connection between that and what I might vaguely characterise as spirituality. And does providing chaplains in hospital have anything to do with spirituality?

[Ray Moscow]

As a friend put it, "the religious folks own the language of meaning".

I replied, "They only think they do. Don't let them get away with the pretense."

[BioBeing]

Providing spiritual assistance to spiritual people in a healthcare setting can actually improve their outcomes, IIRC. So, here, it means providing chaplains to administer to their spiritual needs. The hospital I work at has several, who run around praying with the patients and their families, and just generally being their to listen. They also have a bunch of social workers who do the same, minus the praying. The patients, as I understand it, will generally ask for either a chaplain or a social worker, depending on the patients preference.

As to what "spiritual" actually means, I have no clue.

[dug_down_deep]

The sense of oneness, of belonging and so on is something we can all experience and understand. But what does it mean, for example to demand that schools fulfill children's spiritual needs? In practice this seems to mean having compulsory religious asemblies and RE lessons. But I don't see any connection between that and what I might vaguely characterise as spirituality. And does providing chaplains in hospital have anything to do with spirituality?
For me it means something distinctly non-material, some arrangement or pattern to experience that is not physical. It is this experience that much of religion is based upon, so that is what is being attended to by chaplains and such. When imposed, it is as offensive as can be, since spirituality belongs to the individual.

[DMB]

But what are spiritual needs?

[dug_down_deep]

For example, comfort from emotional distress, when that comfort is supplied by the experience of knowing there is some greater context that puts the source of the distress into a more acceptable framework.

[Ray Moscow]

But what are spiritual needs?

Often, it means someone to assure the afflicted of his/her personal immortality and his/her family that there is a purpose to all the suffering and loss. In other words, providing an expert liar to help a suffering person feel better.

[DMB]

That seems to be providing for emotional needs. Is there really such a big difference between a religious believer and a non-believer when it comes to needs? What provides the comfort may differ, but I can't see where spirituality comes into it.

[dug_down_deep]

Every human psychological construct is a lie. This sentence is a lie. Meaning is a lie. Ontology is a lie.

Or else they are all true given their consistency with experience, and purpose is just as true as the ground we walk on.

[dug_down_deep]

Is there really such a big difference between a religious believer and a non-believer when it comes to needs?
I highly doubt it. Since we are all of the same species.

[Ray Moscow]

That seems to be providing for emotional needs. Is there really such a big difference between a religious believer and a non-believer when it comes to needs? What provides the comfort may differ, but I can't see where spirituality comes into it.

The difference is that the unbeliever would prefer something either true or at least plausible, whereas the believer prefers the fantasy. The latter is called "spiritual".

[BWE]

Hmmm. Oneness need not be outside the natural and spiritual need not mean untestable by scientific means. Any trip to the wilderness has the potential to nourish the spirit. For those who only see bugs and cold and scary, well, they've been domesticated and their spirit almost extinguished. Spirit is the human condition. It never seemed contradictory to me. And religion and other falsifiable claims never seemed to be adequate ways to aproach it.

Sing oh muse of the anger of Achilles...

[His Noodly Appendage]

Emotional needs.

Spiritual needs translate to religious stuff, because people believe they require religious stuff to deal with their emotional needs.

[BWE]

Emotional needs.

Spiritual needs translate to religious stuff, because people believe they require religious stuff to deal with their emotional needs.

I think it's more global than emotional needs. Maybe they are more global than I think of them.

Why is art powerful? Same thing.

[His Noodly Appendage]

What do you mean by global in this context?

[BWE]

That saying 'merely' before 'feeling of awe' belittles the magnitude of the feeling. Or saying emotional needs and including the experience of living in its entirety is somehow insufficient. That spiritual feelings encompass more than simple emotions or else simple emotions cover far more than normally associated with the term.

[dug_down_deep]

Is the feeling of grasping a concept an emotion?

What is not an emotion if you expand the category that wide?

[BWE]

Is the feeling of grasping a concept an emotion?

What is not an emotion if you expand the category that wide?

well, that's what I meant I guess. Either emotin is the totality of life, in which case it's way more than merely and I'm fine with that, or else there's more.

There's a lot packed in to the line, Sing oh muse of the anger of Achilles.

[dug_down_deep]

There is a lot packed into the letter 's'. Life is a journey. A spiritual journey, I would say.

[BWE]

s has nothing on w.
Just sayin.

[dug_down_deep]

Only if you like your fricatives bilabial.

And I do.

[Yahzi]

Is the feeling of grasping a concept an emotion?
Yes. What else would it be?

What is not an emotion if you expand the category that wide?
Hunger. Physical pain. Basically, any mental state that is a product of physiological input rather than mental input.

[dug_down_deep]

Wouldn't all mental states be a product of physiological input? I'm not being sophist here. I really don't see the difference.

[Eudaimonist]

What does it mean? What does "spirituality" mean?

As I see it, spirituality refers to an "inward" concern, as opposed to (though not necessarily excluding) a concern for external values such as material values. IOWs, spirituality is about transforming oneself psychologically so that one experiences and lives life in a new and better way. Another way of putting it is that spirituality is a concern for personal growth and for experiencing reality from an improved vantagepoint. An example might be Buddhism, where one comes to realize the ephemeral nature of things in such a way as to produce understanding and inner peace.

Do you have to be a dualist to attach any meaning to these words.

Nah. I'm thoroughly anti-dualist, and yet I find some application for these words. Of course, dualistic spiritualities (spiritualities in which dualism is assumed or asserted) don't make much sense to me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Joykins]

Spiritual := the needs and experiences usually met or mediated through religion, but practiced outside of an organized religious framework.

[DMB]

Spiritual := the needs and experiences usually met or mediated through religion, but practiced outside of an organized religious framework.

That makes it worse for me. What are these needs and experiences?

[Eudaimonist]

What are these needs and experiences?

Following my understanding of spirituality, excellent candidates are:


Meaning/Purpose in Life
A sense of "connection" to something that transcends everyday life, e.g. the universe, a deity, etc
A benevolent regard for all other people
Inner peace and tranquility (no significant inner conflict or uncontrollable passions or fears)
Seeing death as something not to be feared
Greater self-awareness and knowledge



eudaimonia,

Mark

[Secularista]

I blogged about this here (http://tessera2009.blogspot.com/2009/08/spirituality-emperors-new-clothes.html). The word is so vague these days that it means nothing. The NHS (Health Service) in the UK is now trying to put spirituality into healthcare, saying that everyone is spiritual one way or another - even if their spirituality is sport!

[DMB]

What are these needs and experiences?

Following my understanding of spirituality, excellent candidates are:


Meaning/Purpose in Life
A sense of "connection" to something that transcends everyday life, e.g. the universe, a deity, etc
A benevolent regard for all other people
Inner peace and tranquility (no significant inner conflict or uncontrollable passions or fears)
Seeing death as something not to be feared
Greater self-awareness and knowledge



eudaimonia,

Mark

One can have a lot of those things or even all without identifying them with "spirituality". The word seems so vague that I can't see what it adds.

[Secularista]

There is for some reason a need to have a term referring to an appreciation of non-materialistic things but it's really just a way of trying to sound a bit different, special or, in some cases, superior.

[DMB]

There is for some reason a need to have a term referring to an appreciation of non-materialistic things but it's really just a way of trying to sound a bit different, special or, in some cases, superior.

I don't know why, but it makes me want to vomit.

[Secularista]

Some people are really taken aback when you say you're not spiritual. And then ask them what they mean by it.

They really don't like the idea that mind-body-spirit is just a bunch of chemicals in an environment; they accuse of of being reductionist whereas in fact, it's them who are being like that by charicaturing us in such a way.

[Eudaimonist]

One can have a lot of those things or even all without identifying them with "spirituality".

Has anyone ever said otherwise? One can improve one's mental health without identifying that with the word "psychology", but so what? :dunno:

The word seems so vague that I can't see what it adds.

I'll quote an earlier post of mine:

"As I see it, spirituality refers to an "inward" concern, as opposed to (though not necessarily excluding) a concern for external values such as material values. IOWs, spirituality is about transforming oneself psychologically so that one experiences and lives life in a new and better way. Another way of putting it is that spirituality is a concern for personal growth and for experiencing reality from an improved vantagepoint. An example might be Buddhism, where one comes to realize the ephemeral nature of things in such a way as to produce understanding and inner peace."

Is the word still vague for you? What needs clarification?

(I'm not suggesting that you are under any obligation to use the word "spirituality" if you have a preferred substitute.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Eudaimonist]

There is for some reason a need to have a term referring to an appreciation of non-materialistic things but it's really just a way of trying to sound a bit different, special or, in some cases, superior.

I don't know why, but it makes me want to vomit.

At a guess, is it because you've known people who've looked down on you for being (to their minds) "unspiritual"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Anne]

I have only glanced over the thread, so sorry if I'm out of place. I don't think I am...

"If, of thy mortal goods, thou art bereft,
And from thy slender store two loaves
alone to thee are left,
Sell one & from the dole,
Buy Hyacinths to feed the soul"
- Muslihuddin Sadi,
13th Century Persian Poet

"If I had but two loaves of bread
I would sell one of them
& buy White Hyacinths to feed my soul."
- Elbert Hubbard
(1856-1915)

Feeding your 'soul' is a valuable exercise--- there is something to that, even if there is no supernatural component. Grok?

On the other hand, I'm pretty hard on people who tell me they are 'spiritual'. We have a flaky friend who announced he was putting aside the carnal for the spiritual, and I asked him what he meant (much like I think this thread is) and he gave an example of eating an apple and really tasting it.

I answered, that is completely carnal. There is nothing spiritual about that at all!

He didn't talk to me again for a few days.

[DMB]

I would say that all experience is in the end carnal. The brain is carnal and we experience most or even all of the "spiritual" things via the brain. As I suggested in the OP, you have to be a dualist to make distinction between carnality and sprituality.

[Anne]

Fire bad, tree pretty.

;)

I would think there has to be something not carnal and truly 'spiritual' or 'mental' (although the brain is meat as well--- I hope you understand) but I have yet to find it.

I'm keeping an open mind about it, though...

There are a couple of folk at ratpags who could probably discuss this well.

[dug_down_deep]

One can have a lot of those things or even all without identifying them with "spirituality". The word seems so vague that I can't see what it adds.
But being vague does not make a word worthless. In fact, it is important for words to be vague, when the referents are vague. It's mostly about the question you're asking, I think.

[dug_down_deep]

I would say that all experience is in the end carnal. The brain is carnal and we experience most or even all of the "spiritual" things via the brain. As I suggested in the OP, you have to be a dualist to make distinction between carnality and sprituality.
No you don't. You only have to be a dualist if you beg the question by investing those terms with duality in the first place.

[Secularista]

One can have a lot of those things or even all without identifying them with "spirituality". The word seems so vague that I can't see what it adds.
But being vague does not make a word worthless. In fact, it is important for words to be vague, when the referents are vague. It's mostly about the question you're asking, I think.

It makes it almost impossible to use without having to define at length what you mean by it because other people have completely different meanings.

You only have to be a dualist if you beg the question by investing those terms with duality in the first place

And what about all the other people who do invest the term with dualist meaning and therefore misunderstand you?

To say that body/spirit are not dual unless you assume they are is a little simplistic. The fact that you are using two different terms creates either a duality or a tautology, neither of which is very useful.

I'm happy to be a carnal being. There is none other like me on earth, the interaction of my particular combination of chemicals with the environment makes me unique. The particular bunch of chemicals that form my brain allow me to decide whether to follow my instincts or not.

[Febble]

Emotional needs.

Spiritual needs translate to religious stuff, because people believe they require religious stuff to deal with their emotional needs.

I think it's more global than emotional needs. Maybe they are more global than I think of them.

Why is art powerful? Same thing.

Yeah.

"Meaning" is part of it, I think. Making sense of events in the context of, I dunno, the rest of reality.

[RexT]

What does it mean? What does "spirituality" mean? Do you have to be a dualist to attach any meaning to these words. I ask this because all my life I have had difficulty understanding these terms. You will get a perfectly serious discussion about, say, education or hospital care and there will be demands for spiritual provision for children or patients and I don't know what the hell it means.

If I just think spiritual = woo, will that be right or wrong? Please help me out over this.I haven't read this thread, but I'm happy to give you my answer because I think this is a good question.

First, spirituality and religion, though often conflated, are different in very important ways. Religion is more about ritual, conformity, while spirituality is more about creativity and freedom.

In that light, I view spirituality as personal. It does and should mean something different for each individual. In general it is necessary that each of us needs to make sense of the world and our own place in it, to search for meaning in our lives, fulfillment, happiness, purpose, self-actualization and that sort of thing. If religion provides those things for a person, then religion for that person is spiritual. Otherwise, religion is unnecessary or can even hinder a person's spiritual journey.

It can be oppressive when the term spirituality is made to fit a mold determined by a group, especially by powerful groups who attempt to force others into conformity of their mold.

If you have no need of the term spirituality, then choose whatever term(s) you need.

[DMB]

I find that a helpful reply, Rex. :)

[dug_down_deep]

It makes it almost impossible to use without having to define at length what you mean by it because other people have completely different meanings.
So do away with the word 'love', to be consistent. The fact is that many people use this word without having to define it.

You only have to be a dualist if you beg the question by investing those terms with duality in the first place

And what about all the other people who do invest the term with dualist meaning and therefore misunderstand you?

To say that body/spirit are not dual unless you assume they are is a little simplistic. The fact that you are using two different terms creates either a duality or a tautology, neither of which is very useful.
It's not duality in the metaphysical sense to look at two different things. Most stuff is simple.

I'm happy to be a carnal being. There is none other like me on earth, the interaction of my particular combination of chemicals with the environment makes me unique. The particular bunch of chemicals that form my brain allow me to decide whether to follow my instincts or not.
You are not your chemicals. Your chemicals are your chemicals. You are you.

[Ray Moscow]

As is often the case, Jesus and Mo explain all (http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/07/09/mouth/).

[Secularista]

So do away with the word 'love', to be consistent. The fact is that many people use this word without having to define it.

There are plenty of words we could list that have many meanings and which are open to misunderstanding. However, the word 'love' is not rendered meaningless by someone saying 'I love cake' as the meaning is understood.

If you use a term and then have to explain what you mean by it, then there has been no communication in any useful sense. Can you think of another word that covers such a wide range of incompatible meanings and needs as much clarification?


You are not your chemicals. Your chemicals are your chemicals. You are you.

Are you suggesting some kind of duality between what constitutes me physically and who I am?

[Eudaimonist]

In general [spirituality] is necessary that each of us needs to make sense of the world and our own place in it, to search for meaning in our lives, fulfillment, happiness, purpose, self-actualization and that sort of thing.

Yes, precisely. Spirituality isn't as vague or as difficult a concept as people here seem to think.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Eudaimonist]

Are you suggesting some kind of duality between what constitutes me physically and who I am?

If you were standing next to a vat filled with a chemical soup of amino acids, nucleic acids, etc, that just happen to exist in the same proportions as those in your body, would you be standing next to a person? Would there be a "who"?

You are a human being. A vat of chemicals is a vat of chemicals. You are a who and a what. A vat of chemicals is only a what.

If you need the reason for this spelled out, it is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. "What" constitutes you physically does not say anything about "who" you are, because the "who" pertains to more than simply your component parts. "Who" necessarily includes the dynamic relations of those parts over time, as they participate in the activities, e.g., of life, thought, awareness, feelings, etc.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[dug_down_deep]

There are plenty of words we could list that have many meanings and which are open to misunderstanding. However, the word 'love' is not rendered meaningless by someone saying 'I love cake' as the meaning is understood.

If you use a term and then have to explain what you mean by it, then there has been no communication in any useful sense. Can you think of another word that covers such a wide range of incompatible meanings and needs as much clarification?
Yeah, I just gave it to you. Love. You want more? Consciousness. Pain. Enlightenment. Knowledge.

I think you want the word to go away because it is associated with bad religious junk. That is not a good reason, though, because the word is still useful. You are, however, under no requirement to use it.

You are not your chemicals. Your chemicals are your chemicals. You are you.

Are you suggesting some kind of duality between what constitutes me physically and who I am?
I have no idea what that means.

[Secularista]

"In general [spirituality] is necessary that each of us needs to make sense of the world and our own place in it, to search for meaning in our lives, fulfillment, happiness, purpose, self-actualization and that sort of thing."

There's another word for that: philosophy.

"I think you want the word to go away because it is associated with bad religious junk"

No, I think it's not a useful word for non-believers to use.

"If you were standing next to a vat filled with a chemical soup of amino acids, nucleic acids, etc, that just happen to exist in the same proportions as those in your body, would you be standing next to a person? Would there be a "who"?"

That's not what I meant. My chemicals make me who I am in this particular combination, factoring in their history of interacting with their environment.

[Alex]

The particular combination of your chemicals interacting with the environment etc., make you what you are (physically) - at any given moment. They don't confer a human identity.

[lpetrich]

Are you suggesting some kind of duality between what constitutes me physically and who I am?

If you were standing next to a vat filled with a chemical soup of amino acids, nucleic acids, etc, that just happen to exist in the same proportions as those in your body, would you be standing next to a person? Would there be a "who"?
The difference is not some special who-stuff but organization, as far as can be determined.

Have you ever assembled anything? I have. I remember playing with construction toys as a kid, and I've assembled furniture and various other things. I've also watched buildings and roads and railroad lines being built.

When I assemble a bookcase, do I need to add some special bookcase-stuff?

[RexT]

When I assemble a bookcase, do I need to add some special bookcase-stuff?In a way, yes. Bookcases, as you know, do not exist naturally. Bookcases do not self-assemble like galaxies and chemicals do. They are contrived in the minds of humans to serve a special purpose.

To assemble a bookcase requires addition of the mind-stuff we call purpose. Without purpose there is no bookcase. Even if you accidentally constructed something that could be used as a bookcase, but you had no knowledge of books, the special bookcase-stuff would not then be present.

Of course, this is veering off the topic of spirituality, but it is an interesting aspect of cognition that so many things, including bookcases, truly exist only in the minds of humans. I have a bookcase/storage shelves in my shop that a bird once used as a place to build a nest.

[dug_down_deep]

"I think you want the word to go away because it is associated with bad religious junk"

No, I think it's not a useful word for non-believers to use.
It seems to be useful to some of the 'non-believers' participating in this thread, so I wonder how you justify this pronouncement.

[dug_down_deep]

There is no useful reason to assign the category 'bookcase' when describing a physical system, AFAICS. It is a meaningful category only in terms of purpose. It holds books.

IOW, I agree with Rex.

[RexT]

It seems to be useful to some of the 'non-believers' participating in this thread, so I wonder how you justify this pronouncement.For me, a complete non-believer, spirituality has deeply profound meaning. I have spent a large part of my life, all of my youth in fact, trying to free myself from the massive burden of indoctrination of a religion. It was no small burden to carry alone as I did. But free of it I became and that with much sadness. It isn't easy to separate oneself from the formative elements placed there even by those whom were my most dear teachers, my parents.

And yet I have not lost the need of my own spirituality, thankfully. But the word is just a word and not the thing itself. The thing is this, to thine own self be true. And that I have done, mostly. And it is a journey, not across space or the things encountered therein, but a journey within the self in search of that which might matter, the substance of meaning, the spice of a life not visible to the physical eyes. The word for this must be some word and spirituality works very well for me.

IOW, I agree with you.

[David B]

So do away with the word 'love', to be consistent. The fact is that many people use this word without having to define it.

There are plenty of words we could list that have many meanings and which are open to misunderstanding. However, the word 'love' is not rendered meaningless by someone saying 'I love cake' as the meaning is understood.

If you use a term and then have to explain what you mean by it, then there has been no communication in any useful sense. Can you think of another word that covers such a wide range of incompatible meanings and needs as much clarification?


You are not your chemicals. Your chemicals are your chemicals. You are you.

Are you suggesting some kind of duality between what constitutes me physically and who I am?

Well, I would!

Having been away for a few days doing, among other things, looking at a lot of TED vids, and in particular a talk by Murray Gell Mann, who articulated better than I a lot of stuff that I've been thinking about (largely on the back burner) for many years.

There is, I'd suggest, emergent stuff.

Let's try a toy model.

Would you say there is some sort of duality between what constitutes a car physically - if the parts were laid out on a garage floor - and a functioning car?

I'd suggest that the 'car-ness' of a car - what gets the car to get you from A to B - is more than the sum of the parts, emerging from a dynamic interplay of the parts of the car when properly assembled.

What constitutes you, and me, physically, is basically a load of atoms left over from the big bang, plus another load of atoms formed in exploding stars.

But the constituents, if put into test tubes element by element, would not make up either you or me.

It is what emerges, I would suggest, out of a dynamic structure of those atoms that (among many other things, including lots of accidents) that make us what we are.

David

[RexT]

... It is what emerges, I would suggest, out of a dynamic structure of those atoms that (among many other things, including lots of accidents) that make us what we are.Yes, and this does constitute a kind of duality or a duality of kind.

One kind is a perfectly rigid sort, always behaving as it ever has and ever will without any variance over any amount of time. That is the material kind as some call it. The other kind, you called it emergence, is not a material of any sort. It cannot be isolated by a reductive process, but can be observed only if and when the material stuff is brought together in a harmonic collective. Unlike the rigid kind, which is predictable, this kind is constantly in flux and difficult if impossible to predict.

But I would like to take this a bit further if any are inclined. There is yet a third kind that we might call mind stuff. It is tempting to think of it solely as emergent, but this stuff is self-aware. Where the car is more than the sum of its parts, the mind is more again. Indeed, it is the mind stuff that dreamed up the car. Mind stuff is emergent, too, from the interactions of the first kind (material), but it does something that mere physical interactions cannot do. It thinks. It is an echo reflecting back into the first kind, a kind of recursive loop that perpetuates itself, not merely because of the chemical interactions from which it emerges, but because it finds meaning in doing so. Meaning is thus a third kind.

So what we are is not only based on a duality of kind but a ternary of kinds. We are the harmony of all three kinds when they are present.

Embrace the totality.

[LukeS]

In Shia Islam ruh (spirit) is differnt from nafs (person). The former animates the body, whereas the latter is the basis of ones unique bodily form, and self expression.

[DMB]

Would someone who thinks "spirit" as applied to a person to be a useful concept please explain the difference between "mind" and "spirit"?

[Eudaimonist]

Would someone who thinks "spirit" as applied to a person to be a useful concept please explain the difference between "mind" and "spirit"?

Compare the following two compliments:

You have a great mind!

You have a great spirit!

Are these identical to you?

Perhaps this is just a matter of taste, but "mind" seems to refer to intellect, whereas "spirit" seems to refer to other aspects, such as one's zest for life or to one's psyché as a whole. "Spirit" is often taken to mean the way in which one relates to life, the universe, and everything on many different psychological levels. There are some situations in which the word "spirit" seems more applicable than "mind".

But the words could be seen as interchangable. It's all a matter of context and intent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[DMB]

Telling someone they have a great spiirit seems to me to be a usage akin to saying something like "he did this in a spirit of forgiveness", where "spirit" is part of a from of words that does not imply any existence of an entity identifiable as "a spirit".

ETA you could IMO say you have a great personality or great perseverence or some such formla, depending on context.

[Eudaimonist]

Telling someone they have a great spiirit seems to me to be a usage akin to saying something like "he did this in a spirit of forgiveness", where "spirit" is part of a from of words that does not imply any existence of an entity identifiable as "a spirit".

ETA you could IMO say you have a great personality or great perseverence or some such formla, depending on context.

English is great in that you can find synonyms for just about any word, to capture just about any shade of meaning. I find most or all of such words useful. I don't think we need to excise words from the dictionary just because there is more than one synonym present.

I personally, don't think that we have a mind and a spirit, as if these are two different entities within us. I'll let the supernaturalists argue for that one. IMV, mind and spirit are two different perspectives on the same totality -- our existence as individuals with complex psychologies.

Anyway, I leave you with an interesting link on the subject of secular spirituality.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1835-secular_spirit.aspx


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Rie]

:cool:I think that English is a complex, the most complex language, and holds within it all shades of meaning with such a variety of words which are derived from many more sources and cultures than any other language.Our 'catch phrases' are wonderfully rich.. such as 'snug as a bug in a rug' and so many others. As regards morality and whatever it may mean to different people and peoples, the origin of the word 'morality' comes from the Latin word for "the done thing"....mores. The traditional customs of a people and in a way nothing to do with 'goodness'.

[RexT]

Would someone who thinks "spirit" as applied to a person to be a useful concept please explain the difference between "mind" and "spirit"?Mind is a machine-like organ, a calculator, a data processor, but with the added affect of awareness during the processing. Mind is present in many forms besides human.

Spirit is different in that it pertains to meaningfulness, purpose. It is the reasoning or purpose for things a mind is applied to.

Another way to see it is the difference between the letter and the spirit of a law. A mind calculates the mechanical particulars of a law, while a spirit knows the reason for doing the calculating and for observance of the law. A mind can detect any infraction of a law, but only a spirit can detect whether infraction of the letter constitutes infraction of the spirit of the law. Thus, each is detectable by its own kind.

I could simplify this by discarding the term spirit and calling the whole thing mind. Well, I might not want to call the physical part, the body/brain, mind, since I would lose too much detail. It is true, I think, that body/mind/spirit is integral, really one thing -- a person. The distinction is more about how each of these parts functions or plays its role in the integral whole. If I discarded the term spirit I would be discarding the role of purpose, which I see no reason to do since I am aware of purpose. More still I invent purpose, I create it out of processes that in themselves have no purpose. This ability I simply label as spirit.

Suppose we discarded the phrase 'spirit of the law'. Laws could then be written for their own sake, existing simply because they can. But with no greater purpose for laws (laws without any spirit) society would become a hellish nightmare. And always we do struggle against this. There are those who do not grasp very well the spirit of laws, thinking, I suppose, that laws exist simply for the sake of order. Thinking, I suppose, that purpose and order are the same thing. In that case, the more laws the more order. But this is the result of a mind run a muck -- a mind with no spirit.

But let us not make assumptions about the source of spirit. We know (most of us know) the difference between a law and its spirit. But should we go searching for the spirit of a law we would not find it in the material medium or the law itself. There is simply no purpose to be found in matter. Matter, like mind, is a machine-like organ. Purpose is found nowhere in the material or mental world. It is rather an invention, an imaginary one at that. And yet, it is our spirit that guides us toward laws, not merely for the sake of order, but for the sake of purpose. The pursuit of happiness for example, or the pursuit of freedom.

Now, how could such pursuits come about in a mechanical world? This is quite hard to explain. It seems impossible to explain using mechanical explanations only. Spirit is altogether different from mechanics, and thus different from mind, since mind is also explainable mechanically.

I think the term spirit is quite sound and quite safe from expulsion at the present. But that is not to say that other terms could not be as useful. The term purpose would suffice. The problem with spirit is that some postulate it as an entity outside of space-time, since it is non-mechanical, not found in the mechanics of matter. Perhaps some day a mechanical explanation will be found and the whole matter put to rest.