The dictionary doesn't define spirit substantially because there is no way to define something that is unknown except by way of perception, which results in circular and nonsensical discussion based on subjectivity.

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: )

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.

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:

I could generally go along with that statement. But now the tricky part... how could one relate that to the concept of spirit? — 0 thru 9

Not tricky at all.
I explained that here: "From such criteria, evidence in terms of observed behaviour may be sufficient to posit "spirit", or similar concepts."

A piece of advice: just use another word. Religious language is redundant when you use it that way. It only causes problems, as we've seen. It causes problems if we've trying to be clear, as I firmly believe we should be when doing philosophy. As for poetry and flowery writing from the heart, go for it. But back to philosophy, if you mean personality or consciousness or something like that, then just say so. We already have words in the English language sufficient to convey that meaning. If you do that, then the controversy will dissipate, along with the problem. And then we can move on to the real problems in philosophy.

The "spirit" of any word isn't it's definition.

I'll treat your dismissal and accompanying commentary as an admittance that the only aim of this thread is to request a string of short fiction entries, and that you're displeased that I didn't add a short fiction entry to it.

The "spirit" of any word isn't it's definition. — sime

:up: :rofl:

Definitionistas... as passionate and unrelenting as fashionistas, only perhaps not as well dressed. :wink: — 0 thru 9

Speak for yourself! :rofl: :flower:

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: )

It's hard not to give short shrift when you've seen the same question so many times, and it goes the same way, with the same problems.

I've given the broad answer to the question already, and I don't think that there's much more to be said. It is an ambiguous term, and it will either mean something of the magic and wizard sort, in which case the answer will be no, there's no good reason to believe that it actually exists, or it will be the deflated, "nothing to see here", ordinary phenomenon type of answer, where it's a feeling or a personality or consciousness or something along those lines.

Question answered? Can we move on now? Is there an answer which you don't think is covered by my analysis?

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

In order to ask or answer whether or not something exists, one must first know what that something is.
How do you expect anyone to answer such a poorly framed question? — DingoJones

I think you got the questions backwards. First ask, what is it, and then you can assess whether ot exists. — NKBJ

What are you trying to say here? If you know what something is then there is no need to ask yourself if it exists because it certainly does.



I think that if you ask yourself about the existence of something, it necessarily exists-at least at some level. So, I believe the spirit exists. I do not believe that it can exist without a body, though. I think that the unique character of a body makes the spirit. In other words, the spirit is the consequence of everything that's led one to the present moment, and that includes the body. I am convinced that my spirit cannot be my spirit without my body. However, the spirit is not the body nor does it live within it. So, we could say it is similar to an idea. So, for me, the spirit is an idea of a body. But not of any body, but one that has been able to sense itself or reasoned to the nature of its existence. So, for me, every single living organism (including viruses) have a spirit. The idea of a spirit arises because there must be a process that's led to its enquiry. So, it'd say that every process has a spirit, and its complexity gives the spirit its complexity. So, it'd say the human spirit is the process-or sum of processes-that's led to the sensing or enquiring of its own existence-a very complex process.

One way to approach the idea is through time.

Hegel presented the spirit as something that lived both as a possibility and as an agent of history.

In the religious register, spirit is either with you or not. Fate and devotion struggle to get the upper hand. I don't prefer fatalism but it beats creating the entire scope of existence with a single idea.

But I mostly think about it as the traces of lost friends. And how I will join them soon in my own disappearance.

What are you trying to say here? If you know what something is then there is no need to ask yourself if it exists because it certainly does. — Daniel

Do unicorns exist? Cuz I know what those are. Please spare me any “unicorns exist in our minds” silliness, unless you are a fool you know very well thats not what we mean.
“Spirit” has even less going for it than fictional creatures.

I'd agree that numbers don't exist except as symbols. But are different symbols, for example '7', '1111111', or 'VII', or different instantiations of the same symbol, the same existences? It seems obvious they are not. So, there would seem to be no absolute existence of any particular number beyond its representations and instantiations.

But they are also examples of number as distinguished form any particular number, just as any number of objects is an example of number in general; so I think it is quite reasonable to say that number exists, as opposed to saying that each number apart from its symbolic representations and instantiations, has a unique existence. Framed that way, I think the apparent paradox is dissolved, and the need for Platonic realms is obviated.

What is a unicorn?

But are different symbols, for example '7', '1111111', or 'VII', or different instantiations of the same symbol, the same existences? — Janus

'Existences'??

there would seem to be no absolute existence of any particular number beyond its representations and instantiations. — Janus

But the very fact that different symbols designate the same value is essential to mathematics and language. If in each system, each symbol had a different meaning, then they would be incommensurable. But surely they're not. Otherwise, you couldn't have an exchange rate, or you couldn't represent the same proposition in different symbolic form.

That is why 7 = 7, which is basically the law of identity, is true for all observers.

In respect of Platonic realms - I think there is such a thing as 'the domain of natural numbers', is there not? The fact that this domain doesn't exist in time in space is one of the points that Platonist philosophy makes.

If you know what something is then there is no need to ask yourself if it exists because it certainly does. — Daniel

I know what Santa Claus is, doesn't mean he exists....

What is a unicorn? — Daniel

For the love....I call troll.

You do not know what Santa Claus is. You have an idea of it that you have formed by using shapes that you have seen and things that you have heard and textures that you have felt. So, the idea of it exists; but it itself does not. And I am not saying that Santa Claus or unicorns exist just in our minds; do not misinterpret me. I am saying the idea of those things exists.

I am saying the idea of those things exists. — Daniel

You're just all over the place.

I can't know something that is just an idea? If something is just an idea, then all it IS is what we KNOW about it.

'Existences'?? — Wayfarer

What's the question?

But the very fact that different symbols designate the same value is essential to mathematics and language. — Wayfarer

I agree.

If in each system, each symbol had a different meaning, then they would be incommensurable. But surely they're not. Otherwise, you couldn't have an exchange rate, or you couldn't represent the same proposition in different symbolic form.

That is why 7 = 7, which is basically the law of identity, is true for all observers.

Yes, all of that would seem to be self-evident; these are logical findings, but I still can't see what point you seem to be suggesting it entails.

In respect of Platonic realms - I think there is such a thing as 'the domain of natural numbers', is there not? The fact that this domain doesn't exist in time in space is one of the points that Platonist philosophy makes.

The domain of natural numbers is a logical domain. Platonist philosophy does not claim merely this, but wants to say that it is an ontological domain.

I think you got the questions backwards. First ask, what is it, and then you can assess whether ot exists. — NKBJ

By asking what it is, you are already assuming its existence; for how in the world could you inquire about something that does not exist. If you as a human being are able to assume the existence of something, it is because it exists, or how in the world would you be able to assume the existence of something that does not exist. Then, does Santa Claus exists because we are asking about its existence? Yes, but not as a particular person but as an idea of a person constructed from many other ideas. Now, does energy exist. Yes, but not just as an idea. We can measure temperature, and prove its existence through reasoning, and even though we cannot feel some of them we still know they exist.
An idea is something that exists, because we produce them. And we exist.

If something is just an idea, then all it IS is what we KNOW about it. — NKBJ

Your conclusion is not logically entailed, but we would need good reason to think that something which is just an idea could be more than our thinking it, believing it and/or knowing about it.

Your conclusion is not logically entailed, but we would need good reason to think that something which is just an idea could be more than our thinking it, believing it and/or knowing about it. — Janus

If something IS just an idea, then it can by definition not be more than our thinking.

By asking what it is, you are already assuming its existence — Daniel

I assume the idea of it exists. That does not mean the Ding an sich exists.

No, that does not logically follow. If something IS just our idea, then it can by definition not be more than our thinking. Or alternatively if you define ideas as something only we can have, or as something that exists only in our minds, then it would follow.

For the love....I call troll. — NKBJ

Indeed!