Interesting conversation here. — Fire Ologist

Thank you! :smile:

But I think you are both right, that the ethical is essential to existentialism, and Camus stripped it down too far, being the closest to a nihilist of the bunch. — Fire Ologist

Maybe we (if @Astrophel wants to be included) could be wrong, but yes, I personally believe that ethics are the key element for existentialism. Why? For the following points:

1) We all have to face dilemmas often. Discerning about what is the 'right' way to act makes us feel despaired. Some philosophers, like Kierkegaard, for instance, prefer to name this issue as anxiety. But the important element of the dilemma is that we actually care about life, we give it a meaning and this is why we suffer from anxiety about what is the right way to behave. A nihilist could not care about the way to act accordingly...

2) There is even more anxiety when we think about what will come afterwards. I mean, is there a Trial of the Soul?
If I lie, or I cheat, does my soul get rotten? Etc. For a nihilistic, this is all absurd and doesn't care that much.

Ethics was like their vehicle for delivering metaphysics and secondary to me. — Fire Ologist

Honestly, I do not know what comes first. I think ethics is a very relevant element in existentialism, but I don't know which is the proper approach, whether ethics, metaphysics, or meta-ethics.

:grin:

Well, my liquid has particularly a very strong taste, and it is more reasonable to mix it up with coffee.

I am referring to anise:

Unfortunately, it turns out not to be possible to put oneself on one's ignore list. — unenlightened

Imagine for a second this twisted metaphysical situation: one puts oneself on his ignore list, but it turns out that this is precisely what attracts the attention of the rest of the users. Yet the user who deliberately put himself on his own ignore list remains unnoticed by this fact.

PD: I don't know how I ended up with the above conclusion. I mistakenly put a strange liquid in my coffee this morning.

it begs the question, what is it about bad behavior that makes it evil? — Astrophel

Yes. Basically, what I learnt by reading those authors is that bad behaviour doesn't mean anything in the beginning. I mean, when someone is acting with bad manners or not accordingly, he is not aware of these actions. When only he is pushed to a trial of the soul, he realises if he acted or not with evil. If ever someone decides to act unethically on purpose, this means he has a huge problem because he cannot distinguish between good and evil. Nonetheless, most of the dilemmas are not that simple. I understand that most people don't want to act with bad manners, but each specific case has its exceptions. This reminds me when we debated about how a chain of bad behaviour can putrid my soul. We can agree or not that a spirit either exists or not, but if we care about these concerns and dilemmas, it means we care about life, and then we give it a meaning or a value. We are not nihilists, but existentialists. Kierkegaard argues that Abraham is his hero because he had a strong dilemma with choosing between he cared the most: his son and God. This despair and anxiety is a good example of an existentialist dilemma!

One is confronted by the question, is ethics rational in its essence? Kierkegaard said yes to this. — Astrophel

Absolutely, yes. I agree.

Thank you for your answer, Astrophel. It is a pleasure to have exchanges with you. :smile: And yes, I find your ideas interesting.

It is very strange how some people consider Kierkegaard a nihilist. When I read this OP, I decided to search for information to back up my points, and surprisingly, Kierkegaard appeared as an example of a nihilist. Very disappointed with this! I think K was a lover but pessimistic about how Christianity was ruling in Denmark. In his diary, K confessed he was a true Lutheran. If he was that religious and a believer in faith, how could some people label him as a nihilist? For a nihilist, life is meaningless and there is no despair about choosing the right decision because everything is pretty absurd (as Camus points out).

On the other hand, I personally believe that a true nihilist doesn't recognize the existence of a sacred authority. For example, the quote of 'without God, everything is permitted' by Vania Karamazov. This phrase is wrongly connected to nihilism, but what Dostoevsky goes beyond just that.

Indeed, if the loss of God means the loss of all meaning and value, then actions are without meaning or value either, and one cannot say that it matters whether actions are "right" or "wrong," since those words, or the corresponding actions, don't mean anything more than anything else. Dostoyevsky, indeed, may be counted as himself an Existentialist, but in a theistic rather than the French atheistic manner,

https://friesian.com/existent.htm

Every character of Dostoevsky is Christian, but often display what later will seem to be Existentialist attitudes and ideas. The main concerns explore such themes as suicide, poverty, human manipulation, and morality. Dostoevsky deals with Christian basic values, which are presented via a unique tension between the fictionality of the Christian characters and the readers' experience of the existential reality of their religious problems. Christian Themes in Crime and Punishment.

What I attempt to say is that while K and D are true existentialists for dealing with ethical dilemmas, Camus is a nihilist because he doesn't bother to debate about this issue. :smile:

@Amity

Browsing around the Internet, I found this cartoon about Francisco Franco. It is a 1962 satire by Herblock.
I see some interesting details: the cartoon shows an aged Francisco Franco and Eagle (the motto of Francoist Spain) sitting in a decrepit castle, as he gazes at portraits of Hitler and Mussolini, who are gone. Yet, on his right, there is Trujillo. The dictator of the Dominican Republic.

It surprises me why the cartoonist didn't draw Salazar when he was alive in the same period as Franco...

If we can gaze at the back of Trujillo's portrait, it seems there is another one by another dictator. But it is blurred, and I can distinguish who it can be. :chin:

By the way, this is a 1962 cartoon and Franco lived another 13 years...

I cannot think of a single philosophy that advocates the idea that there is just one point to being alive, unless you mean living itself (as opposed to being caught up in silly ideas or failing to reach one's potential, however the latter might be conceived). None of this has anything necessarily to do with religion. Religion is only necessary for those who cannot, or don't wish to, think for themselves. — Janus

Is it? Is there a possibility to think for ourselves? Or are we influenced by external ideas and dogmas? Religion is not the only system which induces people to behave in a concrete way or conduct. If I were able to think by myself, what would be the point of establishing basic principles of morality and ethics? Every of us needs to be taught to the 'right' way. It doesn't matter if it is secular, religious, philosophical, civil...

Hello Jussi, welcome abroad.

I think professor Deigh didn't actually misunderstand Camus but he put this author in the wrong group or literary current. Everything you explained about Camus is perfect, and I guess Professor Deigh is in the same sense. But he is not an existentialist but a nihilist. Honesty, when I read what professor Deigh thinks about existentialism, precisely here: ...despair about life and choosing from it the values and principles by which one will live. I thought about other authors or thinkers. My opinion is that Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky can fit in the 'despair' of choosing the right code of conduct to live.

Fyodor Dostoevsky expressed religious, psychological, and philosophical concerns in his novels. His works explore such themes as suicide, poverty, human manipulation, and morality. These are a real example of existentialist, or a existentialist literature that maybe Deigh was referring to.

I think Camus goes beyong than just that. I agree when you say his work are metaphysical in the sense of the absurdity of the beginning of the world. Furthermore, nihilism is life-denying, so it is not worried about ethical dilemmas or the anxiety of what is the right choice. Camus affirms that life is meaningless, but further declares in the preface “that even within the limits of nihilism it is possible to find the means to proceed beyond nihilism.”

My conclusion is that while Camus was looking for 'what is a purpose' of life (nihilism), existentialist authors debate the despair of what should be the proper behavior to follow in a life already produced.

And therefore, i suggest, Prof Deigh may have misunderstood Camus in a pretty drastic way. Am i right? — Jussi Tennilä

Partially. He was indeed a nihilist... But I don't know if we can label his works as true examples of existentialism. I think it is not that drastic. Both concepts seem similar, but they aren't.

Yes, it is very relaxing, Hanover. Those tracks also help me to focus on doing a task. It is weird and complex to explain, but the few musical notes accompanied by a murmur makes me feel isolated from the world. Like I'm in a bubble.

Rainstorms are pretty good too.

You might also like this one:

To be honest a cleric or a believer might ever only refer to the maybe/perhaps/hoped for 'God' instead of the misleading/unethical 'God is true' proclamation. — PoeticUniverse

Well, if someone is a true believer, I think he gives God's existence for granted. When a believer thinks that, perhaps, there is a possibility of the existence of God, they start to experience anxiety, or more specific, a crisis of faith. Some battle doubts about the veracity of the Christian faith itself (“Does God truly exist?” or “Does another religion or belief system more truly reveal the nature of ultimate reality?”)

On the other hand, why do you claim it is unethical to state 'God is true'. I agree that proclamation could be fallacious or misleading. Yet desiring 'God is true' doesn't make unethical behaviour for a believer. It could be unethical to believe in Christianity, and act against the principles of this dogma. For example, no giving credit to God's mercy when a believer is put in dilemmas or not following Christian ethical principles, such as moral code, standards, behaviours, conscience, values, rules of conduct, etc.

Benk, there is not anything to be ashamed of! I imagine you in a beautiful dress with cute clogs, picking tulips, under the ochred-coloured sunset of Rotterdam. :heart:

Something like this:

I agree with your post, Timothy. But I don't know what to say. My aim is not to argue about a specific religious branch. I am fully aware that religious belief is not unique, and I have even already discussed this in another thread, where some users started to rant about the bad 'influence' of Christianity due to the Spanish empire. And then, I asked them: what kind of Christian group are you referring to? Because it is obvious that there are a lot of distinctions between Catholics and Protestants, for instance.

Nonetheless, I think I will keep learning more about Christianity from a personal perspective. It is the main religion - and custom - where I live. I am not bother to understand different religious perspectives. It will be interesting, but I am not ready yet.

Look how many exchanges and debate Kierkegaard produces! More than 200 replies have this thread, when we are 'only' discussing spirituality from a Christian Ethics view...

All good. Godfather the best. — Mikie

Every time I watch the movie I discover a new detail. What an excellent movie. And John Cazale was a fabulous actor! What a shame the cancer took him away so soon...

Humiliated and Insulted also known in English as The Insulted and Humiliated, The Insulted and the Injured or Injury and Insult… (also known in Spanish as Humillados y Ofendidos) by Fyodor Dostoevsky.

Униженные и оскорблённые, Unizhennye i oskorblyonnye

Jesus! Why is the Russian language that difficult?

What Wayfarer also points to is that Christianity (like most faiths) can be made to argue anything at all — Tom Storm

I agree.

it's in the interpretation you choose which may have nothing to do with what the religion may in fact stand for or have originally intended. — Tom Storm

And that's why I struggle with religious faith! :smile:

Also: google doesn't know "anfaestgalse". My mothertongue's German, and the word doesn't sound very Germanic either. Some sort of typo? — Dawnstorm

Firstly, I am sorry because I didn't write the word correctly. The word is correctly written in this way: 'anfægtelse'

I think I haven't expressed myself clearly, but I will explain my concern again:

Context: Kierkegaard, in his work Fear and Trembling, discussed the anxiety that must have been present in Abraham during the Binding of Isaac.

K presents this problemata about contradiction and anxiety with three different questions open to debate or discuss:

A) Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?
B) Is there an absolute duty to God?
C) Was it ethically defensible for Abraham to conceal his undertaking from Sarah, From Eliezer, and from Isaac?

In the book, and the answers to those questions, Kierkegaard states: During three days and three nights, Abraham suffered from 'anfægtelse', because doubt was set in motion. Abraham had to choose between the ethical requirements of his surroundings and what he regarded as his absolute duty to God.

This anxiety experienced by Abraham is described by K as anfægtelse. My Spanish edition translated it as anxiety as well. But I found English works which translated it as 'trial of the soul'

This is very interesting...

What did K actually feel like? Anxiety at the moment or what could come afterwards?

you're worrying a lot about this topic, and from a non-spiritual perspective such as mine this looks like the extent of what spiritual trial might be. Judge, jury and defendant in one person, only the defendant isn't much interested in defense.

It's this soul stuff I don't properly understand, though, so I'm likely wrong. So: — Dawnstorm

A trial of the soul is a concept used by Kierkegaard. Precisely, K talks about 'Anfaestgalse' a Danish word which there is a big debate on what really means. I have the Spanish version, and it is translated as 'anxiety', but I found some English papers and the authors translated it as 'trial of the soul'. Approaching the main topic of this thread, I wonder if, after behaving badly or unethically, there would be a trial about my soul. I mean, is there a cause and effect? It is obvious that in the tangible or real world there are a lot of consequences. People stop trusting me and I lack confidence and I suffer from anxiety. But I want to dive deeper into this matter. Afterwards, is there a possibility that our spirit will experience a trial because of our actions? By the way, I am not referring to karma.

I'm not sure what difference a "soul" makes. I never had much use for the concept of "sin", for example. — Dawnstorm

Because sins, bad actions, unethical behaviour, lying, etc, Have to affect someone or something. Don't you think? I believe those affect the vitality of the spirit.

too afraid of the world maybe? — Dawnstorm

Yes, frankly.

It is said to be the etymological origin of the word 'sin' — Wayfarer

Ah! Interesting, thanks for that Wayfarer. It is a pleasure to learn something new. :smile:

It is indeed a good metaphor! I understand what you took from it. Well, everything can be a lesson, don't you think? Even the bitterest consequences of our actions.

If I am not wrong, that quote assumes the sense of being alive is making wrong choices perpetually. There is not anything bad with this, until we pass some limits though. It is not the same as making mistakes for being ignorant than for acting deliberately.

Aren't you inflicting one upon yourself right now? — Dawnstorm

No! I don't think so. There is nothing here which causes me infliction. It is completely otherwise. I think it is good to open myself to others in this thread.

Given the same act, do you find it easier to forgive it in others than in yourself? — Dawnstorm

Indeed. Why does this happen? Well, because when a person (like me) is used to acting in a mask constantly, it is not that difficult to keep acting in the same way. OK. I say sorry to the ones I lied to. But how do I know I will not lie again? This is where the problem arises. I don't want to cause that bad behaviour as part of my 'nature'. At the moment, the only solution to this issue is redeeming myself. To start, finally assuming that acting badly has its consequences and there will be a trial to my spirit after all.

I'm neither spiritual nor religious, so I probably can't fully understand what you're going through. — Dawnstorm

Hmm... Didn't you ever feel anxiety for not acting accordingly to values and ethics?

Bear in mind, one possible derivation of the word 'sin' was 'to miss the mark'. — Wayfarer

Right. It is a softer way to see it.

You often suspend your ethics? Errrr, that doesn't sound so good. — Astrophel

I know Astrophel. :sad:

That's the main point of my concern in this thread. Back in the day, I wasn't aware I was suspending the ethics to achieve ephemeral pleasures, but I did it now. It was not pride but ignorance. At least, I am very aware that I didn't act with purpose or deliberately.
Thanks to this exchange, I am getting to the conclusion that, although I often acted wrongly, and my spirit started to get dirty, I realize I can start to clean it up by proceeding with confession.
If I didn't expose myself on this site, I would suffer from deep anxiety. Don't take my wrong, I suffer a lot in my daily life, or as I call it, the physical/tangible world. I don't usually trust people, I am a reserved person and my opinions or concerns don't usually go out of my mind...
Why does this happen? Well, I already expressed myself and I think I did it clearly. Due to my corrupt actions, I feel fear and anxiety about being rejected.

If I hadn't been honest with my parents (who are the most sacred), how do I know I would not act in the same way with the rest of the people? I usually feel I deserve to be 'ghosted' by the rest, etc. It is scary how all of this is only in myself (or inner me). That sordid feeling that the spirit is dying. Well, I am happy to know I am at this point now. Better later than never. Imagine how many unethical acts I would have done without realizing this problem.

Will there be a trial of the soul after all?

Cool! A bit weird, but the murmur gives me chill vibes. Maybe I am weird too!

You might like this. Ambient by way of spiritual jazz. — Noble Dust

By the way, that track is amazing and brilliant. It is the kind of ambient music I am looking for. These diamonds are very difficult to find around the internet, but I know you have many interesting tracks on your list. Thanks for sharing them with me.

@Noble Dust

Sure! And why not? If it works, it works. I just say, that "it works," is the workings of Mind. — ENOAH

OK, whatever... maybe the spirit and the mind are more tangled than I used to think.

Why? What demonstration of this do you have? This sounds more like an odd compulsion. — Tom Storm

My only demonstration is experience. Whenever I behaved unethically, I felt bad afterwards. But, beyond just my anxiety, it is obvious that my decisions caused a negative impact on the receiver. That's for granted. Sometimes, I deserve the lack of confidence some people have in me.

Dostoevsky (if he wrote this) is wrong. It should be: 'If there is a god, then anything is permitted.' Of course Dostoevsky didn't really put it like this
... — Tom Storm

I promise Dostoyevski wrote it in the way and sense I quoted above. It is is written in the Karamazov Brothers. I think the phrase actually appears as it is written, but maybe the translation differs. I remember the phrase when Ivan and Smerdyakov had the wish for the death of their own father.

Smerdyakov claims that Ivan was complicit in the murder by telling Smerdyakov when he would be leaving Fyodor Pavlovich's house, and more importantly by instilling in Smerdyakov the belief that, in a world without God, "everything is permitted.

What is spirit? — Tom Storm

Good question, Tom. I am writing a lot of posts about the spirit, but I haven't defined it yet! For me, spirit is the representation of ourselves in the intangible world.

But still I think we are talking about healing one and the same thing. Whether we call it Mind or Spirit. It might be convenient for discourse to think of the Mind as, for e.g., the seat of reason, and the spirit, for e.g., as the seat of the sacred, and thus of guilt and despair. They are not divided, but the same thing. — ENOAH

This point is very fascinating... Then, according to your argument, the mind can experience the anxiety about not acting accordingly as well. I wonder this because the mind is where the ration is allocated, and the latter helps us to see the problems and ethical dilemmas more objectively...

You suggest that the Spirit alone can be healed by confession. Yet many forms of psychotherapy involve speaking out your mind's issues to a qualified other. As long as it needs healing by apologizing, — ENOAH

Thank you for your help, understanding and support. But I don't feel I am ready to go into therapy yet. I choose to confess because I feel it is more personal. It is like a redemption with myself.

But yes, K was very disturbed in his struggles with faith, his long nights of inner struggle. Good thing he didn't marry Regina Olsen. — Astrophel

There is an interesting debate about what would have happened to Kierkegaard if he got married to Olsen!

I am certainly not against such a thing, but I think one has to rethink Kierkegaard as a model for spiritual guidance. The existential revolt against Hegel's rationalism puts all eyes on existence, one's personal existence. — Astrophel

It is a great guidance to feel myself better. But, sadly, I don't always understand Kierkegaard. This is due to my lack of knowledge about religious topics. Thus, th content of the Bible or Christian dilemmas. Being a spectator of K coming from an atheist background is fascinating, but I assume I lack key points that maybe a person with a religious background would have. For example: An atheist background would affect me in the sense of denying the existence of a spirit. Thanks to K, I learned this actually exists, and I can experience a tormenting trial of the soul because I often suspended my ethics.

Hello NOS, thanks for your feedback.

Firstly, spirit means something to me. I understand this concept created a big debate in the thread because I read that most fellows don't give this word the credit it deserves. Some argue it is about the mind, and you claim it is the individual behavior after learning for making mistakes. All of these arguments are perfectly taken to improve my knowledge, but what is the cause of behaving accordingly then? Here is my second point in this thread:

I personally believe that every sin, lie or bad action has consequences. I don't tend to see them as a quick response. I lied to my parents but I learned the lesson and I keep living. No... It goes deeper than that and at least this is how I see it. One person doesn't end up with this anxiety because of just one mistake. It is about very corrupt behavior for a long time. When these actions are repeated, the spirit could be dying, getting rotten, putrefacted. If I didn't feel this way, I think I would be an AI. It is not too easy to learn the lesson, or furthermore, to emerge unscathed.

That is what it is about... Suffering from the anxiety of being aware that I had done terrible things. How can I heal this? Some say to go to a therapist, others to see a priest, etc. The only way is to confess. This action goes deeper than just apologizing.

My intention is not to be wholly good. I just don't want to fail in temptations... If I lied to my parents is due to trying to flirt with a woman. Nature surpassed my innocent spirit. But now I understand this clearly: I haven't taken this into account because I was ignorant about taking care of my spirit! I thought there was no soul! No rotten experience! No corruption of the essence! Because without God everything is permitted' as Dostovesky would say... Well, I would say: Without a spirit, everything is permitted.

It might be better to put it where some people feel they belong. There are probably just as many people (perhaps more?) who find churches cold, intimidating, unremittingly vulgar or simply unsafe on account of having been abused (or know people abused) by religious clerics and laypeople. Just saying. :wink: — Tom Storm

You are right, Tom. It is true that churches can be intimidating for some. I will not lie and say every sacred temple is friendly. Here is another big difference between the groups inside Christianity. While Gothic churches are tenebrous, Lutheran churches are friendly, minimalist, transparent, etc. And they give a sense of peace. This is what I felt when I was in Denmark at least. :sweat:

The meta-ethics will assuredly heal your "spirit," but you are (respectfully) unwittingly using "spirit" when you mean Mind..
— ENOAH

The malaise you reference is a construct of the Mind. — ENOAH

It is another way to approach this issue. Honestly, I haven't thought about my mind once since I started expressing my anxiety in this thread. This is due to the fact that I consider the mind as a part of the problem. When I didn't act accordingly, I ended up with the conclusion that my mind was flawed because it didn't stop me. A big sense of free will which my mind provides drove me to a sense of guilt later on. For me, the mind, it is where rationality is allocated. What I learnt after some experiences was that the mind does not always act ethically. The spirit goes beyond this. Who is the part of my body which suffers from guilt or despair? I am talking about intangible states. Does rationality go to despair or 'sins'? I think not...

The system works. It doesn't have to be religion. You feel bad. Fix it. Apologize and henceforth be honest. — ENOAH

You are referring to apologise, but I am referring to confess. I can say sorry for not acting accordingly, but will this act heal my spirit? As far as I understand this, confessing only heals the spirit because the latter is sacred, religious, etc. I mean, they are different concepts with different results. Don't you think?

Where Kierkegaard holds that he can never be a knight of faith because he could never truly suspend the ethical as Abraham did, meditation goes further (as yet not as far): meditation is an annihilation of ones "existence". Abraham is simply suspended, as are daily affairs, politics, one's personality, everything. Suspended, put out of play, forgotten. All in search of one's true primordial self, which is rapturous. — Astrophel

Good point! And Jesus! God (or whatever deity) blessed his soul for interpreting in such an intelligent way the dilemma of Abraham. If I am not wrong, K admitted he had a lot of admiration for Abraham for suspending the ethical. I read the Spanish version, but looking around the internet I found this interesting commentary:

Abraham “intending the death of his son” on Mount Moriah did not bother most “classical Jewish thinkers, because they never conceived of this act as murder. For them, Isaac was an appendage of the father, and Abraham’s act was one of supreme self-sacrifice.” In other words, in an archaic view according to which Isaac is Abraham’s most prized possession, his willingness to offer Isaac back to the same God who gave Isaac by miracle to his aged wife Sarah is proof of Abraham’s absolute devotion. However foreign this view of children is to us now, it helps remind us that the problems and lessons which Kierkegaard intends us to see in the story of Abraham and Isaac may not be close to those on which ancient Hebrew readers or medieval Jewish scholars focused. Our topic is Kierkegaard’s sense of the story, not the original Akedah itself, however far the implications drawn by his pseudonym Johannes de silentio may be from the true intent of the book of Genesis. And for him, the idea that Abraham might be guilty of attempted or intended (even if forestalled) murder is crucial. — Eschatological faith and repetition: Kierkegaard’s Abraham and Job

The church will give you nonsense and faith. Kierkegaard knew this!! — Astrophel

:lol:

Kierkegaard is a radical philosopher, complaining about the church as an institution, on the one hand, and Hegel on the other, — Astrophel

Kierkegaard didn't want to be a philosopher in the literal sense, and he, in opposition to Hegel, didn't preach Christianity as an illusion. K also considered himself an undoubtedly Lutheran, etc. I personally think Kierkegaard felt more comfortable debating about theology, the Bible and Christian Ethics. He became a philosopher accidentally. I see him as one of the representatives of existentialism. I really like K and I always like to get deeper in his thoughts. I think this has already been discussed here but Kierkegaard, apart from other things, is dialect! He used specific words in Danish which are difficult to translate into our languages, like 'anfægtelse' which means 'spiritual trial'. Kierkegaard shows the anguish inherent to the authentic God-relationship and also the dangerous possibility of the individual imagination's. It is here that Kierkegaard's emphasis upon individual responsibility.

Hello ENOAH. Nice feedback.

The former's "purpose" is soteriological, or emancipatory. That is, to "lift" one up from/out of secular and mundane attachments, including morality. To use Eliade's term, It belongs to the sacred. — ENOAH

I agree that "religions" have exploited spirituality to "scare" us into accepting that the main purpose of same is to "be good." — ENOAH

The concept of sacred is sometimes blurred. I knew I would end up in a complex rabbit hole because of the limitless significance of religious concepts and their extension. Nonetheless, I think we can agree that religion (or Abrahamic/Judaism beliefs) and theology are the only branches which actually believe in the existence of a spirit. I want to sound clearer. A theologian would defend that the spirit is a tangible being separated from our body. I also believe there has to be a spirit, but I disagree with religious dogmas. Maybe I sound contradictory, but I want to know where I should look at... I feel my spirit is sick and if I attend meta-ethics they will teach me about principles to motivate better behavior. But where did my spirit go? It is clear that a secular system rejects the existence of a spirit.

I mean, if there is a God, and or a spiritual reality, why would it be restricted by our relative morality? And if you think religious morality is not relative, read the old testament, koran, and Mahabharatas to see how much our religious morality has evolved (improved!), relative to our secular views. — ENOAH

I haven't denied the relativity of holy books. It is obvious that the interpretation of values and ethics are opened to each person and this proves that ethics can rarely seen objectively. Yet I agree with some users who claim there have to be universal principles or code of conduct which we can rely on. Do you agree with me that lying to our parents is one of the dirtiest things to do? I personally believe this is accepted by all. What comes afterwards, thus, the consequences is very relative. I feel my spirit is rotten after doing so, but others claim to calm down and try to learn the lesso, keep going and find a code according to my nature.

Yes, morality is a bi-product; but not the essence of spirituality. — ENOAH

Again. If morality is not the essence of spirituality, why do we act accordingly? We establish values, principles, ideas, beliefs, etc, arbitrary not randomly.

Interesting thoughts. I like that you feel nostalgic about its aesthetic vibe, rituals, ceremonies, etc. Churches have always been (and they still are) a place where people feel they belong to. I only disagree with why these sacred places are the ones where I can redeem my spirit or myself. It is true that, thanks to the advancement of technology or other disciplines, each person can express himself freely and feel heard. But let's be honest, I can't go to random places and confess I feel my spirit is sick. I debated this with 180 proof, and he said to me, I should go to either a therapist or a priest... Let's see where I end up with.

The Church and Christianity in general was and I think still is a remarkable and fascinating hodgepodge of certain ancient pagan philosophical and religious beliefs and Judaism, but I stopped being a believer long ago. — Ciceronianus

It is very remarkable that most of you share the same experience. Everyone started with a good hype, but when time passes by, each person starts to lose the aim of believing in God. Why does this happen? I mean, I understand your reasons, but it is unclear to me why many people end up losing interest in Abrahamic ideas.

How about difficult philosophical reading? — Astrophel

Philosophy is difficult per se. I never found a philosopher who wrote his essays or texts with clarity. I guess this is one of the main features of philosophy. Furthermore its difficulty, I haven't limited myself to jumping and reading classic philosophical authors. Kierkegaard is the philosopher (or theologian, according to others) who I read the most, and I even reread some of his works, like 'Fear and Trembling'. I don't attempt to diminish the great quality and quantitative value of philosophy. It is very important, and I am always interested in it. Nonetheless, I have been coming through different perspectives thanks to reading Kazantzakis and Dostoevsky. I hadn't accordingly rated Christian Ethics with sincerity until I read those authors. They changed my view on life, and well, thanks to them, I discovered an important premise in my beliefs: I fully believe I have a spirit (which can be corrupted by bad actions), but I struggle with religious faith/dogmas.

What is this about, this terms that are so much in play when religion discussed, terms like redemption, the soul, divinity, holiness, heaven and hell, the glory of God, miracles, eschatology, and so on? — Astrophel

It is not necessary to take all those religious concepts are granted and I fully respect the people who don't buy sacred texts and ideas. Due to religious books are always that controversial, I wonder if I can believe I have a spirit without getting tangled in religion or not.

Read Kierkegaard — Astrophel

I already did. Thanks to him, I started this thread. :smile:

Frankly, the matter gets wickedly difficult because one seeks something so occluded by historical institutions and these have to be argued out of one's thinking — Astrophel

Exactly. This is one of the main concerns I exchanged with MU. It is unfair that the Church seems to be the only place where my spirit may be heard. Some institutions take natural worries as part of them...

Good point, and your comment made me understand myself better. Yes, it is obvious that I am enforcing a code of conduct. If this happens, it is due to a sense of despair. What you consider as 'very nature' (seeking a woman). I experienced it as a tremendous fault, a sin, indecent behaviour. If only I were honest with my parents, I wouldn't have experienced this anxiety. The key element is why I am not more transparent, and here is where the code of conduct and my hypocrisy crash.

When I started this thread, I admitted that I struggle with religious faith and ethics because some of the Bible's content is not reliable because it is written by the Gospels. Nonetheless, I am aware that I have a spirit and the latter started to get rotten because I didn't act accordingly in some actions. Yet this is very new in my life because, in the old version of myself, I never considered it a bad action to lie to my parents. It is something I realised recently. So, this behaviour truly reflected my nature.

For this reason, I think I don't have to change my code but my corrupted nature...

It may be true that we can reach a state of perfect equanimity, insight and eternal repose, but it seems very hard to square with the reality of the human condition which is typically considerably more fraught. And that is where belief enters the picture, even if, in an ideal existence, it may not be necessary, or it might become superfluous. — Wayfarer

I agree in the sense that it is very difficult to square them in the huge difficulty of the human condition. But why is the belief superfluous to spiritual repose? I see these two are connected. It is true that I can't see which preceded the other. One of the main points of my arguments in this thread is that I actually believe I have a spirit and I want an equanimity in it. If I give up on one of these two sets, the equation is useless.

I understand you better now, 180 proof. I was asking those questions with the aim of receiving new inputs, and I appreciate your feedback on this thread. I thought moral judgement or values were dependent upon the belief in the existence of a soul/spirit... but now, I also take into account your views and opinion. Another perspective to help me to understand.

Nonetheless, I have to be clearer on one specific aspect: I do not have anxiety because of my 'inconsistently choosing' to follow rules, but precisely, because I haven't followed them sometimes. And the consequences of not following a code of conduct, values, virtues, etc. (Whatever if they are religious or not), made me end up in a state of awareness where I feel my soul is rotten. At least, I already accepted this fact, as I confessed to Metaphysician Undercover and BC...

Honestly, I don't get why you doubt whether I am sincere or not on this topic. I personally believe that, if you read my answers, you will notice that I am opening myself (and spirit) to the people here. I hate not being sincere, and therefore I promise I am answering frankly.

If love is your top priority, you will not act badly. Of course, we are all influenced by a variety of different things though. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, BC referred to love. I wasn't aware that this could be a motivation for behaving accordingly to values... I guess I have to find out where love is located because I tend to be very sceptical about it.

If you lied to your parents, then you allowed something to take higher priority than love of your parents. but that's what I mean when I say we are influenced by a variety of different things. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you are trying to help me to not feel that bad about myself, and I appreciate your support a lot. The exchanges in this thread are more helpful than my sessions with my therapist, indeed. Nonetheless, I disagree with you in that quote above. I personally believe there should not be anything greater than the love for my parents. I am very influenced by Dostoevsky on this issue. If I allow 'something' to be more important than my respect for them, I am acting both selfishly and negatively. There is no doubt that a person can be influenced by many factors. Some of them could be fear and shame. Shame to tell them the truth, and shame because of the following consequences. But these are just weak arguments. Lying is even worse, and the latter is the main cause of why I sometimes feel I am sinning... and sickening my spirit. I am lucky that my parents always raised me accordingly, and they have never been abusive to me. I don't have any excuse for lying to them.

In other words, I like to always keep myself busy, because the bad habits never seem to get completely annihilated, they lurk so be aware. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good advise.