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

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

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

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

Nowhere here did I equate these. — Noble Dust

That's what the word means in English.

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

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

Why did you delete the rest of our quips in this exchange when you split this thread? It looks like you made it sound as if I was complimenting your atheism and leaving it basically at that, without the finer (and funnier) shades we both insinuated in the parts you deleted. What gives? — Noble Dust

Sorry. I deleted them on the basis that they were a continuation of a casual digression amidst a serious discussion that didn't need to be here and could be done away with. Now you're making me somewhat regret that decision. Maybe I should have left them, but what's done is done. :-|

We can still cherish the memory, at least.

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

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

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

Alright no worries, I was just re-reading through the thread and was confused by that.

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

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

Do you actually want to address my ideas? I don't respond well to being made fun of.

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

To the degree that you are defining intuition, you are defining it in such a way that assumes your worldview, where there is no physical or cultural intermediaries between a person and "things like meaning, morality, and the underlying principles of why we bother to have discussions". — Reformed Nihilist

No, this was my definition of intuition in this argument:

Intuition structures all thought; logic is structured on intuition; creativity is structured on intuition, emotion, even, is structured on it. Intuition is the connective tissue that connects a human faculty to experience. Or, since you like definitions:

Intuition: the underlying human faculty that connects other human faculties to experience. — Noble Dust

In regards to Kant, I said my idea was similar, which it is. Your quote of Kant wasn't my definition. You continue to obfuscate what I mean by intuition, whether through misreading, assumptions about me, or I don't know what.

You're defining your argument into being correct, by making up your own definitions for words. That doesn't even reach the threshold of having an idea. — Reformed Nihilist

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

based on a conception of the world that others don't share with you, — Reformed Nihilist

lol

never mentioning that you are using the word unconventionally — Reformed Nihilist

Again, you missed my initial definition, clearly.

Do you not see a problem there? — Reformed Nihilist

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

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

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

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

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

Do you see the difference?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which tells you more about the apple?

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

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

Are you willing to even consider that you don't actually have...real ideas, — Reformed Nihilist

Why would anyone be willing to consider such an insult?

Try this, in regards to intuition:

Why do you consider having two hypotheses valuable? Why do you consider Kant's well reasoned models as admirable? Why do you consider a dictionary definition of a word valuable, and presumably assume it to be more valuable than a descriptive definition? Why do you assume that it's worthwhile to talk about spirituality despite your lack of belief in it? Why do you consider it worthwhile to try to point out, not only the holes in my argument, but your belief that I have no argument at all? Why do you consider honest responses to be important within discussion? Why do you think it's important to consider the logical implications of dualism before adopting it? Why do you consider empirical standpoints as being important to take? Why do you think making a distinction between self-delusion and good answers is important?

Which tells you more about the apple? — Noble Dust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You missed my point; everything I quoted of you in that last paragraph are examples of intuitions of yours. Your intuitions are what drive your rationality. So if you're not interested in litigating that rationality, then I'm done here. That was a part of my argument early on.

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

And I'll leave you with this: If you're unwilling to examine the very modes of thinking by which you make arguments, are those arguments worth making?

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

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

I was explaining how spirituality is incomprehensible if the student does not explore a time (historical or psychological, both avenues are fruitful) in which spirituality and materiality were merged in a single, unnamed concept -- before the inquirer even knew what a concept is. It is only by exploring that country that one gets a firm grasp (by contrast) on what is spirituality and what is materiality.

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

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

The body, or matter, can clearly exist without spirit (we call that a corpse, or an object) and we can also conceive of the spirit existing without the body (Life's a dream, brain in vat, matrix, evil demon). The notion of polarity just isn't consistent with our conception of the body and the mind. — Reformed Nihilist

I have never experienced matter without spirit, and neither have you. I have never experienced spirit without matter, and neither have you. What we can 'conceive of' is fairly irrelevant to the problem at hand -- that of understanding what is spirituality and materiality. The fact is that both spirit and matter are conjoined in our experience. And it is from that fact that we must proceed in order to apprehend what spirituality (and materiality) means.

It is for that reason that I'm talking about a polarity rather than an opposition.

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

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

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

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

I pointed out that they don't actually fit coherently into the framework you suggested, and gave you a reason why. — Reformed Nihilist

But you were wrong.

When a pair of polarized concepts (north:south, natural:artificial, spirit:matter, etc.) is developed out of our still-compact experience (of spatial coordinates, of objects-for-use, of the constituents of reality, etc.), it is impossible to understand them, as a pair of concepts, without grasping the subjacent experience (space, instrumentality, substance, etc). To deal with them as "concepts" detached from the subjacent experience is to confuse the symbol with the symbolized.

How is that a fact? — Reformed Nihilist

By being a fact. By happening. By being how things are. Etc.

I think you mean that is your premise. — Reformed Nihilist

No, I meant that it is a fact. Premises are used in reasoning. I'm not proposing an argument. I'm explaining to you how the concept of spirituality (and materiality) is derived from the universal human experience. No reasoning involved. The activity being explored here is that of symbolization. Matter and spirit are symbols. They become "concepts" when they are detached from experience, and this is a sure recipe for (at least) confusion and possibly serious errors.

You are essentially saying that the spirit exists, therefore the spirit exists. — Reformed Nihilist

No, I'm essentially saying that spirit and matter are mixed in our (quite-ordinary) experience, before we ever worry about concepts.

Just as our temporal persistence is present in our experience, our sensations are present in our experience, our fellow human beings are present in our experience, etc. Some -- actually, most -- of these experiences are developed into polarized symbols, some aren't. No one supposes that claiming those X's "exist" is tautologous. There is litte reason to single out spirit (or matter) and to explore these as "concepts" rather than aspects of our experience;

unless you have an approach that includes starting from some shared point of agreement and reasoning outward from there. — Reformed Nihilist

That's exactly what I'm offering. The shared point of agreement is the universal human experience (including your own). But we must beware of calling this activity "a reasoning", because if we do that, then we will be begging the question. Reasoning-as-an-activity is construed as purely mental (or, spiritual; this would be the word chosen by 17th century thinkers, and the evolution of language since then, not coincidentally, is an important piece of data for grasping the whole picture); if we try to do this by "reasoning", we'll be discarding an important aspect of the experience.

***

Observe that all of what I'm saying is equally applicable to the problem of understanding "materiality". If one thinks that materiality is simpler or more easily understood than spirituality (so much so that this thread is called Spirituality instead of Spirituality:Materiality), he is most likely being deluded by the "commonsense assumptions" of his time. A visit to the nearest quantum mechanics lab would do him well.

Understanding that spirituality is an individual exploration, for me, concretely, my spirituality is a recognition of the life force within me (variously referred to as Elan vital, qi, prana, etc.), and an awareness of its desire to explore, create, and learn. It's this awareness that helps guide me and inform me throughout my life (lives?).

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

So, if I am reading you correctly, the shared point of agreement in my experience is that I have experiences? — Reformed Nihilist

Yes, though it is also important that these experiences are human. It is important for our communication, but not for the exploration of matter:spirit; alien experiences, bat experiences, etc., would be equally open to that exploration.

Any experience, in effect, involves an experiencer and an experienced. And these are the seeds of spirit:matter.

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

The next step in symbolization, you mean. To insist on a reasoning before we straighten that out would skip the important steps.

How would one name the experiencer? How would one name the experienced? These are the questions to be addressed now. These questions are historical in nature. History can be of two kinds: personal (psychological) or social (i.e. cultural). Both processes exhibit the same structure, and so either one is sufficient to clarify the subject. What is needed now is the study of how (a) a baby learns how to develop the notions of experiencer/experienced (and what are the names given), or (b) the etymology of the words matter:spirit.

Note that this approach is prior to any questions regarding argumentation or reasoning. We are trying to understand the origin of the symbols being used, and to trace those symbols to the underlying experience.

...when Wittgenstein risked his life in battle day after day, he found solace in Tolstoy’s version of the Gospels: hence his prayer ‘May God enlighten me’. — Wayfarer

Thanks for this very interesting quote, Wayfarer. It isn't how his biographer Monk (sic) reads his view of religion. But certainly Wittgenstein was profoundly changed by his experiences in the trenches, which divided him from a Russellian view, and part of that was a greatly-enhanced sympathy for the religious point of view, thanks to Tolstoy. Certainly later on he avowed on many occasions that he couldn't find Christian belief in him, although he had great sympathy with it. Anyway, the general point stands: Wittgenstein's quote about not speaking about certain matters wasn't out of Russellian disbelief, but out of a view that a different kind of discourse was required to the approach he took to philosophy.

Agree, but I tend to regard W's silence ('that of which we cannot speak...') as apophatic - being circumspect in the face of a mystery, rather than (with positivism) declaring metaphysics simply meaningless. It's not that it's meaningless so much as beyond the power of speech to say anything meaningful about. And to my knowledge, he was never a church-goer, so, not 'conventionally religious'; but in a footnote in his essay Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament, Nagel notes that ' Wittgenstein and Rawls ...clearly had a religious attitude to life without adhering to a particular religion.' Which is actually quite germane to the topic at hand.

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

Well, the dichotomy is in the language and is present in much philosophising, including yours. I believe we are constantly both reasoning and emoting and that yours is as false a dichotomy, between being and doing, as whatever you thought mine was. Certainly analytic philosophy, for instance, largely avoids the use of emotive terms, and has only in the last 20 years or so come to treat emotion seriously, e.g. through the late peter Goldie.

The general feeling I have is that many critiques of 'spirituality', including yours, fail to account for spiritual feelings and emotions. What is it that the religious are feeling when they describe profound emotions? The Dawkins/Dennett approach is largely to ignore that aspect of things, and to treat religions as if they were pseudo-sciences, with all the emotion distilled into propositions. I should like to begin with mutual respect, between atheist and believer, and such mutual respect seems to me to involve accepting that 'spiritual experience' happens, feels profound to the person it happens to, combines deep thought with deep feeling, and as such has considerable standing in one's evaluation of how things are, how the world is. Even if you're an atheist like me!

I tend to regard W's silence ('that of which we cannot speak...') as apophatic - being circumspect in the face of a mystery, rather than (with positivism) declaring metaphysics simply meaningless — Wayfarer

I completely agree. You know when he was in Vienna in 1926 or so Feigl tried to introduce Witt to the rest of the Vienna school, thinking they'd get along famously - but they didn't and Feigl for one rapidly understood that Witt's thinking (which was anyway already shifting by then) was a long way out of kilter with the positivists. (Sorry if I've told you this story already!)

No, not at all. I have great respect for Wittgenstein, none whatever for those positivist pratts. They're scared of their own shadow, in my view.