I often see people mentioning spirituality in atheism and recently saw a claim that everyone should be spiritual, whether religious or not. The problem is the definition of the word "spiritual" is so muddled, confused and poorly defined when they use it that I have no idea what the hell their talking about. As far as I can figure, going of the definition of spirituality, it is woo. It deals either with religion specifically, the soul or "the human spirit", which does not appear to be using the same sense of the word "spirit" used in "team spirit", but more something akin to a soul.
So, what the hell is spirituality? Do I need it? If I reject all woo, which I do, can I even get it? Do I maybe already have it and not know it? What does it mean to be "spiritual", exactly, and why would one think I need that? What benefits would there be to being "spiritual"? In short, what the hell are they talking about? It seems to me that an atheist denouncer of all things woo like me not only could not be spiritual and still be an atheist denouncer of all things woo, but I wouldn't even want to be. I don't want to pretend ouija boards work. I don't want to pretend that I am expanding my soul to become one with the universe (though I might try this one if they ever make it legal, if you know what I mean). I don't want to "channel my energy" through rocks that have power because they have the two most important qualities for rocks to have power; 1) they're pretty and 2) they're cheap enough to be obtainable.
What do you guys think?
I have no idea what "spiritual" is, so it seems pointless to even have a topic about it to me.
Gotta be honest, this was the first thing I read when I opened the thread...
Quote from: "widdershins"...1) they're pretty and 2) they're cheap enough to be obtainable.
...and I thought it was a thread about girls who claim to be "spiritual." A little disappointed.
I don't think "spiritual" means anything. It's a term for people who reject religions but aren't brave enough to reject the supernatural. Still need their crutch.
I consider myself "spiritual" because I am overjoyed by things like beauty in nature, and am awestruck at the grandeur of natural wonders like the Grand Canyon and such like.
Honestly I think spiritualism is the wrong word. Might be uplifting or awe inspiring or something. The problem is that spiritual is too closely identified with religion. Another word or term might be more accurate.
I make bread. That's kind of spiritual, seriously. You take water and flour and yeast and mix it, wait eight hours and then add more flour, warm water and some other ingredients and then bake it. You get this warm goodness that has taste and texture and flavor from what are separately mundane ingredients. It is remarkable to me that a baker can create so many amazing things from a few basic ingredients and yet create an endless variety of flavors, textures and so on. Just the fact that a bacteria can make simple flour and water act a certain way is really cool and interesting.
It is how you view things. Shit I find spiritual is probably "meh" to another guy.
I don't think spiritual has to have any relationship to supernatural. It can be interpreted as a reverence for a state of mind, the universe, etc. Nothing supernatural in that.
I feel "spiritual" when I look up at the nighttime skies and feel so small against the vastness of the Universe, and still am a part of it. I get the same feeling when I'm at the beach, and ponder the waves, having rolled in upon that particular shore for hundreds of millions if not billions of years, and no two waves have ever been alike. I feel overawed when I think about the fact that every molecule in our body heavier than helium was manufactured in the deaththroes of a star which spewed its ashes, and energy, out to contribute to the making of the Earth.
Woo need not apply. I don't need to invent magical sky-fairies in order to be stunned by the grandeur of the Universe we inhabit.
As Freeman Dyson once wrote, "We are the Universe, pondering itself."
That's as spiritual as I need to get.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I feel "spiritual" when I look up at the nighttime skies and feel so small against the vastness of the Universe, and still am a part of it. I get the same feeling when I'm at the beach, and ponder the waves, having rolled in upon that particular shore for hundreds of millions if not billions of years, and no two waves have ever been alike. I feel overawed when I think about the fact that every molecule in our body heavier than helium was manufactured in the deaththroes of a star which spewed its ashes, and energy, out to contribute to the making of the Earth.
Woo need not apply. I don't need to invent magical sky-fairies in order to be stunned by the grandeur of the Universe we inhabit.
As Freeman Dyson once wrote, "We are the Universe, pondering itself."
That's as spiritual as I need to get.
Yeah. going out to sea from Holy Loch when I was a seaman on the bridge was amazing. Just the endless expanse of ocean and the power of the waves was awe inspiring, to say the least. If I had been some other rate like a Bosun's Mate that worked topside on a boat, I might've stayed in for a career. I really loved the ocean.
I define it simply as the sum total of your accumulated knowledge and experiences and emotions wrapped up in Saranwrap[sup:38eqrrre]TM[/sup:38eqrrre] when you die and your kids shove it in the back of the fridge and forget about it sooner or later.. It might also be wrapped up in tin foil and made into cool hats too..
[youtube:pz01jljt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z_e17GJ_Ao[/youtube:pz01jljt]
[youtube:pz01jljt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksMAnAnxGSQ[/youtube:pz01jljt]
It's feel-good woo without the dogma of religion.
I avoid the term spirituality because of the feel good woo associated with it. It's too closely affiliated with religion and new age crap for my comfort. If I want to say something about a connection to nature, I'll call that biophilia or awe or some such thing.
"Spirituality" is really nothing more than confusing our electrochemical reaction in the brain which stimulates the "pleasure" reaction in our brains. It is basically mistaking our "sense of awe" for magic.
It is a bullshit word and has no basis in biological reality. It is simply credulity in the form of woo.
Quote from: "SvZurich"It's feel-good woo without the dogma of religion.
well.........that IS true............in a nutshell! well done you. lol
I see a lot of "sense of awe" definitions here, and that is one of the things I read with other people trying to define it. I think the confusion is that people are using what they think the definition of the word should be sometimes and the actual definition of the word other times. I don't mean going back and forth. What I mean is one person will use what they think is the definition, another will use the actual meaning. And I think this is where all the confusion comes from. It has become a fluff word without clear meaning, much like the common use of the word "theory".
Anyway, I think I understand enough now to discuss this intelligently, should it come up again. Having looked up the actual definitions for it I don't believe "sense of awe" or "an action I find immensely pleasurable" really fits the actual definition, which appears to be completely woo, but rather the mis-definition, which appears to be a catch-all for "feel good". I guess, should it come up again and someone suggest I should be spiritual, I will have to ask the person using it what they mean by the word before I either disagree with them or tell them the correct word they should be using to prevent confusion. It looks, to me at least, like the actual word is 100% woo related, but not everyone is using any actual definition of the word.
Right. this this this and this, all the above. Point is we are capable of having a sense of exalted feelings that are brought on by something out of the ordinary, something beautiful or rare. I am astonished and elevated by the craftsmanship of a Rembrandt painting like the Night Watch, and totally "meh" at a Jackson Pollock. And like I said, the word spiritual is too often linked to the supernatural or religious.
Synonyms: discarnate, asomatous, divine, ethereal, extramundane, metaphysical, rarified, supernal. Choose one.
Quote from: "widdershins"I see a lot of "sense of awe" definitions here, and that is one of the things I read with other people trying to define it. I think the confusion is that people are using what they think the definition of the word should be sometimes and the actual definition of the word other times. I don't mean going back and forth. What I mean is one person will use what they think is the definition, another will use the actual meaning. And I think this is where all the confusion comes from. It has become a fluff word without clear meaning, much like the common use of the word "theory".
Anyway, I think I understand enough now to discuss this intelligently, should it come up again. Having looked up the actual definitions for it I don't believe "sense of awe" or "an action I find immensely pleasurable" really fits the actual definition, which appears to be completely woo, but rather the mis-definition, which appears to be a catch-all for "feel good". I guess, should it come up again and someone suggest I should be spiritual, I will have to ask the person using it what they mean by the word before I either disagree with them or tell them the correct word they should be using to prevent confusion. It looks, to me at least, like the actual word is 100% woo related, but not everyone is using any actual definition of the word.
Yanno the very first thing that attracted me to witchcraft was the Human=Divine aspect; that we are our Own gods so to speak; that we wield our Own universe and make our own paths. Also that our choices affect others around us good or bad and to lead a wise, helpful, loving life is power - power of the self. Recognizing the *awe* factor was very much a part of that also (even IF it's only inside your own imgination) The Awe aspect is to see the amazing things around you that give you pause, reflection and perhaps inspire you onwards in some manner; or simply appreciate. Looking outside the self carries value but only as it translates to that self. Otherwise we'd all think and be alike and we are not. What inspires one does not necessarily inspire another - and so on.
The term *spiritual* is almost always connected to woo. And Woo is almost always connected to religion and religion is almost always connected to dogma and dogma has proven horrific upon mankind more often than not. The connections are natural. Which is why you'll see me say sometimes that language fails us. And even if this is the year 2013 we should still be creating new words and developing language to suit our needs.
(Insert new word for spiritual minus woo) should be a respected, individual matter. It should be fine. But attached to history (and present mistakes) as it so often is........it is not fine. I wonder sometimes if it will ever be fine to be spiritual (or new word that suits) or if the ugly connection to religious woo is forever?
Quote from: "widdershins"So, what the hell is spirituality?
What do you guys think?
Is it that feeling you get when you see your girlfriend make out with another girl at a nightclub and you end up going home with both of them?
When I hear the term "spiritual" I think the person is referencing a supernatural, eternal, non-corporeal entity which houses their consciousness, morality, sense of beauty, logic, etc. The awareness of the transcendent and awe inspiring is something completely different to me. That's just loving reality.
When I hear the word spiritual, I'm listening to someone completely full of themselves. It's like fucking an elf. Tolkien's elves were kind of like the pinnacle of perfection. So to fuck an elf is to touch that greatness with your dick. So when someone says they are spiritual, they mean that they think they are in touch with or experience things deeper, better than you do. It makes them feel special. It doesn't even matter what the actual thing is. What matters to them is that they feel special because they are self-centered cunts.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"When I hear the word spiritual, I'm listening to someone completely full of themselves. It's like fucking an elf. Tolkien's elves were kind of like the pinnacle of perfection. So to fuck an elf is to touch that greatness with your dick. So when someone says they are spiritual, they mean that they think they are in touch with or experience things deeper, better than you do. It makes them feel special. It doesn't even matter what the actual thing is. What matters to them is that they feel special because they are self-centered cunts.
yes....... it does very much sound like "I'm special". Totally agree.
But... I AM more special than yall; my mum told me so.
Also: Haters gonna hate.
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light?years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
Carl Sagan.
Next!
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "widdershins"So, what the hell is spirituality?
What do you guys think?
Is it that feeling you get when you see your girlfriend make out with another girl at a nightclub and you end up going home with both of them?
I don't know if this is spiritual or not but I like this . :-D
Quote from: "Mathias""Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light?years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
Carl Sagan.
Next!
"Argument from authority" != "end of discussion"
We've already determined that spirituality, by its strict definition, is, in fact, woo. Perhaps Carl was using a bastardized definition, as some people do, perhaps he had some propensity toward woo. I don't know. It does sound, however, like he was talking about a "sense of awe" in that quote, which is not "spiritual" by the definition of the word, but may be considered so by the much looser definition which some people seem to use. Whatever the case, Sagan was either wrong (gasp!) because he was using an incorrect definition or he held dear some form of woo (gasp again!). Or, perhaps, he just liked to say things which sounded really cool and deep.
Quote from: "Mathias""Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light?years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
Carl Sagan.
Next!
"...for then we shall know the mind of God."
Stephen Hawking.
You know what they mean, but it's still a bad choice of words.
"The most spiritual men, as the strongest, find their happiness where others would find their destruction: in the labyrinth, in hardness against themselves and others, in experiments. Their joy is self-conquest: asceticism becomes in them nature, need, and instinct. Difficult tasks are a privilege to them; to play with burdens that crush others, a recreation. Knowledge-a form of asceticism. They are the most venerable kind of man: that does not preclude their being the most cheerful and the kindliest. "
? Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "SvZurich"It's feel-good woo without the dogma of religion.
well.........that IS true............in a nutshell! well done you. lol
Why thank ya, darlin'! :-D
Spirituality is an intentionally vague and overloaded term that can mean just about anything, or nothing, depending upon the context in which it is used.
Quote from: "widdershins"Quote from: "Mathias""Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light?years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
Carl Sagan.
Next!
"Argument from authority" != "end of discussion"
We've already determined that spirituality, by its strict definition, is, in fact, woo. Perhaps Carl was using a bastardized definition, as some people do, perhaps he had some propensity toward woo. I don't know. It does sound, however, like he was talking about a "sense of awe" in that quote, which is not "spiritual" by the definition of the word, but may be considered so by the much looser definition which some people seem to use. Whatever the case, Sagan was either wrong (gasp!) because he was using an incorrect definition or he held dear some form of woo (gasp again!). Or, perhaps, he just liked to say things which sounded really cool and deep.
I admire Carl Sagan, and have read almost all his books. I'm sure he doesn't believe in woo.
You're right that it would be a fallacy of authority IF I literally said that other opinions (like yours) were wrong and justify Sagan as the only right one.
Maybe you should read more about Sagan before making conjectures more fallacious than you accused me.
Quote from: "Sleeper"Quote from: "Mathias""Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light?years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
Carl Sagan.
Next!
"...for then we shall know the mind of God."
Stephen Hawking.
You know what they mean, but it's still a bad choice of words.
You got a small phrase that does not show the context of the idea of ??Hawking, Sagan's phrase differently.
Spirit can be defined metaphorically as a full set of intellectual faculties.
Some of you are prejudiced because of the religious connotation of the word, but it does not affect me. I'm an atheist and that there is no supernatural spirituality in people. Everything is a matter of semantics, poetic license, etc..
Quote from: "Mathias"Quote from: "widdershins"Quote from: "Mathias""Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light?years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
Carl Sagan.
Next!
"Argument from authority" != "end of discussion"
We've already determined that spirituality, by its strict definition, is, in fact, woo. Perhaps Carl was using a bastardized definition, as some people do, perhaps he had some propensity toward woo. I don't know. It does sound, however, like he was talking about a "sense of awe" in that quote, which is not "spiritual" by the definition of the word, but may be considered so by the much looser definition which some people seem to use. Whatever the case, Sagan was either wrong (gasp!) because he was using an incorrect definition or he held dear some form of woo (gasp again!). Or, perhaps, he just liked to say things which sounded really cool and deep.
I admire Carl Sagan, and have read almost all his books. I'm sure he doesn't believe in woo.
You're right that it would be a fallacy of authority IF I literally said that other opinions (like yours) were wrong and justify Sagan as the only right one.
Maybe you should read more about Sagan before making conjectures more fallacious than you accused me.
You'll notice the "Next!" at the end of your post, suggesting that you've just ended the discussion by definitively resolving the issue, which you had not. If you meant something else then perhaps you should formulate proper sentences rather than rely on one-word sentences which could be misconstrued. In any case I committed no logical fallacy. The worst thing I did was misunderstand your poorly constructed and incomplete ending "sentence".
We used to use better words for what is nowadays descibed as 'spiritual'.
Like the sublime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_(philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_(philosophy))
Quote from: "widdershins"You'll notice the "Next!" at the end of your post, suggesting that you've just ended the discussion by definitively resolving the issue, which you had not. If you meant something else then perhaps you should formulate proper sentences rather than rely on one-word sentences which could be misconstrued. In any case I committed no logical fallacy. The worst thing I did was misunderstand your poorly constructed and incomplete ending "sentence".
I don't know why so much ado about nothing, but I thought (and of course I can make mistakes) that the Sagan's phrase showed everything I think about the issue. Maybe for a cultural-linguistic problem has sounded offensive and / or misleading, but still keep the poetry of Sagan on the subject.
Your various assertions about why Sagan wrote the sentence that I "ctrl v" in my post just shows you don't know almost nothing about Sagan, but anything was fallacious. Sorry, mea culpa!!
Quote from: "Mathias"Quote from: "widdershins"You'll notice the "Next!" at the end of your post, suggesting that you've just ended the discussion by definitively resolving the issue, which you had not. If you meant something else then perhaps you should formulate proper sentences rather than rely on one-word sentences which could be misconstrued. In any case I committed no logical fallacy. The worst thing I did was misunderstand your poorly constructed and incomplete ending "sentence".
I don't know why so much ado about nothing, but I thought (and of course I can make mistakes) that the Sagan's phrase showed everything I think about the issue. Maybe for a cultural-linguistic problem has sounded offensive and / or misleading, but still keep the poetry of Sagan on the subject.
Your various assertions about why Sagan wrote the sentence that I "ctrl v" in my post just shows you don't know almost nothing about Sagan, but anything was fallacious. Sorry, mea culpa!!
Okay, this is just getting silly. You just completely misrepresented everything I said here. I never claimed to have a problem with the quote and I made no assertions whatsoever about anything. Assertions don't start with "Perhaps" and end with "I don't know". As I already clearly explained my problem was with your ending word, "Next!", which I took as meaning that with this quote from a well known and popular atheist you had definitively settled the issue and we could move on to the next issue. If that was in fact the case then it was in fact an argument to authority. If it was not the case then why don't you quit making untrue claims about what I have said and just tell me what the hell you meant and the entire issue would be cleared up. If you did make an argument from authority than admit to it. You made a mistake. Big deal. Either way if you're hoping to "win" an argument here, I really don't see that happening as my point was well laid out and very valid and no amount of misrepresentation of what I was saying is going to change that.
widdershins,
It wasn't just about the "next" you mentioned. Your words:
QuoteWhatever the case, Sagan was wrong Either (gasp!) because he was using an incorrect definition or he held dear some form of woo (gasp again!). or, Perhaps, he just liked to say things Which Sounded really cool and deep.
I don't think I am wrong, much less Sagan, and I'm not trying to "win" an argument because I have already made my point of view very clear and respect of those who consider the word inappropriate for any connotation that isn't religious.
And of course you still have not read the book that mentions Sagan's quote - The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - because otherwise you know why he wrote that.
In short, I accept the definition of Sagan, a poetic concept of spirituality, a word whose root goes beyond the religious sense. Just as the phrase "we are a way for the universe to know itself" doesn't literally mean what it says.
Quote from: "Mathias"widdershins,
It wasn't just about the "next" you mentioned. Your words:
QuoteWhatever the case, Sagan was wrong Either (gasp!) because he was using an incorrect definition or he held dear some form of woo (gasp again!). or, Perhaps, he just liked to say things Which Sounded really cool and deep.
I don't think I am wrong, much less Sagan, and I'm not trying to "win" an argument because I have already made my point of view very clear and respect of those who consider the word inappropriate for any connotation that isn't religious.
And of course you still have not read the book that mentions Sagan's quote - The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - because otherwise you know why he wrote that.
In short, I accept the definition of Sagan, a poetic concept of spirituality, a word whose root goes beyond the religious sense. Just as the phrase "we are a way for the universe to know itself" doesn't literally mean what it says.
When I want a "definition", I go to a dictionary. Please explain what the "definition" of spirituality is that Sagan gave. The quote you copied had him using the word, not "defining" it. Popular and beloved people simply don't get to rewrite the definitions of words. So, again, either Sagan was using the word incorrectly or he believed in woo. Personally I would assume he was using the word incorrectly in the "common sense", if you will.
But all of that is beside the point as you are simply playing semantics here to avoid addressing the point of your logical fallacy.
Quote from: "Brian37""Spirituality" is really nothing more than confusing our electrochemical reaction in the brain which stimulates the "pleasure" reaction in our brains. It is basically mistaking our "sense of awe" for magic.
Nonsense. Speak for yourself. I'll speak for myself, thankyouverymuch. I'm not engaged in magical thinking, at all. Everything I wrote that encourages in me the feeling that I call "spirituality" is perfectly natural, and confirmed by science.
Quote from: "Brian37"It is a bullshit word and has no basis in biological reality. It is simply credulity in the form of woo.
Again, a crock of horseshit. You don't own the word or its definition. If you don't understand what others mean, that's your business. But that doesn't mean that the others are engaged in magical thinking. That just means that you are incomprehending. Just because you yourself don't feel it does
not mean that the feelings of others are insincere.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"So when someone says they are spiritual, they mean that they think they are in touch with or experience things deeper, better than you do. It makes them feel special. It doesn't even matter what the actual thing is. What matters to them is that they feel special because they are self-centered cunts.
You want to act as if you're smart when you make bald pronouncements about people you don't know. How are you any different than those you'd deign to call "cunts", putting on airs of superiority?
So yeah, blow me.
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"We used to use better words for what is nowadays descibed as 'spiritual'.
Like the sublime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_(philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_(philosophy))
Now this is a great point.
This seems like another "let's build a grid to catch a butterfly" situation. Of course none of you need permission from anyone to use whatever terms you wish, but we can question why you would use them.
I don't use the term for the same reason I don't call a morally upstanding person "godly," or a large creature in a lake "Loch Ness Monsteral." I don't believe in gods, the Loch Ness Monster, or spirits. Use the term all you wish, but be prepared to be misunderstood - perhaps willfully so.
Its a weasel word that can mean almost anything.
Quote from: "stromboli"I am astonished and elevated by the craftsmanship of a Rembrandt painting like the Night Watch, and totally "meh" at a Jackson Pollock.
Never got off on Rembrandt. I've even been to a special Rembrandt exhibit at the Getty Art Museum in California. Nothing happened to me except I can say I've been close enough to a Rembrandt to touch it with my finger (I didn't touch it of course. I'm not that kind of guy). But I've seen several Jackson Pollocks at the Art Institute in Chicago. They turn me on big time. I like the way the colors mix in random patterns. I can't explain why this appeals to me so much. I don't think this can be accounted for by spirituality, though. But I think the guy was a genius. Or at least, he just had one inspiration in his life that could be called a stroke of genius.
Quote from: "Sleeper"This seems like another "let's build a grid to catch a butterfly" situation. Of course none of you need permission from anyone to use whatever terms you wish, but we can question why you would use them.
I don't use the term for the same reason I don't call a morally upstanding person "godly," or a large creature in a lake "Loch Ness Monsteral." I don't believe in gods, the Loch Ness Monster, or spirits. Use the term all you wish, but be prepared to be misunderstood - perhaps willfully so.
Ah, but whose will is it at work in the misunderstanding?
Communication is a two way street. Standing on pedantry isn't very conducive to it, nor is calling someone a "cunt" for using the term. I know that wasn't you, but that sort of thing -- along with the imputation of motives -- is certainly not conducive to understanding.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Sleeper"This seems like another "let's build a grid to catch a butterfly" situation. Of course none of you need permission from anyone to use whatever terms you wish, but we can question why you would use them.
I don't use the term for the same reason I don't call a morally upstanding person "godly," or a large creature in a lake "Loch Ness Monsteral." I don't believe in gods, the Loch Ness Monster, or spirits. Use the term all you wish, but be prepared to be misunderstood - perhaps willfully so.
Ah, but whose will is it at work in the misunderstanding?
Communication is a two way street.
Not according to the people who are just waiting to misunderstand you. I have to agree with Hitchens on this. There is something to be said about the numinous, the phenomenal or the transcendent. But there is nothing supernatural about these things and, personally, I choose not to brand it as such.
Quote from: "Sleeper"Not according to the people who are just waiting to misunderstand you. I have to agree with Hitchens on this. There is something to be said about the numinous, the phenomenal or the transcendent. But there is nothing supernatural about these things and, personally, I choose not to brand it as such.
... which is why I described it as I did. The terms you chose are certainly effective to someone with a good command of the language. Unfortunately, that is not often the case.
I personally prefer listening as well as talking, myself. And when someone uses a word like "spiritual", I prefer to listen to their definition before deciding that they're being disingenuous or cuntish.
There's no denying that people have these experiences they deem "spiritual". But just as when I was a Christian, I don't really get the point of the term and it seems a bit useless. Sublime or Numinous are better terms I believe.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The terms you chose are certainly effective to someone with a good command of the language. Unfortunately, that is not often the case.
I personally prefer listening as well as talking, myself. And when someone uses a word like "spiritual", I prefer to listen to their definition before deciding that they're being disingenuous or cuntish.
I understand and appreciate that. It's all a matter of preference which is why I used terms like "I choose not to..." and "use whatever terms you wish..." I never really agreed with the "cunt" comments, though it is true for some people. I think the_antithesis might have been doing what many of you were doing in my atheist celebrities thread - making a negative generalization that probably does not apply to most here making the positive assertion. If I'm wrong, I'll happily be corrected.
Quote from: "Sleeper"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The terms you chose are certainly effective to someone with a good command of the language. Unfortunately, that is not often the case.
I personally prefer listening as well as talking, myself. And when someone uses a word like "spiritual", I prefer to listen to their definition before deciding that they're being disingenuous or cuntish.
I understand and appreciate that. It's all a matter of preference which is why I used terms like "I choose not to..." and "use whatever terms you wish..." I never really agreed with the "cunt" comments, though it is true for some people. I think the_antithesis might have been doing what many of you were doing in my atheist celebrities thread - making a negative generalization that probably does not apply to most here making the positive assertion. If I'm wrong, I'll happily be corrected.
Touché.
This thread seems to have gotten off on a tangent here. There seems to be two basic groups. There are those who use the actual definition of the word and those who use whatever definition the person speaking the word intends. It should be obvious by now which side I am on.
I do realize that people don't always mean exactly the definition of a word when they utter it. Annoying, but okay. But if you have a working definition of a word which is contrary to any actual definition you should not be offended when people say to you, "I don't think that word means what you think it means." I understand that language is ever evolving, but definitions give our language meaning, so the actual definitions cannot simply be discarded for any common use of a word we choose without explanation. If you choose to use some definition of a word which is not an actual definition that's find, but you need to be able to define it. And if you're going to go through all of that trouble why not just use the right words in the first place? If I find out I'm using a word wrong I quite using that word in that context. I don't insist that it's right by my own, personal definition, and there are several reasons for that. Here's a short list.
1) Refudiate - it makes me look stupid
2) Theory - it confuses people and disseminates misinformation, sometimes intentionally
3) Spiritual - people have no fucking clue what the hell I'm talking about, even after looking it up in the dictionary, until I explain it to them...or get them to read a book about it
4) Scientific - the same as theory
5) Atheist - same as theory
I don't exactly think definitions are sacred or anything, but any time a word has one or more perceived meanings which are contrary to any actual definition it muddles the conversation and confuses the issue, as has happened this entire thread. So if you use a word in a way not intended by its definition you should be ready to define the word in the context you are use it (NOT refer to the use of the word in a quote as a "definition") and you should be willing to accept that there are people out there, like myself, who simply will not accept your own personal definition, but instead will insist that, based on your personal definition, you are using the wrong word. Because you are. If you think going out to debunk a haunting with your tape recorder and digital camera, memory card still half full of pictures from last weekend's barbeque is "scientific" then you are using the wrong word. Don't get pissed off when I tell you that you're using the wrong word. Don't insist that you are using it correctly when the dictionary says you are not. And don't insist that any definition you choose to use is correct because it's right for you. It may be right for you. I can accept that. But when you're speaking to me you are trying to convey something to me. In that case "right for you" is completely irrelevant. You either use the words correctly or you misrepresent what you're saying to me. I have no way to look up your personal definition of a word, nor should I have to. Can you imagine how tedious it would be if we had to look up every word every person ever spoke in their own personal dictionaries to see what the hell they were saying?
So, if you want to use words incorrectly, fine. Go ahead. But don't insist it is correct, don't expect me to know what you're saying and don't get pissed when I say:
(//http://rjw57.github.com/notes/_images/montoya.jpg)
Quote from: "widdershins"Quote from: "Mathias"widdershins,
It wasn't just about the "next" you mentioned. Your words:
QuoteWhatever the case, Sagan was wrong Either (gasp!) because he was using an incorrect definition or he held dear some form of woo (gasp again!). or, Perhaps, he just liked to say things Which Sounded really cool and deep.
I don't think I am wrong, much less Sagan, and I'm not trying to "win" an argument because I have already made my point of view very clear and respect of those who consider the word inappropriate for any connotation that isn't religious.
And of course you still have not read the book that mentions Sagan's quote - The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - because otherwise you know why he wrote that.
In short, I accept the definition of Sagan, a poetic concept of spirituality, a word whose root goes beyond the religious sense. Just as the phrase "we are a way for the universe to know itself" doesn't literally mean what it says.
When I want a "definition", I go to a dictionary. Please explain what the "definition" of spirituality is that Sagan gave. The quote you copied had him using the word, not "defining" it. Popular and beloved people simply don't get to rewrite the definitions of words. So, again, either Sagan was using the word incorrectly or he believed in woo. Personally I would assume he was using the word incorrectly in the "common sense", if you will.
But all of that is beside the point as you are simply playing semantics here to avoid addressing the point of your logical fallacy.
1) I mistakenly translated the word "woo". I thought it was an onomatopoeia for supernatural.
2) I don't seek complex settings, especially philosophical, metaphysical, etc.. in a dictionary, but each one to his trade, right?
3) I defined the concept of spirituality in the second page of this topic, but I repeat to you, "no problema":
It can be defined metaphorically as a full set of intellectual faculties. In the case of Sagan, the facultie is delighted with the understanding of the model of reality through knowledge acquired through scientific methodology.
Quote from: "widdershins"But if you have a working definition of a word which is contrary to any actual definition you should not be offended when people say to you, "I don't think that word means what you think it means." I understand that language is ever evolving, but definitions give our language meaning, so the actual definitions cannot simply be discarded for any common use of a word we choose without explanation. If you choose to use some definition of a word which is not an actual definition that's find, but you need to be able to define it.
I get all that; that's why I took the time to give examples of what arouses the feelings to which I atatch the label. Language isn't always precise and I do have an obligation to make myself clear. I think I discharged that obligation, too.
What was shitty was this guy:
QuoteWhen I hear the word spiritual, I'm listening to someone completely full of themselves. It's like fucking an elf. Tolkien's elves were kind of like the pinnacle of perfection. So to fuck an elf is to touch that greatness with your dick. So when someone says they are spiritual, they mean that they think they are in touch with or experience things deeper, better than you do. It makes them feel special. It doesn't even matter what the actual thing is. What matters to them is that they feel special because they are self-centered cunts.
This little shitbag comes in, drops some name-calling, makes a very uncharitable imputation, and splits never to return. That's cool. Apparently there's only one way to see the world, his, and because I don't use his preferred term, or share his own viewpoint, I'm a "cunt". Well, fuck him. He's apparently not intelligent enough to disagree agreeably, and I won't bother wasting time on such a thoughtless blowhard any more.
The absence of any subsequent comment on his post makes me wonder if there's not some agreement with it, or if he's just been ignored by folks, or what. I'm pretty new here and don't really know.
That is the bee in my bonnet, not the fact that I have to explain a little. I did that already, without complaint, because I enjoy discussing these sorts of things with a heterodox group.
Quote from: "Mathias"1) I mistakenly translated the word "woo". I thought it was an onomatopoeia for supernatural.
Basically it is. It generally refers to any type of beliefs held which are not scientifically validated. Woo could mean magic, Bigfoot or holistic medicine.
Quote from: "Mathias"2) I don't seek complex settings, especially philosophical, metaphysical, etc.. in a dictionary, but each one to his trade, right?
Dictionaries define words, not "complex settings".
Quote from: "Mathias"3) I defined the concept of spirituality in the second page of this topic, but I repeat to you, "no problema":
It can be defined metaphorically as a full set of intellectual faculties. In the case of Sagan, the facultie is delighted with the understanding of the model of reality through knowledge acquired through scientific methodology.
I don't even know how to respond to this as I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. If Sagan was using a metaphor here then it was a poor one unless there is some underlying tone of the book that I'm not aware of. I'm going to assume that is probably the case since you keep getting on me about not having read it. But my response to that quote, taken by itself, is accurate in my estimation.
Now, if we could get off Sagan and definitions and please address my original problem with your response, the final word in that response. Was it or was it not an indication that the matter was settled by the quote? If yes, it was still an argument to authority. If not then I have misunderstood and this entire conversation was unnecessarily drawn out. What was the purpose of ending the post with, "Next!"? I still cannot see any reason for it other than as a claim that the matter was definitively settled and it was time for the "next" thread.
If I'm wrong, if that is not the case, then I really don't have a problem with your post at all. Sagan is definitely cool enough for any party as far as I'm concerned. Taken as is, I don't agree with what you quoted, but he is no less in my eyes for it. Hell, Bill Maher, at least at one time, and recently, was an inoculation denier. He doubted the proven science behind inoculations because "some guy on the Internet" said there was mercury in them and they were bad for you. He's also for doing away with the second amendment, which I am not. I still respect him. I still watch and enjoy his show. As I have said multiple times my only real "problem" with your post was the last word, which I took as a statement that you had definitively settled the discussion and nothing more needed to be said. If that is not the case, what did it mean? If it was the case then come clean with it and let's get on with our lives.
widdershins,
The intention was to say that my opinion was given and I thought (perhaps wrongly) that there was nothing more for me to add, much less discuss. As for me there's no supernatural spirituality, the metaphoric point of view, the term can (and I think should) be used as something poetic, just as a person can get in cartase to glimpse a "secret" of reality. I may have demonstrated arrogance, but it was actually "spirituality" :)
There's an expression in portuguese, "pig spirit", which means an ignorant, reckless and malicious person. When the person is friendly and cheerful we say she is witty, which is written in Portuguese "eSPIRITuosa".
Quote from: "Mathias"widdershins,
The intention was to say that my opinion was given and I thought (perhaps wrongly) that there was nothing more for me to add, much less discuss. As for me there's no supernatural spirituality, the metaphoric point of view, the term can (and I think should) be used as something poetic, just as a person can get in cartase to glimpse a "secret" of reality. I may have demonstrated arrogance, but it was actually "spirituality" :)
Okay, that got a chuckle. I don't know if I missed it before or if this is the first time you've spelled it out, but for your intention to be that there was nothing more for you, personally to add, I have no problem with. I misunderstood that intention, but if I hadn't we wouldn't have gone on this long, frustrating journey which ultimately lead to our mutual understanding and personal growth, so you owe me big time.
Quote from: "widdershins"...our mutual understanding and personal growth, so you owe me big time.
Ok, anytime...
"Spirituality" and its derivatives have a religious feel to them, so I for the most part dismiss them.
And trying to Shanghai the definition to mean something like awe or feely wheely seems pointless and just leads to confusion.
Quote from: "Sal1981""Spirituality" and its derivatives have a religious feel to them, so I for the most part dismiss them.
And trying to Shanghai the definition to mean something like awe or feely wheely seems pointless and just leads to confusion.
I concur. I don't think most people do it on purpose though. I think it's just a "muddy" word which is poorly understood by most.