Originally posted by PalynkaId be interested in your comments on the thread Thread 94006
Like I said, the word spirit in 'human spirit' is a way to equivocate such psychological traits into notions of spirituality, which [b]require the metaphysical.
All I'm saying is that the notion of 'human spirit' does not necessarily require spiritual answers. Edit - And not just 'neurological', but also 'cultural', 'social', 'anthropological', ...[text shortened]... of social sciences try to deal with such issues. Are such fields spirituality now?[/b]
Does "Supernatural" equal "un-natural"?
What is this 'metaphysical' you talk about? Does such a word really carry any meaning?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI see language as a coding/decoding interface so, in that sense, the word carries meaning because I am familiar with the concept. The same with 'chair' or 'Zeus'. The existence of the referent of concept is irrelevant to the meaningfulness of the word, in that view.
What is this 'metaphysical' you talk about? Does such a word really carry any meaning?
That said, I think that what people refer to as metaphysical is mostly a measure of our ignorance about the physical. But we're getting off-track here.
Edit - What I would personally refer to as metaphysical would be the source for the basic set of rules that govern the system that we live in. Please see my post on top of page 2 on this thread about the origin of gravity: Thread 91336
Originally posted by PalynkaAgreed. I wasn't questioning whether or not metaphysical entities exist but rather whether there can be drawn a meaningful line between the so called 'physical' and so called 'metaphysical'.
I see language as a coding/decoding interface so, in that sense, the word carries meaning because I am familiar with the concept. The same with 'chair' or 'Zeus'. The existence of the referent of concept is irrelevant to the meaningfulness of the word, in that view.
That said, I think that what people refer to as metaphysical is mostly a measure of our ignorance about the physical.
Yes that is what I was getting at.
But what I want to understand is whether by metaphysical they mean
1. the physical they are ignorant of
or
2. something that they believe is truly not physical.
If 2. I cant seem to understand the concept.
If 1 then does that mean that the discovery that the soul is a manifestation of neurological effects render it physical (from the formerly metaphysical), and does anyone who still claims it is metaphysical simply mean they have not yet found out how it works.(ie remain ignorant of its workings). And does that not also mean that anyone claiming it is metaphysical whilst simultaneously making further claims about it is contradicting themselves?
But we're getting off-track here.
Which is why I suggested the other thread.
Originally posted by StarrmanOK, I'll grant you that the term "the human spirit" that rises against oppression and faces hardship, etc etc, is an accepted phrase in common usage. However, it is equally clear (and you will have to agree with this or provide proof) that this "Spirituality" forum does NOT focus on the "human spirit" as you define it. In fact (although I certainly cannot claim to have read every thread) I have not found a single thread that makes a point about this "human spirit" - how we should or should not rise against oppression, or whatever. Invariably, the discussion is about theism, evolution, or other overt religious themes.
Oh come on, are you honestly telling me you don't know what I mean when I say human spirit? What drives us to rise up against oppression, what keeps us going when all hope seems lost, what touches us when we empathise with acts of kindness, or see suffering. It's not nearly as hard to understand as you're making out.
Hence my original question.
CJ