Please define spirit. — Galuchat

Well, my dictionary has it as;

The non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

The non-physical part of a person regarded as their true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation.

The non-physical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost. — OED

That seems to cover most of the uses I've ever heard, but if you have any more...

Yes, spirit exists. And so does shplerm. Shplerm, like spirit, is an empty label which basically means whatever you want it to mean.

We could look to a dictionary, but so many people mean so many things with it, that we'd still need to confirm what the heck we're supposed to be talking about. Otherwise we're left with a yes-no-maybe-dunno, which doesn't seem very helpful.

And then there are the spiritual experiences that seem to be yet something else, as if they were experiences of a world beyond the material. — leo

No, they seem to be of the emotional and psychological "world", but plenty of people wishfully think them to be otherworldly. It's not so different from reading a Harry Potter book and then believing in magic and wizards.

And for those feeling adventurous, compare and contrast the idea of “spirit” with that of “soul”. Could a thing or animal be thought to have a spirit, if perhaps not a soul? — 0 thru 9

Dear professor, while my school hours are booked with compare and contrast papers, between Algebra and Crisis management, I am going to take a moment to address your pondering.

Yes, I absolutely believe that most humans have "spirit" and I don't mean Rah rah rah :party: I mean an essence of the person. It is the part of the person, that together with another's spirit can create a new combined energy or synergy for the ultra fortunate. Animals are no different in that most have spirits as well.

I use the word "most" as a prequalifier as there are always exceptions to any theory but that does not change my mind about whether or not a spirit exists.

Is there a difference between a spirit and a soul?
On first blush I would say they are almost one in the same but I don't feel comfortable making that differential just yet.

No, they seem to be of the emotional and psychological "world", but plenty of people wishfully think them to be otherworldly. It's not so different from reading a Harry Potter book and then believing in magic and wizards.
6m — S

Trying to nail Jell-O to a wall my friend? :grin:

Like the well-known example of the person who thinks they see a snake, but it is only a rope. — 0 thru 9

Yes, that's it. That nicely sums up what seems to be going on here.

Trying to nail Jell-O to a wall my friend? :grin: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

As ever.

As ever. — S

S, have I told you lately what a beautiful person you are? :flower:

Aaaaaaah! No! Stop being nice. You're supposed to call me a jerk or a troll like the others do. I'm a villain, don't ya know?

Your meaning of "spirit" is the other approach. Not the magic and wizards approach, but rather the approach where it's just something ordinary and uncontroversial, like a personality.

As far as I know, the writings of the World's major book religions and systems of moral philosophy are the only source of information about "spirit", or similar concepts. — Galuchat

Why would 'information' about "spirit" be limited to those two sources, why not your own feelings, for example, or those of your neighbours? — Isaac

Considering that this thread was posted in the Philosophy of Religion category, and that the OP and subsequent posts contain the words, "God", "soul", "supernatural", "the Force", "Taoist philosophy", "transcend", "worldview", "belief", and "afterlife", it seems reasonable to conclude that "spirit", as used herein, has religious and/or moral connotations.

However, it is obvious that a religious/moral discussion makes many people uncomfortable and combative. For them, it is more comfortable to re-frame the question in terms of psychology, fantasy, or the paranormal.

So, I would welcome information about "spirit" which is based on "your own feelings, for example, or those of your neighbours."

Do you have any you can share?

If you argue that spirit does NOT exist in any form, please give your definition of it anyway for the sake of clarity and understanding. — 0 thru 9

The only way I'd say it exists would be if someone offered some clear definition, where I thought that what the definition picked out exists.

In lieu of that, I'll pass.

In order to ask or answer whether or not something exists, one must first know what that something is.
How do you expect anyone to answer such a poorly framed question? — DingoJones

Consider something newly discovered. We, just this second, discovered that it exists, even though we have no idea what it is (yet). Imagine this is our first enquiry into this new discovery.

I think that answers your question.

I think you got the questions backwards. First ask, what is it, and then you can assess whether it exists. — NKBJ

What is it with you definitionists? These things can be considered - properly considered - without mandating a sequence of discovery. What something is, and whether it exists, are things worth looking into. That someone would deliberately oppose the process of discovery by mandating - "Definition first, then existence!" - the order in which things must be done is unjustifiable and unacceptable. If we can discover or learn something new, it doesn't bloody matter whether we identified it first, or demonstrated its existence. Both provide useful data with which to proceed.

I do not think Im being picky, your framing just wasnt clear, or sensical. Generally, it is the responsibility of the OP to set the terms of the discussion. — DingoJones

And the OP did just that, setting out a general matter for us to consider. Use the lack of precision, and enjoy a general discussion, whose use, value and direction will become apparent as the contributing posters develop it. If you don't understand how to do this, sit back and watch as others explain by example. :up:

Not really. A new discovery has a place its found or it has something about it...a trait, a relation to something else...it will have something that differentiates it from a figment of imagination. No one discovered “spirit”, someone made it up. If it is something that isnt made up, then just tell me something about it that indicates the difference.
Anyway, besides the point. You cannot sensibly answer a question about somethings nature if it has no definition.

You cannot sensibly answer a question about somethings nature if it has no definition*. — DingoJones

Perhaps you can't. Others seem to have less difficulties with general topics than you do.

* - N.B. we're not actually considering something with no definition, we're considering something with no clear and precise definition. We all know, roughly, the meanings that "spirit" is used to carry.

That really doesn't make a lick of sense. How would you be able to determine whether something exists if you're not quite sure what it is?

Quick, tell me if ******* exists! You can't, because you don't know what that is? Well, duh.

If I choose not to “enjoy a general discussion” that doesnt mean I lack understanding about any aspect of the discussion. This is just you being condescending because I have no respect for the nebulous terminology demanded by a feel good discussion about nothing. You are perfectly welcome to your irrational, substanceless circle jerk, I stepped out and left you all to it after it became clear thats what you were all interested in.
Your desire to bring me back in has nothing to do with actual engagement, but rather a need to satisfy your offended, authoritarian sensibilities.

If it is "beyond scientific understanding"...then by definition it is beyond human understanding. — Frank Apisa

Sorry, this isn't right. Science is one tool we have to use in the pursuit of understanding. There are others too. The most obvious example is simple, considered, thought; a structured consideration of something, outside of the methods and techniques of science. This is often called "philosophy". Art is also a possible way of exploring things too; it depends on the nature of the thing we're considering. There is more to life than mere science.

How would you be able to determine whether something exists if you're not quite sure what it is? — NKBJ

Perhaps (and this is only one example) because I've seen it? If I spy something new, I don't collapse into a mire of uncertainty, unsure whether to name it first, or try to demonstrate its existence. I go with what's available, and I do one first, then the other, and then I proceed. There's no problem here, unless you think we're incapable of discovering genuinely new things (even if they're only new to you, or to me)?

If I choose not to “enjoy a general discussion” that doesn't mean I lack understanding about any aspect of the discussion. — DingoJones

Of course it doesn't. :up: But, if you consider this discussion pointless, what are you doing posting here, in this topic? :chin:

Any assertion of the existence of any of these preternatural things humans have irrationally feared for millennia is baseless. None has been evidenced reliably. All are based on personal experiences, typically of unbalanced individuals seeking attention... — whollyrolling

Can you substantiate the emboldened part of your text, or is it just your opinion?

There's no problem here, unless you think we're incapable of discovering genuinely new things (even if they're only new to you, or to me)? — Pattern-chaser

Genuinely new? Probably not. But that's beside the point.

Discovery of a thing that exists in the world isn't gonna happen in a theoretical discussion.... but let's pretend we're walking through the woods and neither of us has ever seen a rock before in our entire lives ever. We come upon a rock. We immediately register it's existence and simultaneously we register it's properties (like size, color, smell, etc.) thereby creating, immediately, a rudimentary definition of this thing.

It's impossible, however, to say anything about things for which we have no definition whatsoever.

Eternalists hold that Socrates still exists, maybe in some sense what could be called his spirit does. — Devans99

All of those now passed continue to exist, in the sense that what they said and did during life does not disappear when they die. The influence they had, their contribution to human knowledge and culture, could (but need not always) exist for as long as humans do. I doubt this fully justifies Externalism, but it is a sort of continuing 'existence' that can't be denied. :chin:

Pattern-chaser
849

If it is "beyond scientific understanding"...then by definition it is beyond human understanding. — Frank Apisa


Sorry, this isn't right. Science is one tool we have to use in the pursuit of understanding. There are others too. The most obvious example is simple, considered, thought; a structured consideration of something, outside of the methods and techniques of science. This is often called "philosophy". Art is also a possible way of exploring things too; it depends on the nature of the thing we're considering. There is more to life than mere science. — Pattern-chaser

Allow me to disagree...as respectfully as possible.

Every scientist...is first and foremost...a human being.

Saying "it is beyond scientific understanding"...is actually saying, "it is beyond the understanding of scientists."

Therefore...it is beyond the understanding of humans.

That is not to say humans cannot do art or poetry or music or philosophizing. But "understanding" as used here, is something else.

THE CONTEXT WAS A COMMENT OF MINE: I do question the use of the word "supernatural" in this type of question, though. Supernatural usually is defined as, "something attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." If it is "beyond scientific understanding"...then by definition it is beyond human understanding. Surely there ARE things beyond human understanding.

If you want to "play" with this for some reason, I'm game for a short while.

We come upon a rock. We immediately register it's existence and simultaneously we register it's properties (like size, color, smell, etc.) thereby creating, immediately, a rudimentary definition of this thing. — NKBJ

OK, that seems to be a reasonable way of looking at things. :smile:

It's impossible, however, to say anything about things for which we have no definition whatsoever. — NKBJ

And yet, when we spied the rock, you suggested that we automatically generate some sort of internal definition. It seems to me we could do that with almost anything, couldn't we?

And yet, when we spied the rock, you suggested that we automatically generate some sort of internal definition. It seems to me we could do that with almost anything, couldn't we? — Pattern-chaser

Yes, but we have to have that definition first.

OK, that seems to be a reasonable way of looking at things. :smile: — Pattern-chaser

Thank you :smile:

Saying "it is beyond scientific understanding"...is actually saying, "it is beyond the understanding of scientists." — Frank Apisa

No, it's saying that it is beyond the understanding of scientists if they apply only science and scientific techniques.

Yes, but we have to have that definition first. — NKBJ

We didn't when we spied the rock. According to you, we immediately (and perhaps unconsciously) generated a working definition of the rock. Why could we not do that with (say) an oboe (assuming we'd never encountered one before)?