What is not spirit? Your accepted definition will hinge solely upon this. One answer, the one I believe in, is kind of spooky or metaphysical if not simply unrealistic. Religious one could say. In more broader terms, it is what develops from what is not spirit, or rather what is biological. I can get angry or upset because someone attacks me, this is biological. But how I respond to it in my own unique way.. becomes part of who I am. This is my spirit perhaps? "He's in good spirits" or "the kid has spirit" generally refers to personality or energetic motivation, "spunk" some would say.

that dictionary definition is quite useful. I've often mused on the German word Geist, as in zeitgeist, 'the spirit of the age'. It's close in meaning to 'the spirit of Christmas' - in which case, not an entity but a way being or doing ('character, disposition; way of thinking and feeling, state of mind; source of a human desire'.)

From a philosophical perspective I think one of the ways of investigating the question is in respect of the 'transcendental unity of apperception'. In this sense,'spirit' is like the unifying principle which binds the disparate elements of experience, judgement, and sensation into a unity. It's impossible to discern or identify what that function is, as it is never the object of experience, but (pace Kant, Hegel and Schopenhaur) always the subject of experience - which is close in meaning to the Hindu 'atman'.

But the inevitable tendency is to then try and know or 'objectify' it, which of course can never be done, as it is never the object of perception (to ourselves, anyway).

So anything that breathes has Spirit? It's not only human's "privillege"?

Yep.

Nice definition. So that illumination in your opinion it happens in a something energetic level or it's pure mind's process?

I also see Spirit as the process behind breath as you mentioned. For me breath is just the biological effect that is required for Spirit's existance

So as I asked Banno. You believe Spirit is only in humans or all animals has Spirit too?

I believe soul transcends spirit, capitalized or not. Of course, I may be incorrect in my understanding, as may you. I believe the human form has a capacity for spirit that animals may inherently not, of course, beliefs are a dime a dozen these days. Not to tout this as an absolute net positive, there are many bad spirits among us.

So you think that this principle exists like a rule in universe in general and it is something that humans can't interfere with? Or humans mind play its role too in the way of how all these stuff go united? For you Spirit is like a principle that happens to all humans in a same way? Or each human has its own unique way of how all these things gets combined together?

So give me your short definition for soul also

Spirit is one among many thousands, probably millions, of names for nothing.

It might be true also indeed

Let us open our religious books of olde and read from start to finish. Perhaps somewhere therein lies the answer. Something new, something old. Something forged, something formed by whatever forces may be. It all depends. Many things breathe. Few have the desire to use this breath to help that which does not immediately or inevitably help oneself. This is the essence of compassion and true love, the antithesis of which is indifference, which distinguishes man from the animal. Usually.

So you think that this principle exists like a rule in universe in general and it is something that humans can't interfere with? Or humans mind play its role too in the way of how all these stuff go united? For you Spirit is like a principle that happens to all humans in a same way? Or each human has its own unique way of how all these things gets combined together? — dimosthenis9

I think Meister Eckhardt said ‘God is your being, but you are not his’. It’s like that. We think what is real is what we can conceptualise and comprehend, but the source of being comprehends us, without us comprehending it. You have to learn the way of unknowing to see that.

Nice definition. So that illumination in your opinion it happens in a something energetic level or it's pure mind's process? — dimosthenis9

The word for “consciousness” in Greek, Latin and Sanskrit is:

Greek: συνείδησις suneidesis < sun + eidesis
Latin: conscius < con + scio
Sanskrit: संविद् samvid < sam + vid

Apparently, the original meaning in each case was “knowledge with (someone)” and by extension ”knowledge with or of oneself”/”self-knowledge” > “self-awareness” > “consciousness” > “conscience”, etc.

So, spirit is not a mind process. It is a form of "self-aware intelligent energy" of which mental processes such as thinking are mere functions.

For example, we have thoughts, like "this is a tree". But we also have an awareness of those thoughts that is necessarily higher that the thoughts themselves. That within us, that on a lower level has the awareness of our thoughts, and on a higher level has awareness of itself as itself, that is, as pure "self-aware intelligent energy" that has no other object of experience than itself, is the spirit. I would call it "nous" or "pneuma" in Platonic terminology.

It seems that you are separating spirit from the mind, emotions and body, which seems to be a bit abstract. I think that this is one perspective, but is too slanted because when I engaged with the post writer s/he appeared not to be looking for a complex philosophical understanding of the topic and, various viewpoints, but a more simple working definition of the term.

Breath. — Banno

That's one aspect but too narrow if taken as comprehensive: think Zeitgeist as one meaning that "breath" is not adequate too. One aspect of the idea of spirit is ongoing life in the sense of breath, and another is change in the fiery sense of death and renewal. 'Mind' is the most adequate synonym it seems.

I also see Spirit as the process behind breath as you mentioned. For me breath is just the biological effect that is required for Spirit's existance — dimosthenis9

I don’t think breath is required for spirit’s existence - but awareness does give us confidence in this existence. ‘Spirit’ is commonly reserved for a relation to the flow of energy through a system we understand to be living. This relation can be actual, potential or possible. As such, it naturally extends beyond the structure of a living system, relating to chi, or the potential for energy to flow through ALL existence, regardless whether the observable effect is ‘breath’.

Breath is just the most obvious way that energy flows through a living system. It has connotations of an immaterial, essential, involuntary and cyclical process, that is nevertheless altered by thought, emotion and perception.

So, while it is a useful metaphor, it’s just one outcome of this process to which ‘spirit’ refers. But to reify spirit, to use the term in reference to an actual thing, then I would agree with @Banno in that “anything further just muddies the picture”. There is no actual thing other than breath that can be termed ‘spirit’. I think we need to be clear on this.

Spirit refers to an idea, which starts with the observation of breath: that energy flow (chi) through a living structure is not only essential to maintaining that structure, but also alters and is altered by it. In this sense, the logical and qualitative structure of life is inseparable as such from how energy flows through it.

Energy in classical physics is a quantity of effort, typically isolated from its qualitative or electromagnetic ‘flow’. But modern physics demonstrates that the way energy flows alters and is altered by all of existence, down to its most fundamental elements. Energy at the level of potentiality consists of quantitative effort inseparable from qualitative attention. Our most accurate accounts of reality are currently formulated as a prediction on how energy flows through a system, or as instructions for a system-wide temporal distribution of both attention and effort: a wavefunction, as it were.

For me, then, energy flow through any system (chi) is essential to maintaining that system as such, and both alters and is altered by it. So this notion of ‘spirit’ refers to a capacity for awareness of chi (starting with breath). What we do with that capacity is something else entirely.

that dictionary definition is quite useful. — Wayfarer

Yes, etymology provides a feast for understanding the way concepts move and change over time. Check out https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ghost

'transcendental unity of apperception'... — Wayfarer

...whatever is that? It seems to be the process of sorting what we believe so that it is consistent, but Kant verges on equating this with the self; it always looks to me like a mashup.

think Zeitgeist as one meaning that "breath" is not adequate too. — Janus

"The breath of our times"... works for me.

"Spirit" is breath taken as metaphor then... re-reified... so as to produce myth.

"The breath of our times"... works for me. — Banno

I can get that...perhaps my conception of breath was too narrow. Breath can be dry or moist, fiery or icy, so yeah.

I had always rather liked the idea that 'gist' - as in, 'getting the gist' - was related to geist - as in zeitgeist. That would tie 'meaning' (gist) to 'spirit' (geist). Alas, not - 'gist' has an entirely separate etymology. But I still like the idea.

And if Spirit is breath? What about plants then? Since they breath too we can say that they also have Spirit?

Sure. Do you have a point?

It seems to me that by Spirit you consider life then. Since we think alive everything that breaths. Existance of life is Spirit for you then

No; when I say breath, I mean breath.

So what is life for you then since you separate breath from it?

Why should I answer that? What is the point to this discussion?

Here's my thesis, a myth rather than an argument: Folk noticed that breathing was absent in the dead; it's one of the necessary characteristics of a corps. They supposed a causal link, but in the wrong direction - that the lack of breathing was the cause, not the result, of death; that the breath had left the body.

The word they used for breath was not unlike "spirit"...

And over time spirit took on its present sense.

So the notion of spirit is an over-investment in a misguided description of death.

The point is that I haven't realized what you meant till now. So Spirit isnt existing at all for you. It's just another name for breath. Or like the "mythological" transformation of breath through years in history

Yep.