Difference bewteen Philosophy and Spirituality

Originally posted by FMF
Someone being furtive pretty much always has a motive for it, robbie.

and someone who is cynical will always find one FMF, even when none exist.

Originally posted by vistesd
For me, “spirituality” refers to the Reality that is prior to all of our conceptualizations, images, ideas, names and words about it—which are activities of philosophy (including epistemology, metaphysics generally, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion—and theology—etc.). That Reality includes us in the act of philosophizing.

Because no one ha ...[text shortened]... But then one might lose the understanding of those usages, which I believe are perfectly valid.

great one, many salaams to you and yours, you seem to be stating, if I can understand
your text correctly that one can ascertain or experience spirituality only after having
dispensed with some burdensome constraints, for example language and that
knowledge may be of no use at all, as in dance, for one needs no knowledge to dance,
simply a willingness to forget oneself and express oneself. Also that to the ancients
and certain poets it is akin to the life force that animates all things. I reiterate these
points for confirmation or correction for they are not easily understood by me and it
would be a great pity if your post passed over my head simply because of my inability
to grasp the essence of its import.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
great one, many salaams to you and yours, you seem to be stating, if I can understand
your text correctly that one can ascertain or experience spirituality only after having
dispensed with some burdensome constraints, for example language and that
knowledge may be of no use at all, as in dance, for one needs no knowledge to dance,
simply a wi ...[text shortened]... our post passed over my head simply because of my inability
to grasp the essence of its import.

The deity of Christ has passed over your head, and yet you have no problem
with that because that might burden your spirituality with some knowledge.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The deity of Christ has passed over your head, and yet you have no problem
with that because that might burden your spirituality with some knowledge.

What do you reckon is the difference between Philosophy and Spirituality, RJHinds?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The deity of Christ has passed over your head, and yet you have no problem
with that because that might burden your spirituality with some knowledge.

the deity of Christ, hmmm, start your own thread spanky, this is no place for your dogma!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(Acts 17:21) In fact, all Athenians and the foreigners sojourning there would spend
their leisure time at nothing but telling something or listening to something new. . .

what is the difference, if any, in your opinion?

Sounds like the Internet to me.

Originally posted by jaywill
Sounds like the Internet to me.

yes, I suppose the net is like a modern day Ancient Athens 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
What do you reckon is the difference between Philosophy and Spirituality, RJHinds?

I view Spirituality as man's connection to God and explaining the world in the
relationship to the plan of God. Philosophy is an attempt to explain the world
from a man-centered point of view regardless of any plan of God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
great one, many salaams to you and yours, you seem to be stating, if I can understand
your text correctly that one can ascertain or experience spirituality only after having
dispensed with some burdensome constraints, for example language and that
knowledge may be of no use at all, as in dance, for one needs no knowledge to dance,
simply a wi ...[text shortened]... our post passed over my head simply because of my inability
to grasp the essence of its import.

Hi Robbie! Hope you and yours are all well.

I think you’ve understood me pretty well (that was the longest post I’ve written here in sometime! It seems to take more energy these days)—but I’ll add some (perhaps pedantic) caveats:

1. I would put it that we experience the Real that is prior to all our concepts/thoughts about it (and, again, includes us in a kind of inescapable recursive loop, even in that experience)—and then we might call that experience “spiritual”, rather than saying that we experience “spirituality”.

2. We are experiencing “that” all the time, but become habituated to filtering that experience through acquired conceptual lenses.

3. The natural conceptualizing urge (let’s call it, metaphorically anyway, “left brain” activity) can kick in almost immediately, and begin translating that experience into conceptual content. I have called this “immediate translation”; James H. Austin, M.D., in his book Zen and the Brain calls it “reflexive interpretation”—the interpretation your mind ( “left brain” ) selects in the midst of the experience itself, or in the moments immediately after.

Such reflexive interpretations are subsequently developed, and perhaps tested, and can become full-blown metaphysical and religious doctrines. But I tend to view all such things as expressions that are best seen as elicitive/evocative, aesthetic, therapeutic, etc.—rather than as propositional claims about the pre-conceptual Real (what bbarr once called “the ineffable Real” ). That does not mean that I find all such expressions (or all aspects of a particular expression) equally rich or helpful. I tend, as you know, to borrow expressions from different religious traditions quite freely—I am a non-exclusivist in that sense.

—As I mentioned, my personal view is that the arguments over “reason-giving evidence” versus pragmatic considerations (wherein I include the aesthetic and therapeutic) that we often see on here stems from missing the function of various terms in differing language games. This applies to my own nondualist metaphysics as much as anyone else’s—and I, too, have to be careful about that: I want to keep my own “reflexive interpretations” in what I see as the proper context (e.g., aesthetic).

BTW, I know that you, too, are a dancer at heart! 🙂 We likely disagree on a lot of this—but we have been able to dance together nevertheless! 🙂

Originally posted by RJHinds
I view Spirituality as man's connection to God and explaining the world in the
relationship to the plan of God. Philosophy is an attempt to explain the world
from a man-centered point of view regardless of any plan of God.

I want to use this as an example to illustrate part of my point in my post on the preceding page:

I disagree with this formulation (i.e., it is not mine), but—I cannot say that you are using the terms invalidly. That seems to me a perfectly valid usage (albeit one that I disagree with, just as you likely disagree with mine 🙂 ). In other words, the fact that there are (and have long been) other understandings of the term “spirit” does not invalidate the particular meaning within, say, a personalistic trinitarian context. We just have to try to understand how we might use and intend the terms differently in order to move whatever arguments we might want to make beyond contextual semantics.

I understand how you are using the terms (having been steeped, much of my life, in that context); your statement is clear and concise.

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

Here's my take. Of course BB can disclaim it. Not a problem, I will learn something more.

He answers your question as if to say "yes... the aim is understanding... but...".

The "but" is that in the realm of philosophy, observations are essential, and must support the conclusions, but the observations that are taken into consideration will be those that meet certain selection criteria, and the selection criteria will influence the scope of admissible observations and logically possible conclusions, even with the best possible logic being applied.

For example, if you are conducting a criminal trial and exclude the testimony of clairvoyants, the logically permissible conclusions might be different than if their 'observations' are given equal evidentiary status with say, DNA evidence.

A more general example: Natural philosophy, i.e., science, applies a rule that only naturalistic (non-supernatural) observations will be considered, logic will be applied, and only naturalistic explanations will be sought. (This can be said to be the the result of a deal between Galileo and Pope Urban VIII, who stand for the era when science got defined.)

So the observer affects the observations.

That's how I take it. But I am coming to learn that my understanding is subject to the same difficulties that BB describes.

A question now is whether this "but" applies equally to philosophy and spirituality. My guess is that it dominates spirituality, and rightly should.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I view Spirituality as man's connection to God and explaining the world in the
relationship to the plan of God. Philosophy is an attempt to explain the world
from a man-centered point of view regardless of any plan of God.

I think that with for capital S spirituality, your view fits.

It's like some people treat science as Science. That's their prerogative, but it's a distinction worth noting.

Philosophy is rational. Spirituality is emotional.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Philosophy is rational. Spirituality is emotional.

I should perhaps have specified psychologically therapeutic, as well as aesthetic (though psychological health also affects physical health, as well as vice versa). I might add intuitive (“right brain” ) to your emotional. But, yeah, aesthetic richness also strikes me as being largely emotional.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Philosophy is rational. Spirituality is emotional.

Not true...

While some philosophy (the good philosophy) is rational.
There are philosophers and philosophies that are patently irrational.

Mainly due to the tendency of a certain class of philosopher to disappear up their own backsides.

Or just cease to actually care about reality at all and disappear into fantasy nonsense land as they
poof reality out of existence in a burst of solipsism...


Also philosophy can and should deal with emotions and rationality certainly doesn't preclude feeling or
dealing with emotions.


As for spirituality... I still don't know what that is...

So I can't comment on if you are right about that.