Difference bewteen Philosophy and Spirituality

Originally posted by FMF
I was responding to a post in which you mentioned me specifically by name and attempted to contrast yourself with me.

Its not about you FMF, never the less, you do believe without any affinity to any
religious body or work do you not? Has this not been your stance? well then the text
is accurate, your situation was merely provided by way of illustration, ill remove any
reference to you if you like, if it will end this incessant bickering!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its really too confusing for me dear beetle, the state or quality of being spiritual is fine,
but what does it really mean? It might be defined as 'sensitivity or attachment to
religious values', but this is certainly no good, for others like FMF, 'believe without
belonging,' or professing any religious affinity, for others spirituality is som ...[text shortened]... of ones examination of
these ideas and instead seeks solely to attempt to understand them.

It means that spiritualism, in the context of philosophy, is the development and the exploitation of the mind to the hilt
😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its not about you FMF...

As I said, I was responding to a post in which you mentioned me - "FMF" - specifically by name, and in a clumsy comparison with yourself suggested that people "like FMF" in some way are not able to engage in loving, accepting and relating to the world and people around them because people "like FMF" don't share the same reasons for what they do as you. If it's "not about [me]", robbie, why was I mentioned in your post?

Originally posted by black beetle
It means that spiritualism, in the context of philosophy, is the development and the exploitation of the mind to the hilt
😵

beetle will you clear this point for me, is it not so that philosophy is concerned merely
with understanding, did you not allude to this yourself when you stated that the
philosopher need not raise his mind to that of metaphysics (not defined), that he is content to merely
relate to and understand the nature of things.

Originally posted by FMF
As I said, I was responding to a post in which you mentioned me - "FMF" - specifically by name, and in a clumsy comparison with yourself suggested that people "like FMF" in some way are not able to engage in loving, accepting and relating to the world and people around them because people "like FMF" don't share the same reasons for what they do as you. If it's "not about [me]", robbie, why was I mentioned in your post?

I never said anything of the sort FMF, i have never stated that you unable of being
loving or relating to or accepting the world around you, there was merely three
different perspectives on what spirituality means, that was all, you really have
misunderstood the intent this time. You were mentioned because you fit the description
of one who believes without religious affinity, have i not made this clear?

Originally posted by googlefudge
However there are also those who when they talk about being spiritual and spirituality are
talking about things like 'oneness with nature' or 'inner contentment' ect. Which does not
necessarily suppose or require the existence of any spirit or life force at all.

Is that version of spirituality simply to be said to be wrong, or can we have a definition of
spirituality that includes it as well?

Yes my friend, there are another definitions yet, for example:

1. a. The belief that the dead communicate with the living, as through a medium.
b. The practices or doctrines of those holding such a belief.
2. A philosophy, doctrine, or religion emphasizing the spiritual aspect of being.
3. Belief that the souls of the dead can make contact with the living, usually through a medium or during abnormal mental states such as trances. The basis of spiritualism is the conviction that spirit is the essence of life and that it lives on after the body dies. A medium is a person sensitive to vibrations from the spirit world, who may hold meetings known as séances in order to seek messages from spirits. A "control" is a spirit that gives messages to the human medium, who in turn gives them to other people. Spirits are also thought to manifest themselves through such means as rapping or levitating objects. Some spiritualists claim powers of paranormal healing. Scientific study of spiritualist phenomena has been the focus of the Society for Psychical Research, founded in Britain in 1882 (Britannica)
Etc etc.

These definitions of spirituality cannot be related to philosophy😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You were mentioned because you fit the description
of one who believes without religious affinity, have i not made this clear?

So now you are conceding that the post WAS about me?

Originally posted by FMF
So now you are conceding that the post WAS about me?

no you were used merely to illustrate that their are persons who believe 'like FMF', yet
have no religious infinity, why you are so up in arms about this i cannot say? are you
having a bad hairdo day? You really are acting out of character.

Originally posted by FMF
So now you are conceding that the post WAS about me?

It was the definition that was not good FMF, not you or your beliefs or your ability to
love or accept.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no you were used merely to illustrate that their are persons who believe 'like FMF', yet have no religious infinity, why you are so up in arms about this i cannot say? are you
having a bad hairdo day? You really are acting out of character.

I am not 'up in arms' at all. So do you think that people without your particular brand of spirituality - people who are not religionist or perhaps less inclined towards supernatural explanations, and who draw upon other philosophical areas of thought - to be just as "validated", just as "certified", and just as worthy of "merit", as you, even though their loving, accepting and relating to the world and to people around them are not underpinned by exactly the same reasons as you choose as your terms of reference?

Originally posted by FMF
I am not 'up in arms' at all. So do you think that people without your particular brand of spirituality - people who are not religionist or perhaps less inclined towards supernatural explanations, and who draw upon other philosophical areas of thought - to be just as "validated", just as "certified", and just as worthy of "merit", as you, even though their lovi ...[text shortened]... re not underpinned by exactly the same reasons as you choose as your terms of reference?

you are seemingly confusing people with their ideas FMF, they are not one and the
same. Whatever merit an idea has depends on its application and the outworking of
that application, whether it leads to wisdom (the application of knowledge) or not is
observed through the application of the principles being espoused. Only afterwards can
one determine the merit or otherwise of that idea. I think that in many instances what
passes for spirituality is not, but philosophy and what passes for spirituality in many
instances is not, but a kind of adherence to ritual. I am under duress to demonstrate
love to all people, i am not under duress to love the things they do or say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
beetle will you clear this point for me, is it not so that philosophy is concerned merely
with understanding, did you not allude to this yourself when you stated that the
philosopher need not raise his mind to that of metaphysics (not defined), that he is content to merely
relate to and understand the nature of things.

Yes, the aim is understanding; the philosopher has to dismiss anthropomorphism and replace metaphysics with terms, because if he will not do this thing he is unable to turn empiricism and personal impressions into falsified theories of reality that hold according to specific elenchus and evaluations of the mind. It follows that the way to find “aletheia” by means of “understanding” and to build up a solid theory of reality, is to imply a holistic quantum approach and to proceed by means of elenchus at every level.

So, to a philosopher, it is not false to make hypotheses -it is false not to make them. Of course, we are balancing on uncertainty; and we have to extrapolate the consequences of a given hypothesis (theory at every level according to Cause-Effect). So we have to accept that it is false to try to establish “aletheia” based solely on observations. Why? Because the agent that decides what exactly we will observe, is merely our own theory😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Yes, the aim is understanding; the philosopher has to dismiss anthropomorphism and replace metaphysics with terms, because if he will not do this thing he is unable to turn empiricism and personal impressions into falsified theories of reality that hold according to specific elenchus and evaluations of the mind. It follows that the way to find “aletheia ...[text shortened]... ns. Why? Because the agent that decides what exactly we will observe, is merely our own theory😵

OK, that was beyond me, I readily admit it, I am out of my depth here, gulp! someone
needs to interpret this for me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Whatever merit an idea has depends on its application and the outworking of that application, whether it leads to wisdom (the application of knowledge) or not is observed through the application of the principles being espoused.

So you were using me as a comparison. I see. So how does the comparison - or the contrast - affect your analysis of the loving, accepting and relating to the world and people around them that people "like FMF" engage in. Are you now able to understand how people "like FMF", whose spiritual map is different from yours, and who may be more philosophical than you, can find a way to do those things?

Originally posted by FMF
So you were using me as a comparison. I see. So how does the comparison - or the contrast - affect your analysis of the loving, accepting and relating to the world and people around them that people "like FMF" engage in. Are you now able to understand how people "like FMF", whose spiritual map is different from yours, and who may be more philosophical than you, can find a way to do those things?

I was using your approach as a comparison, it has really no affect whatsoever on how I
view FMF or people like FMF. Am I better able to understand how people like FMF,
those who do not adhere to a particular religious affinity are able to love, accept and
relate to the world around them? Have i stated that you are unable to love, relate to
and accept those in the world around you? Nope.