It's a case of fundamental belief. Science is and should remain an inquiry into how the physical world works. It shouldn't be the basis for fundamental belief. It obtains a "religious" character when it becomes the foundation for someone's philosophy instead of a tool for apprehending the material world. Materialism is essentially scientific religion; materialism by definition precludes any possibility of truth that exists outside of itself; There's no argument against materialism unless the materialist is willing to think outside of the confines of materiality. Similarly, there's no argument against religious dogma if the adherent isn't willing to think outside of dogma.

I understand Wayfarer to mean that a religious view of science is a cultural malaise. I think the three of us are in agreement here, ironically. Seems we've wasted some breath here!

I'll mention again that I need to study the theory of rationalization more, but offhand I'm skeptical of the idea that scientism (or an irrational dependence on science) is responsible for it. — praxis

Who is saying scientism is responsible for rationalization? I don't think anyone, including Wayfarer, was saying that. It's the other way around, or rather, the birth of scientism comes from rationalization, among other things.

I, personally, would take a cold logical AI over an impulsive and self destructive (relatively new) species. In my mind it might be the only way for intelligence to survive. — Zoonlogikon

I'm more interested in why you think intelligence surviving outside of the the context of the human race is a sufficient (or coherent, for that matter) telos.

Yes rationality contributes to religion but does religion return the favor?

No! — TheMadFool

Couldn't you make the argument that religion gave birth to rationality? The historical thread of Greek myth -> Greek philosophy, and similarly, Christianity -> modern rationality via the Enlightenment? Edit, it would be Greek philosophy also pointing to Christianity and modern rationality as well...

8-)

Hold on, you keep moving the goal posts, I think unintentionally. You're initial statement in your OP was:

What is unclear is how scientism contributes to rationalization. — praxis

And my first comment here was a direct response to that statement; that statement appeared to be the only thing you wanted to discuss in this thread, because the rest of your OP was an introduction to that topic.

From there, all of your responses have veered off into other directions for the most part, based on things I said in my initial response, and I played along because I thought the additional topics were interesting, and some of them tangentially related.

Now you're doing that again, and I'm not sure where you're going. What are you arguing for here? Are you mainly just asking questions?

You assume nonspiritual or religious ends when that is not necessarily the case at all. — praxis

No, I didn't assume that, I was specifically critiquing scientism, or any belief system that places so called "blind faith" in science; that was the topic of your thread. As I already said, my references to religion here are an analogy used to provoke thought about the topic.

Are all these religions illusory except for yours? — praxis

Ironically, I'm one of the practitioners of a personal spiritual practice that you felt the need to alert me to here. I'm not a member of a religion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have assumed so simply because I'm not critiquing religion here, and I'm using it in a neutral way as an analogy. All the critiques I'm making here are primarily historical, rather than rational or religious.

I pointed out that the enlightenment allows us to find our own ends. — praxis

I'm not sure your series of quotes before this statement follow each other.

As to having the freedom to find our own ends, I think it's an illusion. I hear this claim often, but what exactly does it entail? It's usually an appeal to comfort or pleasure, which is a poor, pale comparison to religious or spiritual ends; this is ironic considering how the enlightenment championed this new found freedom. Enlightenment freedom seems inherently materialistic, which undermines the entire concept in my view.

What do you mean by "The notion that mankind is freed from the religious mindset is bogus"? — praxis

Basically what I wrote above.

I need to study these theories more on my own, so I'll limit further questions before doing so. Thank you for your patience. — praxis

Of course, you have good questions. I'm studying them as well.

By "religious mindset" do you mean an irrational dependence? — praxis

No.

It's possible to live a meaningful life without religion — praxis

Perhaps your confusion lies here? I don't think anyone in this thread is making an argument for religion; personally I repurpose the word religion to illustrate the irrational dependence on rationality and science found in scientistic and even some less severe materialist positions. The goal is to make those folks evaluate their assumptions and underlying beliefs. It's an ironic use of the term for the sake of provocation. The notion that mankind is freed from the religious mindset is bogus, and reusing the word religion seems like an effective way to illustrate this. Take the underlying principles of religious belief and apply them to prevailing materialistic views. The problem is that most materialists ive encountered don't even seem to be equipped to try this out. That's the depth of the inherent assumptions and hubris involved.

The essential benefit of autonomy is freedom, and in this context, freedom from ignorance. — praxis

Right. But freedom in general still isn't the ends. Freedom is a state of being. It's another prerequisite for something else. It's possible to live a meaningful life in a state of ignorance; it's possible to live a meaningful life without political freedom or social freedom.

Prior to the enlightenment, was the separation of church and state possible — praxis

I doubt it, but I'm not sure why you're asking?

I was quoting Wayfarer. Personally I find his phrasing somewhat misleading. — praxis

How So? Is this what your initial comment in the op referred to?

We are now enjoying the "ends" that the enlightenment afforded us: — praxis

Autonomous thinking is a tool, not an end. It's just the first step. What's autonomous thinking for, exactly? It serves no purpose (end) in itself. You have to show exactly why it's better than relying on "guidance from another". Showing why it's better will/would reveal the ends; critical thinking in and of itself reveals no ends.

And it is unclear what you mean by "faith in science." — praxis

In that context I was using it to mean scientism; "taking a religious view of science", as you put it.

What was the "ends" prior to the enlightenment? — praxis

Generally the afterlife that Christianity offered.

What is unclear is how scientism contributes to rationalization. — praxis

It doesn't; ironically it's more of an emotional appeal to rationality based on given cultural circumstances. The enlightenment championing of reason and scientific progress is ultimately what lead to faith in science; the underlying belief manifests itself in technological innovation that's now devoid of the "ends" that the enlightenments growing means originally suggested. The result is an increasingly mechanized society which doesn't have any telos, any ends for the ever increasing means. So now, rationalization of all of life becomes the only threads of a rope left to hang unto in order to avoid the plunge into nihilism. And so, hence rationality as an emotional appeal based on given circumstances.

I've been reading Rilke's (translated by Norton) Letters to a Young Poet — anonymous66

That's a great guide for artists, and philosophers who are sympathetic to an artistic approach. I'm also interested in Christian Existentialists, so thanks for Shestov and Marcel; on the list now. You might be interested in Nikolai Berdyaev. The Meaning of the Creative Act is a good intro to his thoughts. The Divine and the Human is a more lucid, later book that's more in line with the existential elements of his ideas.

Neither do I; I didn't say that. Everyone has a worldview; the evidence for this is the basic values they put out into the world. Someone without a worldview would have no beliefs, but your own beliefs are being revealed in your responses in this thread, as well as in your original post.

Once again, I don't have a world-view. — daldai

You do; part of it involves:

For me it's an accidentally self-inflicted psychological condition that I want to cure. — daldai

You consider a self-inflicted psychological condition something undesirable.

Did you read the fine print of what Wayfarer was describing as "myth" here?

That is the precise meaning of 'catharsis'. That is the work we all have to do, by some means or another. Unfortunately in our culture it is hardly understood at all; as I say, I consider myself lucky to have encountered it. — Wayfarer

Right. My problem here is that not everyone has access to this sort of thing. So, my questions remain in a philosophical realm (ironic for me). Assuming everyone doesn't have access to this sort of treatment, the question still remains; how much spiritual responsibility is reasonably placed on the individual?

But I think any kind of therapy or treatment would require them to acknowledge that they have a problem, and that they would have to own it and accept therapy. If they don't, they don't. We can't change other people, we can try and help them where possible. Our responsibility is to know ourselves and be able to act wisely, — Wayfarer

Fair enough; well taken.

That Augustine quote is ironically applicable to the present state of christendom.

because at every moment, one still has the option to act differently to how karma would dictate, and all of us have the potential for wisdom — Wayfarer

I do feel this; this is one side of why I feel conflicted here. The other side is that some circumstances are not in one's control. Is this more of what avidya means, then? For instance, child abuse, whether overt or covert. I was extremely sheltered, for instance, as a child. Not my own doing. The problem here is, someone with a generally healthy upbringing would seem to be better equipped to be responsible for herself, than someone with an unhealthy upbringing. Maybe I'm generalizing or simplifying. But this still seems to be the tension, to me. I want to believe that we're each responsible for ourselves, but is this, then, a set reality for all of humanity? It would seem that circumstance dictates exactly how responsible a given person can be for themselves. A drug addict on the street, for instance; I live in the city, as I seem to recall you do as well. Do we tell them they are responsible for their actions? Thus telling them they are wholly responsible for the pariah state they're now living in? Where does charity fit in with responsibility? Here's the problem for me: many people never realize that "at every moment, one still has the option to act differently to how karma would dictate", as you say. The kid my age or younger who stands outside of McDonalds every day on my way to work, asking for change for food...does he know that, at every moment of his life of begging, he can act differently, thus changing his own karma?

Yes. I struggle with this constantly; it's the question of exactly how much spiritual responsibility is placed on the individual. Is it a set amount, regardless of the person? Does it depend on their lot in life ("to whom much is given...")? Now, how much does human freedom play into that situation? If hell is "locked form the inside", is that state purely a result of the failings of the person who finds themselves there? Or is it something pre-determined? If total freedom exists, then it's purely the responsibility of the individual to attain heaven and avoid the so-called "self-chosen" hell; but if this is the case, how is this more realistic or humane than a hell in which judgement is based on action (i.e. right-action vs. sin)? Because now, suddenly, regardless of which view of hell one is espousing, action is once again the determining factor. In the "soft" view of hell that Lewis and you are suggesting, action still determines destiny. One still has to, for one's own sake, act rightly in order to achieve heaven. Not for the sake of pleasing God, but just for one's own sake. The responsibility is purely on you. This is a problem. And by the way, I'm using "action" broadly here; it would include metaphysical actions like "thoughts", feelings, motivations, etc.

This means that the highest value in christianity is personhood. — Beebert

This is a valuable insight; I think you have the key here already, within all of your trepidations and frustrations. How could personhood be the highest value if sin sends someone to eternal conscious torment? Christianity has missed the importance of the person, of personality. The idea of eternal conscious torment is dehumanizing; it begins with man in a state of total depravity. The problem with this is there's no reference, within basic human experience, for why this is, or what it's measured against. Sin originally has the connotation of "missing the mark". But the way Christianity unfolded in history assigned a normative toxic shame to sin, and, therefore, to all of life; all aspects. The typical Christian ethos is one embroiled in shame and subsequent virtue-signaling. Shame creates an entire culture of pathological play-acting. But none of this has to do with the crux of the actual Gospel. There are other interpretations. Christus Victor places Christ as the victorious hero conquering sin and death; it's a cosmic battle that's already been won. If Christianity had adopted this view of the Gospel as it's basis, then the culture of shame that embroils it wouldn't exist.

Ultimately, toxic shame eats away at the sacredness of that personhood that you expressed. I personally think that personhood (I would say personality or individuality) is the highest value of Christianity precisely because Christ was God incarnated in an individual person. The sheer depth of symbolical significance of that fact, within the context of history, is staggering. It creates a connection between God and man; man has a need for God, but God also has a need for man. The notion that man's need for God is not reciprocated for need on God's end is nonsensical. Man has zero value if God does not assign value to him, and God cannot assign value to man without having a need. Any value assigned without need would be purely theoretical; value means need.

What all of this has to do with organized religion is anathema to me, at this point. I've had similar experiences to what you describe. I also resonate with the feeling of having "lost faith", and yet still finding belief in Christ to exist within myself. I've had a long, painful journey of coming to terms with these contradictory experiences, but to come to the realization that a belief exists, deeply within me, a belief in Christ, despite everything, has been a huge comfort. I sense that you're wrestling in possibly a similar way. There's a name for our ilk; "Doubting Thomas". Just think about the depth of Thomas's faith after having seen the wounds of Jesus with his own eyes. This is the beauty of our doubt; it leads us into deeper Truth. Keep it up.

(Y)

I like how you can already see the beginnings of his style and focus in how the trees in his early work look like tapestry. Makes me think his evolution must have been more instinctual and intuitive, even if also guided by his philosophy.

The sacrifice wasn't necessary. — Agustino

How was it not necessary?

It's a piece by Piet Mondrian. He wanted to create a "real equation of the universal and the individual." I'm fascinated by modernist artistic philosophies like his because of their brashness and audacious optimism, which was clearly a failed project. But I also like his aesthetic.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

your intuition, your feeling that you are correct, — Reformed Nihilist

Nowhere here did I equate these.

I'd invite you to imagine in you're mind's eye for a moment, what the world would look like if everyone adopted this approach to knowing things. 1+1=5 because I intuit that it does. Your money is actually my money because my intuition tells me so. — Reformed Nihilist

This is a charicature of what I said. I'd invite you to re-read what I said if you want to comment on it.

You haven't addressed what I said about your appeal to rationality: Coming to a discussion about spirituality armed only with rationality creates a self-fulfilling prophecy for you; you already know that spirituality won't avail itself to your rationality.

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?

Also found this quote:

“Although most people never overcome the habit of berating the world for their difficulties, those who are too weak to make a stand against reality have no choice but to obliterate themselves by identifying with it. They are never rationally reconciled to civilization. Instead, they bow to it, secretly accepting the identity of reason and domination, of civilization and the ideal, however much they may shrug their shoulders. Well-informed cynicism is only another mode of conformity. These people willingly embrace or force themselves to accept the rule of the stronger as the eternal norm. Their whole life is a continuous effort to suppress and abase nature, inwardly or outwardly, and to identify themselves with its more powerful surrogates—the race, fatherland, leader, cliques, and tradition. For them, all these words mean the same thing—the irresistible reality that must be honored and obeyed. However, their own natural impulses, those antagonistic to the various demands of civilization, lead a devious undercover life within them.”
― Max Horkheimer, Eclipse of Reason

Read the blog post, looks interesting. I wonder how an analysis of how those problems have developed up until the present would fair, vs. this analysis from 1947. Has anything changed or developed, positively or negatively, since then?

The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws. — C S Peirce

Interesting, looks like I need to do some more reading.

So whenever someone demands 'a reasoned argument' about any metaphysical question - what is the nature of mind/life/reality - ask, what do you mean by 'reason'? Scientific reason doesn't go 'all the way down'. — Wayfarer

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

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

I came here for a discussion of spirituality. If you come to a discussion of spirituality armed only with rationality, then of course your own prophecies about it will be fulfilled, and you won't be able to debate about it in more than one way.

To some extent it does. No theory perfectly accounts for all phenomena, but an "all body" approach is 100% consistent with all of these phenomena. — Reformed Nihilist

How does it account for morality?

I'm asking you if you can clearly define the word "spirit" — Reformed Nihilist

I'll put this here for clarity:

I should clarify that my definition of spirituality is the state of something being spiritual; so my definition of spirit is actually what I initially said as the definition of spirituality. Spirit is the inner life of the outer world of experience. Sorry for the confusion, I'm working through the ideas myself.

So that leads to:

You have to start inventing a mechanism by which the body and mind interact, — Reformed Nihilist

I'm not trying to "invent a mechanism", but one idea I've been working on is that spirit generates material. The material world is calcified spirit. Mind (consciousness) is further genesis of spirit within the material of the mind. It's clunky, but it's less clunky than the idea that consciousness is a property of the physical mind (which means consciousness is a physical substance).

I just have to point out that there is a difference between a good explanation and a bad one, and it isn't just based on which one resonates with you. — Reformed Nihilist

Why? What does this impartiality achieve for you? What's the goal of empirical impartially?

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

First of all, as I said, I'm not arguing mind/body dualism in the sense you're using it. But,

3) If spirit generates consciousness within the physical mind, then damage of the physical mind leads to impaired consciousness, but it doesn't follow that physical damage reaches to spirit. And yes, there is "mind within mind", in my experience, as I already said. So this is an aspect of that fact. But no, it doesn't go any deeper than that, from my experience. But my experience could be wrong.

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

Lose the patronizing tone and I'll respond.

I'm not setting up a tautology, I'm asking you if you have any means to discriminate intuitions from self-delusions. I don't. That's why I don't trust intuitions. — Reformed Nihilist

Really? 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.

Intuition is what's leading you to make any arguments at all here. Logic alone, or empirical evidence alone can't explain WHY you, Reformed Nihilist, are making your arguments, and why you think it worthwhile to do so.

Do you think it is wise to hold a belief "fervently" that is both contrary to the evidence, and seems to only be based on your feeling that it is the case? Mightn't it make more sense to follow the conclusions that the evidence present us with? — Reformed Nihilist

Wait, the piano reference was an analogy to how I view spirituality; are you critiquing how I view spirituality here, or something else? You seem to be extrapolating on the piano metaphor in order to criticize something else that you think you sense in my arguments. As to there being evidence that being good at something is innate...please, there's new studies constantly that contradict themselves on those things. I can't be bothered with whatever the Daily Mail deemed worth publishing. You, like so many, bow to the orthodox authority of scientific evidence. I do not. One year the universe is a hologram, the next there are infinite universes; one year creativity is innate, the next it's learned; one year coconut oil is healthy, the next it's not. I refuse to be dragged this way and that by constant studies that not even scientists themselves can fully keep abreast of, let alone someone like myself who has tons of other interests.

So that I can make a distinction between self-delusion/illusion/personal bias, and good answers. — Reformed Nihilist

How do you know which answers are good?

I know through intuition.

It doesn't assume that all concepts are fixed or simple, which is what you're actually arguing against by bringing up the fact that concepts change. That's a red herring. — Reformed Nihilist

Nope; a firm grasp of a concept would no longer be firm once the concept changes.

It just assumes that it is possible to make a simple and succinct working definition for the purposes of a discussion, which it clearly is in many, if not all cases. This is just getting pedantic now. — Reformed Nihilist

It is getting pedantic, yes, but I gave my definition for spirituality ages ago. What's the problem? What other words do you want me to make up my own dictionary definitions for?

Closer to the latter, — Reformed Nihilist

I largely agree with your last paragraph here. I also tried to condense my response this time because we're talking about so many things, but I didn't quite pull it off..

That sounds like mind/body dualism.The idea that your body isn't you (it's a husk), and that the "real" you is some sort of ephemeral being that is pulling all the levers of your meat machine body. — Reformed Nihilist

I didn't mean mind/body dualism, I mean something more akin to the Hindu idea of the Self (Brahman) being higher than (i'd say inside of) the Ego, or the outer self. I've had experiences of being aware of that distinction. And so it's become one of my beliefs, because of my experience. The physical body is just a further outer husk.

(and if they interact, why do we need the duality, why can't it all be just body?). — Reformed Nihilist

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

And a counter question, if the two interact, why would it have to be just body in that case? Two things interacting doesn't equate to it really just being one thing (the one you want it to be, it seems). This is why hard either/or dualism fails for me; it's not a question of separate metaphysical realities, it's a problem of generative metaphysical realities; the materialist view you're referencing studies the brain and concludes that matter generates mind, but I find this incoherent because it's inherently hard nihilism. If matter generates mind, then nothing has content; all content is a facade. Not only is religion an ivory tower, but any belief system, including atheism or materialism, is an ivory tower. If this is the case, then debate is useless. If debating is worthwhile, it must have content, and that type of content (metaphysical content I guess I would call it) can't ultimately be a by-product of matter, because then the content has no referent other than itself, which is nihilistic. If senseless matter generated functional mind, and functional mind generated meaningful ideas, how can you say the ideas are actually meaningful? They're just meaningful in relation to each other, which means not at all. That sort of relativism doesn't lead to any agreement; it in fact assumes total nihilism and meaninglessness. Total agreement about nihilistic relativity would mean nothingness.

How about we use present tense and talk about what you mean right now when you're using it? — Reformed Nihilist

When I use what? Present tense? "Succinct"? You're kind of moving the goal posts here as well; this isn't a response to what you quoted.

If you really want to change your definition in mid discussion (which would be a weird thing to do), just point it out an give me a new succinct definition. I don't know why there is such a fuss over this. — Reformed Nihilist

My definition of what? Where did I do this?...

I'm not even sure what the property of "elusiveness" would mean in regards to a concept, excepting that eludes you, which also means you don't have a firm grasp on it. — Reformed Nihilist

You don't think there are any elusive concepts then? Earlier you referenced

So why are it that there are all sorts of other concepts, like the concepts of "properties" or "consciousness", slippery concepts, that people can have disagreements about the finer points of, — Reformed Nihilist

Is this also because those people don't have a firm grasp of the concepts, or is it because the concepts are elusive? Or try another word, since you don't seem to like that one: "slippery", as you said yourself. The metaphor of slippery seems to suggest something that's hard to grasp.

If not, by what mechanism is the concept of spirituality immune from clarity, yet everyone believes that they are talking about the exact same thing? — Reformed Nihilist

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

see in it whatever you need to, in order to maintain some aspect of your worldview or sense of self-identity? — Reformed Nihilist

No, my ideas about spirituality are based in experience.

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

Intuition is what injects anything with meaning, including the idea that "self-delusion" would be a bad thing (which you rightly insinuate here). But no, of course a self-deluded person would not know they were self-deluded. You're setting up a tautology that seems to insinuate that I'm self-deluded for having spiritual beliefs. If I were self-deluded about spirituality, I wouldn't know it, just as if you were self-deluded about your lack of belief in spirituality, you wouldn't know it.

If I am correct, you seem to be saying that the elusiveness is an actual property of the thing that is spirituality. I think I have that right, but correct me if I'm wrong. — Reformed Nihilist

Elusiveness may be a property of our experience of spirituality; it seems so in general, but I'm not definitively labeling it a property. But it seems to be predictably so. But the sages and teachers of religions claim to have had clear pictures, and their claims gel with the mere glimpses that I've had. It's like watching a great pianist and realizing that that same greatness could be latent in my fingers too; my experience of playing the piano somewhat badly still gives me the glimpse of what it could be like to be the virtuoso. And I fervently believe that if I practiced piano as much as the virtuoso does, I would arrive at that same level. The same applies to spirituality.

Mine is that where people find concepts difficult to describe clearly or define, in every other case I can think of, the cause for this inability was 1) the speaker in question didn't have a clear grasp on the concept, and in sometimes this is because 2) the concept is intentionally ill defined. — Reformed Nihilist

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's hard to describe. Haha, sorry, here come some more vague definitions. I'll try to make it as clear as I can. I consider the subject/object distinction to be largely misleading. It has so many connotations, and it's hard to keep track of them. Public/private is, to me, one expression of it, but neither encapsulate my idea. The same goes for material/immaterial. I like inner/outer as the metaphor for the concept because it doesn't say anything about material/immaterial; there's no difference in the philosophical sense (subject/object); and it's not limited to experience (public/private). It also doesn't describe anything in relation to our experience of time (before/after), and it doesn't place things within a hierarchy (under/over). Inner/outer works with words and their changing meanings, as I've mentioned, it works when analyzing the "inner" philosophy that drives the "outer" world of events (politics, technology, science, art). So, inner applies to both individuals, and the human condition in general.

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

What does being at home feel like in this metaphor? — Reformed Nihilist

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

I might, inversely describe them as feeling like being away from home, as they might take me out of a conscious awareness of myself and my thoughts and feelings (away from home because they are different from my baseline condition, "where I live"). — Reformed Nihilist

I think what you describe as far from home here might be closer to what I mean by closer to home. Or else that's where the metaphor stops working. Being "out of one's self" in the sense of meditation or what have you, is, to me, the same sort of experience that lends itself often to the metaphor of feeling close to home, but that metaphor doesn't actually encompass all instances of the feeling.

Perhaps you could try to describe why that metaphor was meaningful to you? Why you think that darthbarracuda was actually talking about the feeling you get when you do those things, and not an entirely different feeling that he/she gets. — Reformed Nihilist

There is a "private" nature to it as well, yes. One of the most poignant experiences of the feeling of close to home that I've had is a very private recurring vision-like experience I've had. It would be laughable to describe it, because it is a private experience that I doubt others share. Instead, I sneak it into a song whenever I can. But how do I know whether the intuitive feeling of that experience isn't like what others feel? Indeed, the feeling of the experience is the "coming home" feeling, which appears to be something others share, so whether or not the particulars (the vision-like/metaphorical elements of my own particular experience) are the same as for others isn't important. The metaphorical, vision-like elements are what describe the feeling (btw, not emotion) of the experience, and that's the significant part. That's the part we can communicate about, freeing us of having to "remain silent" about it, ala Wittgenstein. Contrary to what Witty says, we can begin by asking each other "hey, have you ever felt or experienced something like this?" One could even, ironically, take it to a scientific extreme and ask every person you can. If you find just one person who says "yes"...then, as far as I'm concerned, we don't have to "remain silent". That may have been a tangent.

I'm rejecting that characterization. Succinctness is good, and vagueness is bad when discussing concepts. — Reformed Nihilist

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

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

Perhaps it isn't the concept that is vague, but your use of it. — Reformed Nihilist

I would suggest that the concept of spirituality isn't vague, but that most if not all attempts to describe it end in vagueness, and I don't have a problem with this. It also doesn't stop me from trying to be less vague when I talk about it. But I place my intuitive experience of this concept above my rational analysis of it, as I do elsewhere.

Can you actually make the distinction between an elusive concept and a poorly considered one (honest question)? I'm not sure I can tell the difference between my poorly considered concepts and objectively elusive concepts. — Reformed Nihilist

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

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

Ok, can you make an argument about this, then? Maybe you did and I missed it.