I've been mulling this topic over, even though it's quietened down. I think I use "spirit" and "mind" as sort-of synonyms, but for different purposes. They're both perspectives on the same thing, even though they're quite different.

When I'm thinking about intellectual, fact-based stuff, I think of "mind". When I think along the lines of wisdom, understanding and feeling - including religion - I think of "spirit".

Two different words to refer to the same thing, but in very different contexts. Does this resonate with anyone else, I wonder? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

:up: Thanks for your reply and for giving this thread a jump start. I can completely see using the words “spirit” and “mind” interchangeably. Especially when referring to the higher levels of mind. The term “higher consciousness” to me is nearly interchangeable with spirit. As is the term “soul”. They seem intimately related, if not synonymous. Many have created useful terminologies and systems of these terms. I like the “self-help” writer Thomas Moore’s distinction between spirit and soul. It is almost a yin-yang complementary pair. He says spirit is young, energetic and volatile, like the elements of fire and air. He paints the concept of soul as very Yin, ancient, quiet, and deep, like the elements of water and earth. (I picture the union of the two like the meeting of Luke Skywalker and Yoda.)

I find the unleavened dryness of the Bible to be pleasantly counter-balanced by a bottle of Manischewitz wine.

A search turned up this thread, which may or may not be relevant considering some other recent threads about the general topics of matter, the non-physical, etc. (I’m still reviewing it, since there’s a lot to it.)

About starting threads, I dislike the thought of re-inventing the wheel, rolling it up the hill, only to have to repeat the whole process the next day, ad infinitum. Especially when many put in time, thought, and effort. Not to say that the questions are answered.... to the contrary.

Semi-random thesis / aphorism on the topic of this thread: Everything (which is independent and a singular entity) is also related, interconnected, and interdependent. It is our task to find out how. (cf. holon)

Also, this is a somewhat similar and long thread “The New Dualism”:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3511/the-new-dualism/p1

(as a side note, it seems that a large number of the participants in this thread have disappeared or been banned. Could this be evidence that this thread is jinxed or haunted, thus giving credence to the existence of non-physical or unexplainable? Hmmm.... )

Collective Soul:

The notion that even though we each testify to different things ultimately we are all many voices inside one being that transcends the whole universe. I believe if explained a certain way that this can be attributed to any religion. Its like a world wide web but is usually given an eternal like aspect. There are many variations and sub variations on this concept. — christian2017

Noosphere?

Out of curiosity... what would you say that thoughts or ideas are? Material or non-material?
— 0 thru 9

Material. They're ways that our brains function. — Terrapin Station

Thoughts themselves (as we experience them) are material? Is that what you are saying? Can they be measured, seen, or detected?

Muchos gracias! :smile:

No. Because nothing can be non-material. The notion of non-material things is incoherent. — Terrapin Station

Out of curiosity... what would you say that thoughts or ideas are? Material or non-material?

Interesting. Thank you for the feedback on the idea of a poll. Wil be considering your suggestions and ideas. :victory:

Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Since you wrote the post in an honestly subjective way and neatly avoided any sweeping statements or assertions (usually easier said than done), I can’t disagree with any of it. Even if a phrase or two of it hasn’t been in my particular experience or my current opinion, which is to be expected. (I appreciate good questions as much good answers, if not more so. A good question is like the beginning of a favorite movie, where a new world and characters unfold before one. The answer is like the finale or resolution of the movie, and while necessary and perhaps climatic, signifies a closing up of the story and it particular created world.)

Anyway, in reply to your post... I would agree that it is a tightrope we walk between reality and fantasy, between the subject and the objective. Not saying that the subjective tends to be unreal fantasy, and the objective is always factual and real. Or maybe it is like being in a hall of mirrors... subjects looking at objects reflecting subjects... Anyway one puts it, if a every type of spade could simply be called a spade, the need for further speculation and clarification would have ended millennia ago. Or maybe it is like Alice in Wonderland...

So we are in a world that is arguably so multi-dimensional that we cannot even reach a consensus on how many dimensions there are. Add to the mix that everything is constantly changing, though sometimes imperceptibly. So usually the best I can do is have some “yardsticks” to hopefully gain some perspective. As mentioned above, I find Ken Wilber’s quadrants and levels to be helpful concerning organizing phenomena into both the “interior and exterior”, and the “individual and collective”. (And all within a handy sliding scale that fits neatly into your pocket, lol.) It seems to give validity to the areas of matter, mind, and spirt simultaneously as fairly and distinctly as one could hope for. But no diagram or model of the universe is without its compromises, of course.

There are some other models and metrics I have found useful. The Buddhist concept of the Two Truths, the Absolute and the Relative, is simple yet elegant. Pithy yet profound. As is the concept of Yin and Yang. Like is said of chess, it takes an hour to learn, but a lifetime to master (and explore, and explore some more... )

Just read. Most relevant. Good stuff, in my amateur opinion. Succinctly and clearly written essay which proposes to rinse some of the starch out of philosophy writing. And open it up once again to varied literary approaches which are part of the tradition. That is, without dumbing it down to gain a wider audience. Here’s some highlights (imho) from the article:

Genre considerations intensify the question of what should organise philosophical writing: dialogue, treatise, aphorism, essay, professional article and monograph, fragment, autobiography. And if one’s sensibility is more inclusive, letters, manifestos and interviews also become possibilities. No genre is fully scripted, however, hence the need to also consider logical-rhetorical operations: modus ponens, irony, transcendental arguments, allegory, images, analogies, examples, quotations, translation, even voice, a distinctive way of being there and for the reader. So much seems to count when we answer for how we write...

....Texts and readers do not meet in a vacuum, however. I thus wonder: how does one also address prevailing contextual forces, from ethno-nationalisms to white supremacy to the commodification of higher education? It is tempting to imagine a text without footnotes, as if they were ornaments. But in a period so averse to the rigours of knowledge, and so ahistorical in its feel for the truths we have, why not underscore the contested history of a thought, if only to insist: thought is work, the results fragile, and there will be disagreements. Clarity poses another question, and a particular challenge for philosophy, which is not underwritten by experiments. Instead, its ‘results’ are won (or lost) in the presentation. Moreover, philosophical conclusions do not remain philosophical if freed from the path that led to them. ‘God exists’ says one thing in prayer and something else at the close of a proof. Experts often are asked to share their results without showing their work. But showing one’s work is very much the work of philosophy. Can one do so and reach beyond the academy?

(Info on author: John Lysaker is William R Kenan professor of philosophy at Emory University in Atlanta, where he also serves as chair of the philosophy department. His latest book is Philosophy, Writing, and the Character of Thought (2018). He lives in Atlanta, Georgia.)

To poll or not to poll... For what it is worth, I am mildly considering the possibility of running a poll asking whether forum members believe spirit exists (in some form or another) or not. If I did, it’d probably be in a new thread. But not at the moment, because the word “spirit” would understandably need to be defined in some way. First things first. (That’s mostly what this thread is about, of course.) There could be several variations of the definition of spirit to choose from in this poll perhaps, to capture more than just one shade of meaning. Binary, black or white, yes or no choices seem a tad absolutist or stingy to me, at least if there is some other option.

So... Would a poll like this have any use? What input / suggestions do you have concerning questions such a poll might have? What definition(s) of “spirit” could be used? Just wondering if this approach might give a tangible goal to an admittedly intangible subject. And perhaps yield some results not yet seen in this thread, or others similar to it... Thanks!

Very interesting and honest reply you have written. Most appreciated. (If I can, later I’ll go into more detail).

If Science of Mind (Psychology), then why not Science of Spirit (Pneumology)?

Of course, many will object that Psychology is a soft science which is experiencing a replication crisis, and that a Science of Spirit would be no different. — Galuchat

Or if a general Science of Spirit could even possibly build itself from the ashes, it might face an even steeper challenge. I dare say very few doubt whether Mind exists (despite the important issue of the hard question whether it exists in some way apart from the brain. But that’s a whole ‘nother thread.) But how many would say that a “Spirit” aspect / nature of humans exist which is roughly parallel to “Mind”. And yes, the particular definition used for Spirit is CRITICAL. The “definitionistas” admittedly have a point there, lol. I will come out and say my mind is still open on the matter. I’m re-reading some of Ken Wilber’s stuff in hopes of seeing some kind of framework, where spirit is not completely dismissed or relegated to the “for entertainment purposes only” section. His AQAL diagram and theories are quite interesting. And a bit more nuanced than the usual subjective vs objective perspective.

If the OP determines that this question is off-topic, it would at least be interesting to discuss in a new thread. — Galuchat

Oh good Lord golly, by all means continue! Definitely part of the topic, probably an interesting and important one at that, IMHO. We can proceed here if you’d like, and if the topic seems ready to fork into a burgeoning new thread, then by all means to so. Whatever you think best! :up:

Ok, here’s a small example from chapter 56:

Those who know don't talk.
Those who talk don't know.

Close your mouth,
block off your senses,
blunt your sharpness,
untie your knots,
soften your glare,
settle your dust.
This is the primal identity.

Translated (very liberally) to read as advice on writing (philosophy or otherwise):
No need to shout or argue. More words count less. Don’t always trust your eyes and appearances. Words can be cutting, be careful. Know yourself, your faults most of all, for that’s like fertilizer. Shine the light on the subject matter, not yourself. Don’t write to impress, do so to express... and hopefully something beyond merely yourself...

Just a quick example. Eventually I hope to learn to follow its path. :blush:

I nominate the Tao Te Ching as both top-notch philosophy, and therefore an excellent model for one’s writing. The strength and leaness of the writing make even the great and concise Hemingway sound like a chatterbox. Apples to oranges, but anything that improves the ratio of ideas to words is welcome. Some philosophers write as though they were getting paid according to the weight of their books... ideas drowning in a sea of sentences.

Even as a post to this thread is criterial evidence of mind, the ethical quality of that post is criterial evidence of spirit. — Galuchat

Your concise maxim expresses something that has gone through my mind, and probably that of many others. That what we are doing here on this forum, and elsewhere, is hopefully MORE than a mere clash of ideas, looking for the winning school of thought to emerge like some intellectual gladiator proudly covered with the blood of the illogical, ignorant, and misguided. Talking and writing and communicating not only ABOUT ethics but WITH ethics and sense of fairness. Competition without aggression, let alone warfare. Otherwise, philosophy devolves into polemic and propaganda, mere pushing and pulling. One could define philosophy as the spirit of wisdom.

(But I may be misinterpreting your words by a mile. :lol: )

Even as a post to this thread is criterial evidence of mind; the ethical quality of that post is criterial evidence of spirit. — Galuchat

Nice! Pithy yet profound. Thanks.

I often consider spirit to be the counterpart to body. [Or maybe to body and mind?] The mental, immaterial, part of us. The really confusing and difficult-to-know-about part of us. There is mind, which we divide (why? :chin:) into conscious and unconscious, and the latter is, by definition, observation and actuality, inaccessible to our introspection. There are feelings and emotions. And there are beliefs, often arrived at by means we know not of. All of these things are difficult, all of them exist (confirmed by the observations of billions of humans), and it is this context/arena that spirit exists. So of course it's difficult to discuss.

Simple discussions, whose terms can be clearly, completely, and accurately defined, are easy. Discussions like this one are a bit more challenging. Farther away from the lifelines of definition, logic, binary thinking, certainty, and so forth, discussion requires more of us. It's easy to dismiss such things as meaningless frippery, and if you do, I can't prove you wrong. But so what?

For myself, I think I split my mental self into spirit and mind, where spirit has to do with such things as souls, spirits (to use another shade of meaning :wink:), and things that go bump in the night. So spirit follows into spiritual, which I see as a more general version of religion, but without some of the entrapping requirements and conventions. These days, few describe themselves as religious, but many describe themselves as spiritual. So spirit definitely has an aspect that resembles religion. — Pattern-chaser

Interesting post, thanks! That is exactly what the OP was requesting. Like you, the (possible) relationship between mind and spirit is worthy of some examination, I think. I don’t think anyone disagrees with the existence of mind? And the concept of mind is large enough to encompass a myriad of sub-components, such as memory, critical thinking, subconscious, emotions, etc. Proposing spirit as one of those components does not seem to be especially radical. Sure this is mainly a matter of semantics. But such naming and distinguishing can have a purpose. Let us not be anti-semantic! (sorry :wink: )

So now to venture some very rough, first draft descriptions. (I like that word better than “definition” in matters like this. Seems less legalistic.) Some word associations or synonyms with the word “spirit”: essence, essential, morals, energy, center, personal, trans-personal, character, will, etheric, enduring, growth, being. So from that word jumble of free-association one could cobble a number of different descriptions of spirit:

Spirit is (or can be thought of as, or functions as)...

a central aspect of one’s self , being and exhibiting one’s character while also shaping and changing that character.

the essence of a person. Person : spirit :: plant : essential oil.

the deepest, the highest, and most true nature of an individual.

both the innermost aspect of one’s mind, and the outermost effect of one’s character.

the shape and contents of one’s mind, and the purpose to which it is put.

the direction of the mind.

the central intersection of will, thought, feeling, sensation, and consciousness.

the created self, drawn from the material and energy of the earth, radiating outward.

To be perfectly clear to all reading this... These descriptions are of course partial and incomplete. They are theoretical and speculative, and therefore not necessarily scientific. But hopefully respectful of science. (Science being the study and knowledge of the physical. Metaphysics the study and knowledge of the non-physical). I attempted to use individual words whose meaning is relatively clear. And avoided words with religious implications, such as sacred, soul, divine, eternal, infinite, God, etc. which would probably only make the descriptions more vague and confusing. I wanted to make it amenable to both theists and atheists, and anyone in between, if possible.

Thoughts?

Ok. Thanks. I think we're on the same page now. :up:

The intent of this thread was to read and discuss members’ definition of spirit and whether they thought spirit exists. (Or vice versa. Substitute a suitable synonym for spirit if you’d like). I thought this basic idea was straight forward. Many others have understood it, and contributed. The topic may be complicated, but the question isn’t. But I edited the OP to attempt to make it even clearer. I may or may not eventually come up with a suitable working definition. (I’m working on it. Please don’t let that throw you. Although you probably aren’t going to be impressed or convinced by anything I say. :sweat: )

What is it with you definitionists? These things can be considered - properly considered - without mandating a sequence of discovery. What something is, and whether it exists, are things worth looking into. That someone would deliberately oppose the process of discovery by mandating - "Definition first, then existence!" - the order in which things must be done is unjustifiable and unacceptable. If we can discover or learn something new, it doesn't bloody matter whether we identified it first, or demonstrated its existence. Both provide useful data with which to proceed. — Pattern-chaser

:up: Ha! Well said, thanks. Definitionistas... as passionate and unrelenting as fashionistas, only perhaps not as well dressed. :wink:

The dictionary doesn't define spirit substantially — whollyrolling

Agreed. The dictionary definition is a mere starting point. That is why this thread was started.

because there is no way to define something that is unknown except by way of perception — whollyrolling

That (with regards to the subject of spirit) is what you have asserted numerous times, which you have not come close to explaining, let alone proving. Asserting again will not help much, and has lost its novelty and interest, IMHO. So please understand if I don’t reply further.

Experience is an awareness event.
Perception and cognisance are the complements of awareness.
In other words: what you know affects what you perceive. — Galuchat

I could generally go along with that statement. But now the tricky part... how could one relate that to the concept of spirit?

(And please remember that you are under oath, and what you say could be used against you. No pressure though. :sweat: )

Alright. What is it that we're saying exists, then? Let's define terms. It's obviously not Santa Claus we're discussing. So then, what is it? — whollyrolling

We are starting to go around in circles, it seems... As I wrote above in the post about the Wikipedia entry on pneuma is the general idea. Or the dictionary definition of spirit, if you’d like. Though again, I am not asserting anything specifically. Maybe question someone who has made a definite claim? As I put it before:

Maybe what people call spirit is a particular function of the mind. Not imaginary, just specific. Like memories or the unconscious. I am not necessarily or particularly saying anything certain and definite about spirit. This is something that should be made clear. Some have commented that the OP lacked a definition of spirit. That was more or less intentional. Nothing has been completely defined, let alone proven, or is really expected to be so. It is at least (for me at this point) a concept. A concept that may potentially be useful or helpful. — 0 thru 9

Dear professor, while my school hours are booked with compare and contrast papers, between Algebra and Crisis management, I am going to take a moment to address your pondering.

Yes, I absolutely believe that most humans have "spirit" and I don't mean Rah rah rah :party: I mean an essence of the person. It is the part of the person, that together with another's spirit can create a new combined energy or synergy for the ultra fortunate. Animals are no different in that most have spirits as well.

I use the word "most" as a prequalifier as there are always exceptions to any theory but that does not change my mind about whether or not a spirit exists.

Is there a difference between a spirit and a soul?
On first blush I would say they are almost one in the same but I don't feel comfortable making that differential just yet. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Fair enough! Thanks for your reply. :smile:

Again, a rope and a snake are each something. Somewhere in the analogy there needs to be a nothing that is treated as if it was a something. — whollyrolling

Well, that is probably where we differ on this particular point. If I’m reading correctly, in your analogies (and probably your opinion as well) it is an absolute nothing being treated as something. Made up and wholly fantastical. Cut, dried, end of story. If you are convinced of that and happy about it, then I am convinced that you are happy and happy you are convinced. But I am not claiming that there is a literal Santa Claus living on a melting glacier at the North Pole. It is not yet a settled matter one way or another as far as I’m concerned however. Hope that answers this specific question at least somewhat... Thanks for your reply.

Body (organic mass-energy) has spatiotemporal extension. Mind has temporal, but not spatial, extension. Mind consists of organism events (conditions, actions, and processes) which produce automatic and controlled acts.

As far as I know, the writings of the World's major book religions and systems of moral philosophy are the only source of information about "spirit", or similar concepts.

From such criteria, evidence in terms of observed behaviour may be sufficient to posit "spirit", or similar concepts. It is a philosophical, not empirical, question. So, questions of fact and nature (including the supernatural) are irrelevant.

I could (but would not, due to its controversial nature) incorporate a notion of spirit within a model of cognitive psychology as follows:

1) Like mind, spirit has temporal, but not spatial, extension.
2) It is a moral condition-action feedback loop.
3) Body, mind, and spirit have correlative, but not causal, relations.
4) Soul is mind.
5) Animals possess a soul, but not a spirit. — Galuchat

:ok: Thanks. Can’t disagree with that. Although I would quibble only slightly with the words “only source of information”. A large source certainly, but maybe even that is a secondary source, as useful and thoroughly described as it may be. Because in a way, isn’t that somewhat putting the cart before the horse? Doesn’t the experience come before the writing? Since “spirit” (in its manifold terms and interpretations) seems to be such a widespread experience, belief, or phenomena that it may an archetypal image present our collective unconscious, if you give any credence to Carl Jung’s approach. (Although of course some do not).

From your "eyes" analogy--what is the analogous physical object in the discussion of "spirit"? — whollyrolling

Physical object? Probably not “physical” at all, such as the mind is generally thought of as being non-physical in and of itself. What object of any kind? I’m not entirely sure... possibly an internal process or function. Maybe a better analogy was the one used previously: when someone mistakes a rope for being a snake. It’s something, just not exactly what was initially perceived.

I think that spirit is a sense of belonging. It is that wondrous and inspiring sense of there being a connection to energy and consciousness, to something outside of yourself, yet paradoxically and profoundly deep within. It is what makes you, you. It is like a flower under the sun, ever growing upwards, reaching out. It fills you with awe and appreciation, and I'm making this up as I go along, and only talking such poetic drivel to prove a point. — S

:smirk: Alright... you had me going for a moment. Though I wondered if perhaps you’d bumped your head or saw the Ghost of Christmas Future last night. April Fools continues!

Seriously though... in response I think my above post to @whollyrolling about covers my thoughts about this general position.

I understand that you want to avoid straying from the specific notion of "spirit", but it's important to consider that it falls into a category with numerous other fantasies and delusions in that all of it is unknown, based on emotions such as fear and anxiety, assigned characteristics cherry-picked from natural occurrences, based on concepts and principles subscribed to by primitive humans who thought that the brain was in the chest where we now know the heart is.

There's never been any reason, outside of heightened emotion, to assert that anything invisible or intangible can be described with elaborate detail.

There's nothing wrong with assertion, and I don't see a problem with the assertion that something has never been demonstrated. If you want to argue the existence of something, it might be best to begin with some evidence of a replicable qualitative occurrence of it in reality. Otherwise we're talking about nothing as though it's something.

It's important to consider all fairy tales, not just one specifically, because they're all derived from similar heightened emotions and states of mind, such as fear of predators, fear of death itself, or fear of not having lived fully, etc. — whollyrolling

Hmmm. Some worthy points there. Thanks for your reply. However, it must be said that I’m not in complete agreement with your post as a whole. I do believe it to be beneficial to have a healthy skepticism about nearly everything. A kind of scientific or philosophical openness to new information and theories. If for no other reason than that things are constantly in motion and changing. And it is important (I think) to remember that alot of this kind of thing is “labeling”. Similar to taking an “educated guess”, there can be a “theoretical/creative labeling”. Or as @Wayfarer put it a “heuristic” approach, ie. experimental or trial-and-error. I am not sure that accuracy is the only metric in play here, as important as it is. Usefulness and cohesiveness of theory might be other ways to measure such ideas.

Jung proposed the concept of anima and animus, perhaps inspired by mythology. I’d wager that many have lived full, productive, intelligent lives without giving this particular theory much thought. It is not strictly necessary. Maybe what people call spirit is a particular function of the mind. Not imaginary, just specific. Like memories or the unconscious. I am not necessarily or particularly saying anything certain and definite about spirit. This is something that should be made clear. Some have commented that the OP lacked a definition of spirit. That was more or less intentional. Nothing has been completely defined, let alone proven, or is really expected to be so. It is at least (for me at this point) a concept. A concept that may potentially be useful or helpful. If we can collectively come up with a working definition or description, that would be great. If not, that’s fine too.

Like I mentioned in a previous post, delusions can be piled onto the concept of spirit like they can be piled on any concept or thing. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the thing itself is a delusion. As an example, the eyes can deceive one, but the eyes are not a delusion. Labeling a particular spiritual belief as a delusion is a matter of preference or belief or opinion. Labeling the mere possibility of spirit as “fantasies and delusions” seems in my opinion a rather premature and unscientific approach. Or at least a somewhat unphilosophical approach, it would appear. Thoughts?

Likewise, I think a given experience could be interpreted as an interaction between the spiritual and the material, as evidence of a world beyond the material, or as a coincidence, or as a delusion, or as a phenomenon that might eventually be explained within the material world. Then people interpret it in whatever way makes them most comfortable. — leo

Good point, thanks. The mind itself is invisible and non-material. The brain is matter. The mind is... ? Energy? Plasma? A function? An experience? None of the above? I’m not completely sure or comfortable with any those answers. The mind can be a name we give to certain phenomena. Perhaps, the same goes for the concept of spirit.

Clearly we are not just inert matter, we have feelings we have desires we have sometimes spiritual experiences, if all we are is matter then that matter has the amazing property to give rise to such experiences, and it's quite possible that the matter we see with our eyes, the body, is a tiny part of what we are. It's possible that all our experiences cannot be reduced to electrons moving through the brain. That a lot goes on in the spiritual world and the eyes can see nothing of it. But it's also possible that this spiritual world is a delusion, something we want to believe to feel better, and that once comes the time to leave our material body we will just die with it. Some say that after we die our spirit keeps on living in the people we loved, but some will interpret it as these people having a memory of us and reacting in a way similar to how we reacted through behavioral imitation. How could we know for sure? — leo

Yes. It seems that we, that life, has some type of organizing process and principle. Some group of tropisms that give some orientation and structure, like a plant growing up towards light and down towards water. I think that there is some actual phenomena present which call be called the life force or psyche or essence or spirit. But, as you mentioned, delusions are definitely possible, as in probably any area one can imagine. Delusions, errors, assumptions, assertions, etc. All part of some experiencing and learning process maybe. But I would propose (as you might agree) that simply because one can have delusions about the spiritual aspect doesn’t necessarily mean that spirit itself is a delusion. Thoughts?

"Spirit" can also be an integral basic foundational element of a larger worldview. The notion, idea, and/or conception referred to by using the term "spirit" can be an operative and quite influential interconnected set of different thought/belief. That which is real has an affect/effect. The notion of(one's thought/belief involving and/or about) "spirit" exists as numerous different conceptions thereof. Those conceptions can be operative influences regarding deliberately chosen behaviour. Thus it is very real. — creativesoul

Interesting. I associate (perhaps vaguely) one’s spirit with behavior, choices, and will. Am hesitant to dive too much into the concept of “evil” here. However, one can theorize that a central and non-physical part of one’s being (let’s call it spirit) can be somewhere on the spectrum between weak or strong, constructive or destructive, wise or foolish, etc. Is this generally what you were referring to by “operative influences” perhaps?

@S @DingoJones
I personally find this side discussion fascinating. But if we could please veer back somewhere in the vicinity of the general topic, it might keep the moderators from getting an itchy delete button finger. Gracias. :blush:

The point of such 'laws of thought' is that our thinking is dependent on them, as without them, we couldn't use abstract logic or language. And I say that such intelligible objects of a different order to the domain of phenomenal existents (things that exist). So when we assert the identity of particulars, or say that 'this is that' or 'this means that', this depends on the capacity to abstract and compare using just this inherent faculty of reasoned inference.

This general approach is broadly speaking Platonist. Plato realised that abstract principles (numbers and geometrical forms) possess a kind of reality that is of a different order to the sensory or empirical. One point about such ideas is that they are immediately perceptible to the mind (nous) in a way that is not possible for material objects; when we know a rational truth, then that kind of knowing is of a different order to the knowledge of sensible particulars as we know it immediately, not mediated by sense.

Now, in the grand tradition of Western philosophy, what philosophers mean by 'spirit' is real in the sense that such intelligible and rational truths are real. Whereas in current culture, we tend to think in terms of 'what exists', in terms of the phenomenal domain. So if you assert the reality of 'spirit', the question will arise, 'where could such a being exist ? What kind of phenomena is it?' To which traditionalist philosophy might answer, well it doesn't exist, but it's nevertheless real; that it transcends the empirical domain, in a way analogous to how mathematical order transcends the domain of symbolic forms. — Wayfarer

Thank you very much for contributions, which add some needed context for this subject. And it helps to address the question of whether spirit can be even said “to exist” or have some dimension of reality.

In researching for this thread, I looked into Hegal’s The Phenomenology of Spirit. I’m not sure it’s helping make the philosophical view of spirit much clearer. (Probably the opposite. :sweat:) Perhaps it is because I hadn’t read it before. Interesting that the word in the title geist in German also can be translated “mind”.

One can view Eastern systems such as Buddhism, Taoism, Vedanta, etc. as philosophical and psychological writings at least as much (if not more) than religious dogma. Do any such relevant ideas from the Eastern traditions concerning spirit come to mind?

Thanks for all the comments so far. The time and effort is appreciated.

In starting this discussion, I wanted to explore the apparently vast if nebulous topic of the spiritual aspect of humans. I was asking for various definitions, opinions, thoughts before giving my own input, such as it is. I will state that I myself have no “definite definition” (so to speak) of spirit. I have in mind descriptions and personal internal dialogue, but have yet to formulate anything concrete. Apologies for any vagueness in my OP or posts. I realize that the topic sentence and OP focus on the word “spirit”. Let us explore some possible synonyms in a historical and philosophical sense. Also, it may be merely symbolic, but I moved this discussion into the “metaphysics and epistemology” category. I feel this is perhaps more accurate for this topic as I envision it. Or maybe at least more helpful if it dispenses with any suspicions of religion per se, justified or not. (Probably justified, at least some skepticism LOL).

But to attempt to expand the discussion a bit in hopes of collectively creating a description of spirit, here is a part of Wikipedia’s entry on Pneuma, the Greek word for both the physical breath and the metaphysical spirit or soul or psyche. It seems relevant to give some context, I think. Thanks for your participation and thoughts... From Wikipedia:

Pneuma (πνεῦμα) is an ancient Greek word for "breath", and in a religious context for "spirit" or "soul". It has various technical meanings for medical writers and philosophers of classical antiquity, particularly in regard to physiology, and is also used in Greek translations of ruach רוח in the Hebrew Bible, and in the Greek New Testament. In classical philosophy, it is distinguishable from psyche (ψυχή), which originally meant "breath of life", but is regularly translated as "spirit" or most often "soul".
Presocratics
Pneuma, "air in motion, breath, wind," is equivalent in the material monism of Anaximenes to aer (ἀήρ, "air") as the element from which all else originated. This usage is the earliest extant occurrence of the term in philosophy.[4] A quotation from Anaximenes observes that "just as our soul (psyche), being air (aer), holds us together, so do breath (pneuma) and air (aer) encompass the whole world." In this early usage, aer and pneuma are synonymous.[5]

Ancient Greek medical theory
In ancient Greek medicine, pneuma is the form of circulating air necessary for the systemic functioning of vital organs. It is the material that sustains consciousness in a body. According to Diocles and Praxagoras, the psychic pneuma mediates between the heart, regarded as the seat of Mind in some physiological theories of ancient medicine, and the brain.[6]

The disciples of Hippocrates explained the maintenance of vital heat to be the function of the breath within the organism. Around 300 BC, Praxagoras discovered the distinction between the arteries and the veins. In the corpse arteries are empty; hence, in the light of these preconceptions they were declared to be vessels for conveying pneuma to the different parts of the body. A generation afterwards, Erasistratus made this the basis of a new theory of diseases and their treatment. The pneuma, inhaled from the outside air, rushes through the arteries till it reaches the various centres, especially the brain and the heart, and there causes thought and organic movement.[7]

Aristotle
The "connate pneuma" of Aristotle is the warm mobile "air" that in the sperm transmits the capacity for locomotion and certain sensations to the offspring. These movements derive from the soul of the parent and are embodied by the pneuma as a material substance in semen. Pneuma is necessary for life, and as in medical theory is involved with the "vital heat," but the Aristotelian pneuma is less precisely and thoroughly defined than that of the Stoics.[3]

Stoic pneuma
In Stoic philosophy, pneuma is the concept of the "breath of life," a mixture of the elements air (in motion) and fire (as warmth).[8] For the Stoics, pneuma is the active, generative principle that organizes both the individual and the cosmos.[9] In its highest form, pneuma constitutes the human soul (psychê), which is a fragment of the pneuma that is the soul of God (Zeus). As a force that structures matter, it exists even in inanimate objects.[10] In his Introduction to the 1964 book Meditations, the Anglican priest Maxwell Staniforth wrote:

Cleanthes, wishing to give more explicit meaning to Zeno's 'creative fire', had been the first to hit upon the term pneuma, or 'spirit', to describe it. Like fire, this intelligent 'spirit' was imagined as a tenuous substance akin to a current of air or breath, but essentially possessing the quality of warmth; it was immanent in the universe as God, and in man as the soul and life-giving principle.

Winnie the Pooh, Piglet, and Eeyore all are habitual wallowers. Eeyore made $40 million last year. Owns an island in the Caribbean. :nerd:

About the topic... I think one can kind of “read between the lines” to suss out some kind of intention. It’s my feeling that people really want to be understood, even when they are being sneaky or something. Especially in our current culture, where it seems one has to scream or be on fire to even be noticed for a moment. Subtlety is not in the top 40 list of prized virtues at the moment.

How about some healthy wallowing? Yes, I am becoming evangelical. — Wallows

Have you made any “wallowing” t-shirts? It might spread the word. I’ve seen worse ideas on GoFundMe and such. The world could use some mindful wallowing. Maybe other names were used for it. Lao Tsu did it. Henry David Thoreau. Emily Dickenson. John Lennon and Yoko bedding for peace. Moses wallowed in the desert for years. Probably all the well known philosophers.

Perhaps some people (myself on past occasions) get a type of high or adrenaline rush from confrontational posts. I would feel the blood pumping when someone in my perception would be belligerent or rude. I’ll show them... blah, blah, blah. An hour later, nobody cared. Least of all me. Maybe it beats TV, yet not as dangerous as death sports.

Now, I try to give much more attention to intelligent, funny, honest, or helpful posts. Usually the way I respond to annoying ones is by talking to myself what i feel like saying. Then just type “lol” or something pacifying. But darn... the obnoxious things always grab the attention. Like loud radio ads. If it bleeds, it leads, as the saying goes.

Have no idea...not even sure if there is "spirit" within an individual.

I am just the "me" behind the eyes...or the "me" I see when I look in a mirror. If there is a spirituality for me presently...it has to do with the thinking process I experience.

I do not suppose a soul...although there might be something of that sort. I certainly do not have conscious contact with anything like that. — Frank Apisa

Seems like an honest and thoughtful answer. What more can one ask of such a difficult and slippery subject? Thanks. :smile:

Feelings, emotions are less evidently correlated with the above, but some correlation can still be found, for instance the view of a sunset or of a person may give rise to specific emotions, which may change over time. — leo

I would agree with that. Two people looking at the same object (a flag, a painting, a person) could maybe agree on the physical aspects or name of what they were looking at. But anything beyond that is most likely personal, individual, idiosyncratic, and particular. Things like feelings, associations, meanings... So I wonder if the spirit of a person is extremely personal? Or is it something trans-personal, beyond the individual? (Like “the Force” in the Star Wars movies, perhaps?) Something in between?

And then there are the spiritual experiences that seem to be yet something else, as if they were experiences of a world beyond the material. — leo

Do you think the spiritual could (theoretically of course) interact with the material world? Or perhaps influence or affect it? Or are they somewhat polar opposites?

I don't see any reason to believe that only humans have a 'soul' or even a spirit, and not other animals. We can't see directly what other animals feel any more than we can see what other humans feel, but for some reason the majority of humans want to believe that only them feel while other animals don't. Maybe because they want to feel special and "better than". — leo

:up: Yes. Likewise, I am not a big fan of human exceptionalism. Sure, we’re different and unique. Let’s pat ourselves on the back, and proceed to other matters.