Yes, I'm sympathetic to that camp, so it looks more like science subsuming elements of philosophy that were previously not available to science, rather than over reach. If for the sake of argument, I took the opposite position, I'm not sure I'd describe it as pedantry. For instance, I think that particle physicists, the notion that a physicist comes up with an interpretation of QM is overreach, as I think interpretation is exactly a philosophers job. I don't think of those physicists as being pedantic.

I only have one year of an education degree from 30 years ago, so my knowledge of pedagogy is both outdated and limited, but a Google search seems to indicate that first grade social studies focuses on the basic concepts of civics and geography. I don't see why concepts like monotheism, polytheism and atheism wouldn't fit the same developmental level.

Normally when I discuss the way people interact, it's pretty easy to agree on some basic things, like how people commonly speak. I'm open to the idea that my experience of how people speak in this case is not representative of the general trend, but unless you're saying that your experience is different, I have no reason to doubt my observations. That's why I'm asking.

But there are clear analogues to degeneracy and to over-extension. — Pierre-Normand

Could you give me a "for instance"?

You might not have that expectation, but some people would. For example, people who supported prohibition for moral reasons.

Likewise, maybe some people wouldn't think "You shouldn't parade around in public naked" via just saying that they think that is bad. — Terrapin Station

Is this ironic performance art? I'm asking, because this response strikes me as being pedantic. We can absolutely imagine cases where what I said wasn't true, but I think that in general what I said is true. Do you disagree?

I look forward to hear what your ideas are. — Pierre-Normand

Well, we agree about much, based on your post. I think that context, and specifically what is the goal or benefit of a particular analysis, is central to the issue. How we frame things matters. We don't use quantum mechanics to build bridges, or classical physics to make a highs boson.

Having said that, I think there's value in general inquiry, and philosophy is often not guided by practical concerns, so I'm not sure that the normal ways of framing discussion work well in all areas of philosophy.

It feels as though no matter how reasonable a proposal I ofder, you are dead set against saying "Yes. That's a reasonable proposal". So I'm asking If, in principle, you can agree with my proposal? I'm not asking if there are other things that can be done. I'm not asking about the detailed implementation. I'm asking if you see a problem with the idea in principle.

"Gin is bad" is just as often meant normatively as "walking around naked in public is bad." — Terrapin Station

Really? If I say "Gin is bad" I wouldn't expect you to stop drinking it. I would assume you interpreted it as being synonymous with "I don't like gin". I wouldn't have the same expectation about the same sort of utterance about public nudity.

More the fact that one is normative and the other isn't.

Okay, we still agree. There is an experiencer and that which is experienced. Still in the same page. What's the next step in reasoning? One step at a time please.

What ideology have I espoused in this discussion? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The anti-Dennett ideology. You seem to be focused on taking sides, and you seem to have pre-concluded that his side is the wrong one, regardless of what is actually said or proposed. That is behaving like an ideologue.

Regarding the rest, I'll ask the question simply once more. Do you object to teaching kids what various different religions believe in first grade? Just things like the difference between monotheism and polytheism, and that the Judeo-Christian religions are monotheistic and hinduism is polytheistic. That there were other religions in the past that mostly people don't believe any more? I accept that you would like to see more done. I am asking if you can agree that at the very least we should at least teach the facts of what people believe?

"Gin is bad" is an opinion. "Walking around naked I public is bad" is a cultural standard. Surely there's a distinction between these.

So, if I am reading you correctly, the shared point of agreement in my experience is that I have experiences? Is this is more or less correct? I'd appreciate a fairly simple response. I feel like people want to jump ahead of me, so where we disagree, or where I misunderstand their position, gets jumped pass too.

That's fine, but I'm telling you how people actually use the word in conversations. You can choose to ignore that if you want to, and it's no skin off my nose. — Terrapin Station

Either I'm not understanding you or vice versa, because I have no idea where this response is coming from. I know people use the word in conversations. I'm not sure why you bring that up.

Also, the idea that community or social standards aren't personal opinion/taste is ridiculous. — Terrapin Station

I don't think that it makes sense to call them opinions, even though they aren't objective. The word opinion usually implies that you're talking about the feelings of one individual.

So it's all personal opinion? Does that mean you could never judge yourself to be pedantic? Does that mean that there are no community or social standards by which to judge it? Should there be community standards, or is it all a matter of personal taste? Doesn't context play a part?

Sorry, but your response seems a little over-simplistic to me.

What we can 'conceive of' is fairly irrelevant to the problem at hand -- that of understanding what is spirituality and materiality. — Mariner

Spirituality and materiality are concepts. Polarity is a conceptual framework that you proposed to fit these concepts into. I pointed out that they don't actually fit coherently into the framework you suggested, and gave you a reason why.

The fact is that both spirit and matter are conjoined in our experience. And it is from that fact that we must proceed in order to apprehend what spirituality (and materiality) means. — Mariner

How is that a fact? I think you mean that is your premise. That means that you're just begging the question. You are essentially saying that the spirit exists, therefore the spirit exists. Until I hear some reason to buy into your premise, I'll have to disagree, unless you have an approach that includes starting from some shared point of agreement and reasoning outward from there.

A conceptual polarity is not an indication of ontological dualism. On the contrary, a polarity pretty much eliminates the possibility of dualism (e.g., there is no "dualism" between North and South -- these are not two different and incommunicable substances). — Mariner

North and south are poles of geographical direction, and conceptually cannot exist separate from each other. The notion of south is meaningless outside of the notion of cardinal directions, which by necessity includes other directions for south to be related to. It's the same way "up" or "more" work. They only make sense in contradiction to their opposite. The body, or matter, can clearly exist without spirit (we call that a corpse, or an object) and we can also conceive of the spirit existing without the body (Life's a dream, brain in vat, matrix, evil demon). The notion of polarity just isn't consistent with our conception of the body and the mind.

Fair enough. Let me leave you with this thought to meditate on though. If you have an idea that requires that you relitigate the nature of rationality in order to make tenable, you might want to ask if you are moving the mountain to Mohammed.

Which tells you more about the apple? — Noble Dust

I don't want to know more about apples (at least not yet), I want to know what you mean when you say "apple". For crying out loud, that's why I'm asking for a definition!

Maybe I am. I'm developing my own system of thought, and the role of intuition is part of my ideas. It's an incomplete system. Part of the process for me is spitballing on this forum; it sharpens my ideas, challenges them, and brings more clarity. I began this discussion with you in relation to spirituality, and intuition came up when we reached the impasse that you were insisting that I use rationality as you were doing, with relation to spirituality, which I refused to do. I then proceeded to challenge you as to why rationality should be the tool we use here, which you never addressed, and instead insisted on focusing on what I mean by intuition, and here we are. — Noble Dust

Because I'm not interested in litigating the importance or rationality in rational discourse, so instead I am saying that if you would like to engage in rational discourse, it requires that you use rationality. To do otherwise is literally irrational, and I have no interest in engaging irrationality.

Why would anyone be willing to consider such an insult? — Noble Dust

What insult? Everyone can mistake their own bullshit for a real idea, why not you?

Why do you consider having two hypotheses valuable? Why do you consider Kant's well reasoned models as admirable? — Noble Dust

Again, not interested in litigating rationality. Just in engaging it.

Why do you consider a dictionary definition of a word valuable, and presumably assume it to be more valuable than a descriptive definition? — Noble Dust

Because of the context. I don't know what you're talking about and I want to, so I need you to clearly and succinctly convey the meaning of the word, so that I can distinguish what you mean from 1) the conventional meaning and 2) any random meaning that might also fit your description. Do I really have to explain how communicating works, because that's all it is.

Why do you assume that it's worthwhile to talk about spirituality despite your lack of belief in it? Why do you consider it worthwhile to try to point out, not only the holes in my argument, but your belief that I have no argument at all? Why do you consider honest responses to be important within discussion? Why do you think it's important to consider the logical implications of dualism before adopting it? Why do you consider empirical standpoints as being important to take? Why do you think making a distinction between self-delusion and good answers is important? — Noble Dust

We don't have to litigate every possible factor relating to having a belief or a discussion in order to have a discussion. Do you need to discuss the nature of coffee and the nature of wanting, and the nature of commerce with the barista when you order a cup of coffee? Of course not. As reasonable humans who actually want to have discussions, we assume that the other person holds conventional beliefs, unless we have specific reasons to believe otherwise. We don't litigate why rationality is good anymore than we litigate why goodness is good, or litigate that when I am using words, I mean them in the conventional english sense, not in an alternate or made up language. Unless it is the specific subject of the discussion, we just assume it. That is the social protocol of having a discussion. So I will say this one more time: If you don't want to have a rational discussion, you'll have to live with the fact that you're being irrational. I believe, for reasons that I don't feel like litigating here, that the best thing to do with an irrational interlocutor, if a quick appeal to the value of rationality doesn't work, is to dismiss them.

No, this was my definition of intuition in this argument: — Noble Dust

You're telling me what intuition does, and where it fits in your conception of the world. You're not telling me what it is. I'm sorry, but I really don't know how to deal with this without sounding condescending. A definition is a quick list of the properties that distinguish the meaning of a word from other words. Let me show you:

Apple: It nourishes us. It was Eve's folly. It is both the genus and product of the orchard. Apples taste good.

Apple: The round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin red or green skin and crisp flesh.

Do you see the difference?

In regards to Kant, I said my idea was similar, which it is. — Noble Dust

Give me a break. Philosophy is a process of having ideas, and giving them shape, by way of words. Kant gave a definition to intuition in your quote. Other philosophers give other definitions. I give mine. — Noble Dust

I think you're giving yourself too much credit here. Kant wasn't just spitballing his metaphysics. He developed a complete, succinct, and clearly defined, and well reasoned model of metaphysics that displayed intellectual rigour and care for clarity and precision. His notion of intuition was part of that entire model. He wasn't just defining things for shits and giggles.

The problem here is your gross misreading and charicature of what I'm saying. — Noble Dust

Perhaps, or perhaps I am not misreading, you are misspeaking. Both valid hypotheses. The problem might be that I "don't get it", but it might also be that there is nothing to get. I've been willing to consider two hypotheses on pretty much any subject. Are you willing to? Are you willing to even consider that you don't actually have a theory, or real ideas, but rather wordplay that feels to you like ideas?

I'm not making fun of you. My response is honest. To the degree that you are defining intuition, you are defining it in such a way that assumes your worldview, where there is no physical or cultural intermediaries between a person and "things like meaning, morality, and the underlying principles of why we bother to have discussions". You're defining your argument into being correct, by making up your own definitions for words. That doesn't even reach the threshold of having an idea. It's just wordplay.

Similar to that, but in relation to things like meaning, morality, and the underlying principles of why we bother to have discussions, in place of "objects" in what Kant says here. — Noble Dust

So you are making up a meaning for the word (at odds with the common english meaning), based on a conception of the world that others don't share with you, using the word in that sense, never mentioning that you are using the word unconventionally, and use it as evidence for your conception of the world? Do you not see a problem there? I could as easily say "when I use the word spirituality, I meant "nonsense", so clearly it is nonsense. I win the argument. Yay me!

Nowhere here did I equate these. — Noble Dust

That's what the word means in English.

Edit: Are you proposing that you know that you're correct by the sort of intuition that Kant proposed? He was speaking about how we apprehend objects.

In whatever way and through whatever means a cognition may related to objects, that through which it relates immediately to them, and at which all thought as a means is directed as an end, is intuition. — Kant

↪Reformed Nihilist The critique of spirituality rarely touches on 'feelings' or 'emotions'. For me this realm of emotions underlies everything, even rationality: a rational argument is only as good as its premisses, which are at bottom emotional. Mood is the way we are in the world. — mcdoodle

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that a premise is emotional. I suspect that this is a false dichotomy between reason and emotion. Reason is a thing we do. Emotion is a way we are.

I think one needs to be wary of quoting Wittgenstein as if he might agree with an anti-spiritual stance. He was very interested in religion although a non-believer. He wrote of ethics as 'Supernatural', and he didn't mean by this to write it off, but rather to say that as with aesthetics, which he bracketed with ethics, something other than 'natural' criteria apply. — mcdoodle

My quote of Wittgenstein wasn't to present his thoughts or feelings about the supernatural or spiritual specifically, but about the limits of linguistic reasoning. My thought wasn't that "Wittgenstein is a famous philosopher, so we should follow everything he said", but rather "I agree with the specific idea he had, and it seems relevant to the discussion, and rather than trying to wholesale import his work on the matter, I'll use this pithy quote that nicely sums up the point".

Yes, I was trying to get at that in response to ↪Reformed Nihilist, but maybe I didn't frame it quite so succinctly. The history of rationality in general is something I'm interested in studying more. — Noble Dust

A baseline of commonality is required for useful discussion, and we do not share that baseline, if your claims are genuine. If you genuinely believe that your intuition, your feeling that you are correct, is sufficient grounds to believe that you are correct, and that it requires no further justification by use of reason or appeals to evidence, then I don't know how to, or why I would want to have a discussion with you.

I'd invite you to imagine in you're mind's eye for a moment, what the world would look like if everyone adopted this approach to knowing things. 1+1=5 because I intuit that it does. Your money is actually my money because my intuition tells me so. Do you really want to use those ground rules for interacting with people (rhetorical question, don't bother answering)?

How do you know which answers are good? — Noble Dust

Through the application of reasoning and evidence.

I know through intuition. — Noble Dust

If you rely on intuition above rationality, as you claim, then you are, by definition, being irrational. You are free to be irrational, but I cannot have a rational discussion with someone who is proudly irrational. I came here for a rational discussion. Perhaps someone else can have an intuitive discussion with you.

How so?

Once you start to distinguish between brute facts and contingent facts, I think you are heading down the wrong road. If facts are simply states of affairs, then all facts are brute facts. Statements of fact are contingent (some more obviously so than others).

Because "just body" doesn't account for the existential reality of our experience; It doesn't account for ethics, morality, and the whole project of conscious human life in general. "Just body" shows how without showing why. — Noble Dust

To some extent it does. No theory perfectly accounts for all phenomena, but an "all body" approach is 100% consistent with all of these phenomena. There's nothing that can't in principle be explained by it. We can account for primate ethics without appealing to a dualistic model.There are dozens, probably hundreds of models of ethics that don't require dualism.

And a counter question, if the two interact, why would it have to be just body in that case? — Noble Dust

I doesn't have to be, but it's less parsimonious. You have to start inventing a mechanism by which the body and mind interact, yet that disallows them from being the same thing. Every layer you add just makes a more complex model that doesn't actually account for any more variables.

It also opens up an infinite regression. If there needs to be a something pulling the levers of our body, then why doesn't there need to be a something to pull it's levers? Why doesn't the self have a deeper self, and so on? Before you answer "maybe it does", I just have to point out that there is a difference between a good explanation and a bad one, and it isn't just based on which one resonates with you. The "it's all selfs, all the way down" is a bad explanation, because it adds infinite variables without adding any explanatory value. Mind body dualism is a bad explanation for the same reason, just to a lesser degree.

On top of that, you have to account for the physical evidence. I'm sure it's possible to come up with a hand waving explanation for any given bit of physical evidence, but again, it's not the most parsimonious explanation. Consider the alternatives again:

Facts: Physically affecting the brain can alter intentionality, personality, perception, self-identity, memory, and even morality and all the things that people historically associated with the soul or spirit in repeatable and predictable ways.

Hypothesis 1: The brain is actually the source of all of these things. The self is a cultural holdover from days when we didn't know what we now do about the brain.

Hypothesis 2: There is an immeasurable "self", that interacts with the body in an unknown way, using an unknown mechanism. To the best evidence, people would behave in exactly the same way wiithout it, but it exists.

Which hypothesis makes more sense? Or what is your hypothesis that accounts for all the evidence but includes mind/body dualism?

Intuition is what injects anything with meaning, including the idea that "self-delusion" would be a bad thing (which you rightly insinuate here). — Noble Dust

Ok, can we try a simple definition again, or is this another word that magically can't be defined?

But no, of course a self-deluded person would not know they were self-deluded. You're setting up a tautology that seems to insinuate that I'm self-deluded for having spiritual beliefs. If I were self-deluded about spirituality, I wouldn't know it, just as if you were self-deluded about your lack of belief in spirituality, you wouldn't know it. — Noble Dust

I'm not setting up a tautology, I'm asking you if you have any means to discriminate intuitions from self-delusions. I don't. That's why I don't trust intuitions. That's why I turn to structured reasoning (logic), public discourse, and empirical evidence. None of them rely on my intuitions, and if done diligently, they stand a chance to overcome the sorts of natural foibles (biases and fallacies) that I and all other people are subject to committing, and that can lead to wrong (and in some cases harmfully so) answers.

It's not immune to clarity; I said "most if not all descriptions" as a qualifier; I'm not ruling out the possibility of a clearer description, but I'm acknowledging that there's less clarity about the topic. Clarity about spirituality comes not from discursive definitions, or pinpointing things in a seemingly scientific manner; I think it can come from studying religions, practicing spiritual practices, looking for similarities between them (and differences). It's experiential, and not empirical, which I've been arguing all along. — Noble Dust

So now we're going to have to clarify what clarity means? I'm not asking you how I can get in touch with my spirit, I'm asking you if you can clearly define the word "spirit", as you mean it, when you speak.

If you cannot clearly define it, I am left to assume that either it is your failing or a property of the thing. Either it defies definition, or you don't have a firm grasp on the word you're using. One of these explanations seems more likely to me.

Again, you find no other concepts are difficult to describe clearly other than spirituality? Really? — Noble Dust

Only one's I don't have a firm grasp on. I generally assume that if I can't describe a concept, that's my failing, not a feature of the concept. I'm pretty sure that's true (I haven't gone through every concept I know to test that). Did you have a concept in mind?

Elusiveness may be a property of our experience of spirituality; it seems so in general, but I'm not definitively labeling it a property. But it seems to be predictably so. — Noble Dust

Ok. So your conjecture is that it's a property of the thing, not a failure of the speaker? Then I go back to my two hypotheses and ask you to consider them.

But the sages and teachers of religions claim to have had clear pictures, and their claims gel with the mere glimpses that I've had. It's like watching a great pianist and realizing that that same greatness could be latent in my fingers too; my experience of playing the piano somewhat badly still gives me the glimpse of what it could be like to be the virtuoso. And I fervently believe that if I practiced piano as much as the virtuoso does, I would arrive at that same level. — Noble Dust

Well, in regards to playing piano, the evidence would suggest that you are incorrect. Do you think it is wise to hold a belief "fervently" that is both contrary to the evidence, and seems to only be based on your feeling that it is the case? Mightn't it make more sense to follow the conclusions that the evidence present us with?

I already said I don't use rationality to appraise experience, at least not primarily. I don't play by the same rules that you do here. Can you make a case for why I have to play by your rules? — Noble Dust

So that I can make a distinction between self-delusion/illusion/personal bias/wishful thinnking, and good answers. How do you do that?

1) assumes that all concepts can be firmly grasped. I disagree. The development of human thought constantly reevaluates concepts and assumptions; everything from science, to theoretical physics, to diet, to theological problems, to philosophical problems, to art theory. Everything is constantly in a state of change and development. Once a concept is grasped, it seems to change (i.e. my analogy of the insect). So the assumption you make in 1) is wrong; you would need to address that assumption. — Noble Dust

It doesn't assume that all concepts are fixed or simple, which is what you're actually arguing against by bringing up the fact that concepts change. That's a red herring. It just assumes that it is possible to make a simple and succinct working definition for the purposes of a discussion, which it clearly is in many, if not all cases. This is just getting pedantic now.

2) intentionally ill-defined as in to purposefully obfuscate meaning? Who does that in philosophical discussions? I suppose some people probably do. Are you saying religious people do that in order to hold on to their beliefs? — Noble Dust

Closer to the latter, but not just religious people, and "intentionally" might be a little misleading. I don't think someone is saying to themselves "I'm going to use his term in such a way as to hide the meaning, or the fact that there is no meaning". I think that the term evolves in use to serve the purpose of being ill-defined, which serves a psychological need. People do that sort of thing all the time, and often don't realize it. Did you hear how Ivanka Trump responded to suggestions that she was complicit in some of the policy decisions of her father? She clearly didn't have a grasp on what the word "complicit" meant, but for some very specific and probably obvious reasons, she chose to use the word without having a grasp of what it meant. I'm not saying it's the same thing, but the point is, it's not strange for people to treat language as a thing you do, rather than a way to convey meaning.

High class prostitutes, for instance, usually have no connection with organized crime, gangs, or drugs. — Bitter Crank

Do you know this to be true, or is this just an intuition? I ask, because it's not information that most people have access to reliable sources for. I have no idea myself.

That's the long form version that you probably found frustrating...sorry. The best succinct version for now would be: Inner/outer, subject/object, public/private, are all dualistic expressions of a single reality that exists underneath everyday perception. I still struggle with even that concept though, because I still wrestle with whether I'm a dualist of any sort. — Noble Dust

Yup. because the statement "a single reality that exists underneath everyday perception" still implies a duality between "the real" and "the perceived". Dualism isn't inherently wrong, but one should consider the logical implications of adopting it.

Closer to that one reality I mentioned; closer to the truth. Closer to my own inner being, the "inner" seed that exists inside the husk of the disingenuous "outer" me. Closer to everything. All of this is apprehended through intuition, which is a spiritual faculty. — Noble Dust

That sounds like mind/body dualism.The idea that your body isn't you (it's a husk), and that the "real" you is some sort of ephemeral being that is pulling all the levers of your meat machine body. The problem is that there is abundant evidence that suggests otherwise, and there are philosophical problems with the idea in itself. For the philosophical problems, if mind and body are distinct and separate, then there's no way to account for the mind having an effect on the body (and if they interact, why do we need the duality, why can't it all be just body?).

From an empirical standpoint, we can prod at the meat machine in such a way as to produce predictable result in terms of perception, intentionality, self-identity and personality. All the things that go into what we consider the "real" us. Turn off one part of the brain, and we don't feel like we're in our body (LSD does that), stimulate another part of the brain and cause laughter or tears. When our brain malfunctions we can loose the ability to have empathy, believe we can see when we're actually blind. We can be tricked into thinking we are not in our bodies, or into remembering things that never occurred.

All of this seems to imply that all of those properties that were once ascribed to an otherworldly spirit are actually properties of a hunk of grey stuff in your skull. So just like the god of the gaps keeps shrinking, the more you know about how the universe works, it seems to me that the ephemeral spirit that runs the show shrinks the more you know about the brain.

Ok, but what I'm saying is succinctness often pinpoints concepts into a changeless state within which they don't actually exist. I like succinctness too, but in my view it only has temporal value; you can't pursue succinctness to the point of total, complete accuracy, because once you pinpoint the idea like an insect unto a board, the concept, like the insect, is dead. Now you can examine it and analyze it, but that work will only tell you about how the insect/concept functioned, past tense. — Noble Dust

How about we use present tense and talk about what you mean right now when you're using it? I'd be happy with pinpointing it to that degree. If you really want to change your definition in mid discussion (which would be a weird thing to do), just point it out an give me a new succinct definition. I don't know why there is such a fuss over this.

Are you saying my ideas are vague? (honest question). Because I keep using the word "elusive", and you keep using the word "vague". — Noble Dust

I don't know what your ideas are. I am saying your descriptions are vague. If clarity eludes you, that would account for the vagueness. I'm not even sure what the property of "elusiveness" would mean in regards to a concept, excepting that eludes you, which also means you don't have a firm grasp on it.

I would suggest that the concept of spirituality isn't vague, but that most if not all attempts to describe it end in vagueness, and I don't have a problem with this. — Noble Dust

So all the descriptions people make are vague, but the concept is a clear and well defined one? What makes you arrive at that conclusion? Wouldn't it make more sense to conclude that if no one seems able to speak clearly about a concept, then the concept is ill-defined? If not, by what mechanism is the concept of spirituality immune from clarity, yet everyone believes that they are talking about the exact same thing? Is there also a form of telepathy involved, where you just know what someone is saying regardless of their vagueness?

Or might it be that people are engaging in performative language rituals? I use "spiritual" as a placeholder, and when questioned speak in vagaries, and you also want to hold onto the notion, so you see in it whatever you need to, in order to maintain some aspect of your worldview or sense of self-identity?

It also doesn't stop me from trying to be less vague when I talk about it. But I place my intuitive experience of this concept above my rational analysis of it, as I do elsewhere. — Noble Dust

What is the difference between intuitive experience and just regular experience, and why does it offer more insight than rational analysis? Is there any way to tell the difference between intuition and self-delusion?

Sure, it's hard to say. I try to think about all of these things as clearly as I'm able, but how do I know there's not an entirely other level of clearer thinking that I haven't yet or will never attain? I don't want to let this stop me from trying to think as clearly as I can about these concepts within my abilities. There's no use letting that possibility lead to inaction here. — Noble Dust

Inaction isn't my suggestion. My suggestion is to compare your hypothesis with mine, and evaluate them.

Your's is that there is such a thing as spirituality, but something (but you don't know what?) about the nature of that thing prevents it from being clearly described or defined. If I am correct, you seem to be saying that the elusiveness is an actual property of the thing that is spirituality. I think I have that right, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Mine is that where people find concepts difficult to describe clearly or define, in every other case I can think of, the cause for this inability was 1) the speaker in question didn't have a clear grasp on the concept, and in sometimes this is because 2) the concept is intentionally ill defined. We know that as humans, we regularly hold onto ill defined conceptions of things, and those things often only become more clearly defined, or are discarded, when we are pushed to think about them more carefully, either in discussion, or because of some event in one's life that creates a cognitive dissonance that needs to be rectified.

So given those two possible explanations for the events of this discussion, I'm asking you to rationally appraise the merits of each hypothesis. Surely in most cases my first hypothesis is correct, right? Why is this situation different?

Spirituality: the inner life of the outer world of experience.

From that first post, I've argued that the definition is elusive, but I then (in that same post) proceeded to offer that definition regardless. You seem to be reading past all of this, or else I wasn't clear enough. — Noble Dust

Sorry, I did miss that.

In what way do you mean "inner" and "outer"? Do you mean to make the distinction between subjective and objective, public and private, or material and immaterial?

The feeling of "almost-at-home" is an experience that I find myself having a lot, especially when writing music. I experienced it when I used to be a Christian (I have a lot of positive memories of that time as well as the negative). I've experienced it when reading other religious texts and philosophical texts, including atheist ones. I've experienced it in meditation (something I'm horrible at, but even still). I've experienced it in dreams, and, most poignantly of all, in the moments after waking up after a dreamless sleep. Laugh all you like, or analyze all you like. There's your answer. — Noble Dust

I was a christian, I meditate, I write music (though not in a while). I dream. I have had pleasant experiences with all of those things, but "almost at home" doesn't describe those experiences in a meaningful way to me. What does being at home feel like in this metaphor? What does being far from home feel like? I would normally describe some of those feelings as feeling like being at home, as they offer comfort, like home does. I might, inversely describe them as feeling like being away from home, as they might take me out of a conscious awareness of myself and my thoughts and feelings (away from home because they are different from my baseline condition, "where I live"). So I'm missing how these things are "almost at home". Perhaps you could try to describe why that metaphor was meaningful to you? Why you think that darthbarracuda was actually talking about the feeling you get when you do those things, and not an entirely different feeling that he/she gets.

If you mean "what's so dead about asking for someone to be succinct, and what's so alive about words having elusive meanings", then I'll answer, but otherwise you're setting up an annoying strawman there. — Noble Dust

No strawman intended. I made a specific request for succinctness, and you used a metaphor that characterized what I was asking for as negative ("dead, musty") and what you are now speaking of as elusive as good ("alive"). I'm rejecting that characterization. Succinctness is good, and vagueness is bad when discussing concepts. I will even submit that you might be making an attribution error here. Perhaps it isn't the concept that is vague, but your use of it. Can you actually make the distinction between an elusive concept and a poorly considered one (honest question)? I'm not sure I can tell the difference between my poorly considered concepts and objectively elusive concepts.

I submit that it could be that the term is a functional placeholder for it's religious precursor (of or pertaining to the spirit/soul or spirit world), and allows the user to hold onto elements of a religious worldview (mind/body dualism most obviously, but not exclusively) without making an intellectual commitment to them.

Add on edit: I wonder if it's also a placeholder for a belief in "intentionality magic", which is conceptually tied to religious mind/body dualism, but not one and the same. What I mean by intentionality magic, is the intuition that if we believe something strongly enough, desire it enough, or think/feel about it in the right way, we can cause it to happen. It's a fairly common intuition, and practices like prayer are it's religious manifestation.

What a surprise! Nothing I contributed made the cut. — Sapientia

Nor I, and I thought my comment about theological arguments not proving the existence of any god people actually worship at a church was particularly insightful (to toot my own horn).

It's a nice quote, but overquoted. It's actually a tautology. But I don't know, maybe that was his point. But I'm not saying that there's something to described that can't be described; there's something to be described that illudes proper description in the way that rational or analytic philosophy demands. If these rational demands are the demands you place on experience, then the concept of spirituality will illude you, let alone the experience of it. — Noble Dust

First, yes, I think that was his point. Maybe not in it's entirety, but encapsulated, I think it was.

Second, do you mean elude, as in evade, or illude, as in trick? Seeing as though you can't trick proper description, I'll assume you mean elude. It might not even be an important distinction.

So why are it that there are all sorts of other concepts, like the concepts of "properties" or "consciousness", slippery concepts, that people can have disagreements about the finer points of, but that can be succinctly defined in one or two sentences satisfactorily? Why would you propose that spirituality would be different? How is that not just special pleading?

We do have that; I was affirming Barri's descriptions as something I share (that may not have been obvious). That doesn't mean we can define those shared experiences in the same way we define our experience of "when I hit my knee on the table, it hurts". — Noble Dust

How do you know that you share the experience? What specifically did he write that made you say "yup, that's the same thing for me"? Explain that to me please. Maybe I also share the experience. The way most people talk about spirituality, it seems as though it is part of the universal human condition, so I don't know what makes me such a dummy about it.

That's my point about "living" words and "dead" dictionaries. I think it applies when we're trying to pin down an illusive concept like "spirituality". As Worset mentioned, the root of the word is "breathe"; another metaphor, or an original likeness? — Noble Dust

I understand how metaphors work, thanks. I'm asking what's so dead about asking for someone to be succinct, and what's so alive about being vague and self-contradictory? That's what I was doing when I asked about a dictionary style definition. So I guess I'm trying to point out that your metaphor wasn't apt. It wasn't relevant to my request.

Fine, have you had a look at mine? — Noble Dust

Nope, must have missed it.

Spirituality cannot be "defined" in the absence of its counterpart (materiality), and the same goes for materiality. There are many kinds of polar concepts like these (freedom:determinism, God:man, world:society, natural:artificial -- just to brush on other themes besides 'religion'). Matter:spirit is just another example. — Mariner

That's the dualist definition I am familiar with and understand clearly. It is the most common use of the term by those who ascribe to a religion. I am asking about what the term means by those who don't necessarily ascribe to, or are unwilling to commit to, that sort of dualism.

Edit: At that point, I can choose to engage in a discussion about the finer points of dualist/monist/functionalist/etc. conceptions of the universe, or I can just accept that in a very real way, I live in a cognitively different world, and wish you all the best.

Youre critiquing the way i say things rather than what i said. — Wosret

They're not wholly separate things. What you say becomes apparent in how you say it. Everything you said in the first post I commented on has a morsel of truth to it, but was all presented as extremes. "The religious are the real physicalists, always tracing things back to personal experience, revalation, feeling, profession and confession" and "he irreligious are the real immaterialists, believing first hand accounts and introspection the be worthless, the collective over the individual to take precedence". In my experience, religious people act in a variety of ways, and look at the world in a variety of ways, as do the irreligious. They are not monolithic, nor are they kind enough to fit squarely into an one or two line description neatly.

If you like irony, then I guess I'm saying that there are two kinds of people in the world, those that think there are two kinds of people in the world, and people like me.

I don't want to speak for ↪darthbarracuda, but I would say that all of the above are the definition that he's describing. The reason the concept might seem vague is because language has limits; human experience is wider than the scope of one single language's ability to describe experience. A concept that eludes a dead, musty dictionary definition is a concept that's more alive than most concepts. — Noble Dust

To the appeal that there's something to describe, outside of what can be described, I can only quote Wittgenstein "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". If it doesn't have a lexical meaning, then it is literally meaningless. If it is part of a share experience, then we should be able to indicate to each other what it is that we share, put a word like "sprituality" on it, and voila! we have a meaningful word. If, however, it is some private experience for which there is no analogous experience between people, then it isn't something that can be spoken of. Language is necessarily a shared phenomena.

As far as the "dead dictionaries" and "alive concepts", it's a nice bit of poetics, but I don't see how it is actually a reflection of any state of affairs. I'm not asking for a regurgitation of a dictionary definition, I'm asking for a dictionary style of definition. The reason I am doing that is that dictionary definitions are succinct, if not all encompassing. Seeing as though I have literally no clue what spirituality might refer to if not to a dualistic nether-world where our vaporous homunculus reside, I am asking for a definition that at least gives me a succinct and graspable starting point, and at the same time testing if whomever is answering has thought about the subject to the extent that they understand what they are proposing well enough to give such a definition. So far, I have not found that to be the case, but am always open to hearing it.

Thats just more calling me an asshole man, and then taking a stand on high as the one being appealed to as if i want something from you. — Wosret

If I was calling you an asshole, I'd call you an asshole. I was critiquing your writing, not you.

What you believe isnt my problem. I enjoyed reading you a lot when i first showed up on the philosophy forum a decade ago. I thought that you were pretty cool shit back then. I even tried to talk to you, but you werent interested, so im more pleased than anything that im getting it now. — Wosret

I actually appreciate that. I remember you from the other forum, but I don't remember having anything to talk about with you specifically. For all I know, I might have had the same impression of your writing style back then, I don't recall. I certainly don't remember thinking badly of you. Like you probably remember, I'm a pretty critical guy, so...

Youre only like 4 hours from me as well.

Cool. In Alberta? I've moved around the province, from Ft. Mac to Calgary.

It wasn't necessarily meant as a retort. Just trying to get some clarity about your tone (to what degree you were speaking tongue in cheek), which wasn't apparent to me. It seems as though it wasn't meant tongue in cheek (or I'm still not getting the joke). In which case, my next response is a critique:

Your writing style uses the language of certainty on subjects that are usually, and for good reason I think, spoken of in terms of personal opinion or subjective view, or with other forms of linguistic humility. To say that you see the folly of mankind, without any modifiers, like "what seems like folly to me" or "I see X folly in Y element of mankind", implies that you have a vantage not granted to the rest of us, where you see all the folly of mankind unerringly, with perfect fidelity. Why should I believe that you possess such insight? What makes your proclamations distinct from those of a babbling fool?

And you sit outside it all, watching, but not belonging, the lonely man of insight, seeing the folly of everyone else?