The Spirituality Forum's 'tag line'

@secondson said
But you just said above that it was your "point exactly" when I said the discussion wouldn't be about spirituality in reply to your statement that with a new tag line the discussion would be "of tangible or physical things without a metaphysical angle or context".

You have completely misunderstood. How long are you going to pretend you haven't?

One more post? Three more posts? Ten more prideful threadful pages?

@secondson said
How are the parameters broadened when you want to eliminate discussion about spirituality?

My OP proposes broadening the discussion about "sprituality" and not eliminating it. It proposes discussing everything that you want to discuss and more. It sounds like you are pretending not to understand.

@fmf said
Discussion of tangible or physical things without a metaphysical angle or context.

"Material things" involves some fairly tricky metaphysics, c.f. Kant

@deepthought said
"Material things" involves some fairly tricky metaphysics, c.f. Kant

"Discussion of tangible or physical things without a metaphysical angle or context"

...is precluded from ...

"Debate and general discussion concerning the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things."

If there are "fairly tricky metaphysics" about "Material things" then they would be embraced by my alternative tagline.

@fmf said
Discussion of tangible or physical things without a metaphysical angle or context.

It is perfectly serendipitous for me that you start this thread today. I have been sloooowly (because my very little brain must consider each point in increments--much like I require when considering points of discussion and debate in the Spirituality Forum here 😉) reading Spinoza's "On the Improvement of Mind". I have come to his method of distinguishing true ideas from fictitious ideas (https://www.sacred-texts.com/phi/spinoza/under/tiu11.htm) which basically wrestles with the requirement of determining distinctions between the material and essential nature of things. As with discussions here, Spinoza engages (with himself, no less) in the seemingly infinite exercise of defining and discerning the spiritual from the material. As I read discussions here, so many times it seems that contention arises most frequently when there is a difference of opinion and misunderstanding with regard to definitions and semantics.

As this post has serendipitously sparked conversation about things that are also related to previously considered philosophical thought that do not necessarily fall into the realm of "the supernatural, religion, or the life after" yet may also be considered as spiritual, I appreciate and am intrigued by the "proposed" tag line modification. I have often felt that the absence of both Western and Eastern (notwithstanding the faithful contributions to the "..." thread) classical philosophy in this forum have excluded the contributions of those who consider themselves as spiritual (myself included) yet do not ascribe to a specific tenet or religious doctrinal path.

@hakima said
It is perfectly serendipitous for me that you start this thread today. I have been sloooowly (because my very little brain must consider each point in increments--much like I require when considering points of discussion and debate in the Spirituality Forum here 😉) reading Spinoza's "On the Improvement of Mind". I have come to his method of distinguishing true ideas from ficti ...[text shortened]... s as spiritual (myself included) yet do not ascribe to a specific tenet or religious doctrinal path.

In short, I wish there were a place here for spiritual discussions that include both philosophical and religious thought.

I think the motion for debate presented in the OP provides for the inclusion of the aforementioned paths.

@hakima said
In short, I wish there were a place here for spiritual discussions that include both philosophical and religious thought.

I think the motion for debate presented in the OP provides for the inclusion of the aforementioned paths.

This was the intention! The adoption of the proposed broader tagline would embrace more aspects of the topic of spirituality than the current tagline which is a limited perspective on the scope of the subject. JS357 was a valuable poster who probably saw it the same way as you do, but unfortunately, he doesn't post much anymore ~ something I think I might be, in part, to blame for.

@fmf said
This was the intention! The adoption of the proposed broader tagline would embrace more aspects of the topic of spirituality than the current tagline which is a limited perspective on the scope of the subject. JS357 was a valuable poster who probably saw it the same way as you do, but unfortunately, he doesn't post much anymore ~ something I think I might be, in part, to blame for.

Philosophy: - The study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Such questions are often posed as problems to be studied or resolved. (Wiki)

Perhaps the whole forum should switch from 'Spirituality Forum' to 'Philosophy Forum.'

@FMF

"Debate and general discussion concerning the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things."

This suggestion assumes that the spirit and the soul are interchangeable terms.

But a Christian such as I would mention that the soul of man and the spirit of man are not the same thing.
For the Bible speaks of the dividing asunder of soul and spirit.

For the word of God is living and operative and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing to the dividing of soul and spirit and of joints and marrow, and able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

While I would not expect the Spirituality Forum to conform in every way to Christian theology, I would point out the assumption of your proposal.

It is a very significant matter that the soul of human beings and the spirit of human beings are not synonymous in the Bible. Therefore we Christians (some of us) believe that they are not synonymous.

Being an atheist or agnostic I can understand your desire to tailor the tag so as to strongly infer nothing but human parts are the topic of discussion here. Basically, I think your proposal is that the Forum reflect a leaning towards Humanism.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Philosophy: - The study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Such questions are often posed as problems to be studied or resolved. (Wiki)

Perhaps the whole forum should switch from 'Spirituality Forum' to 'Philosophy Forum.'

That was proposed years ago. If I recall correctly, the Spirituality Forum was set up to draw away some of the stuff that is discussed here from the Debates Forum. Your idea is a sound one: "Philosophy" would encompass more than "Spirituality" I think. You'd still have "supernatural, religion, and the life after" but the parameters would be widened.

"Debate and general discussion concerning the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things."

What this will do for FMF is give him ground to say that discussion of God is not appropriate to the Spirituality Forum.
Why? Because the arena of discourse is limited to the parts of human beings. "Umm, you're out of place speaking about God or God's nature here."

Slick, Subtle.

@sonship said
@FMF

"Debate and general discussion concerning the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things."

This suggestion assumes that the spirit and the soul are interchangeable terms.

My suggestion assumes that discussions could include the question of whether the spirit and the soul are interchangeable terms and/or whether they are different ways of looking at the same phenomena. Just one example.

@sonship said

"Debate and general discussion concerning the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things."

What this will do for FMF is give him ground to say that discussion of God is not appropriate to the Spirituality Forum.

No, not at all. Have you not read anything I have written on this thread thus far? Discussion of God - and "supernatural, religion, and the life after" would undoubtedly still be front and central.

@sonship said
Being an atheist or agnostic I can understand your desire to tailor the tag so as to strongly infer nothing but human parts are the topic of discussion here. Basically, I think your proposal is that the Forum reflect a leaning towards Humanism.

No, you are getting the wrong end of the stick. The proposed tagline widens the scope of discussions and does not narrow it.