Of course it doesn't. :up: But, if you consider this discussion pointless, what are you doing posting here, in this topic? — Pattern-chaser
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. — Galuchat
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. — Galuchat
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? — Galuchat
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)? — Pattern-chaser
I, unlike you, have no problem with simply ignoring people with different sensibilities. — DingoJones
"Are there unknown things in the universe?"
"Very likely."
"What can we say about them?"
"They are things and they are unknown to us."
"Anything else?"
"They're.....not any of the things we do know about, and they're not not things."
"Huh."
"Yup, huh." — NKBJ
Saying "it is beyond scientific understanding"...is actually saying, "it is beyond the understanding of scientists."
Therefore...it is beyond the understanding of humans.
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. — Frank Apisa
The question is what anyone is "spying" that they're calling "spirit"? — Terrapin Station
Pattern-chaser
860
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. — Pattern-chaser
It's time philosophers caught up with the rest of humanity on this one. :up: — Pattern-chaser
If you consider Objective Reality (that which is), you will probably discover that we can (knowingly) have no Objective knowledge of it at all, apart from its existence. — Pattern-chaser
If by "objective" you actually mean "absolute" or "100% certain" knowledge, then yes. But philosophers (academic and otherwise) don't always or all insist on that narrow definition. — NKBJ
No, they don't, but they still accept the truth (and the consequences) of what that (admittedly narrow) definition refers to. All is unknown, in absolute terms; it's just a matter of degree. Everything we discuss here is, to some extent, vague and ill-defined: unknown. So it seems pointless to target one topic and say 'we can't discuss that; there are too many unknowns'. Let's just embrace the topic, and see where it leads? — Pattern-chaser
I often consider spirit to be the counterpart to body. [Or maybe to body and mind?] The mental, immaterial, part of us. The really confusing and difficult-to-know-about part of us. There is mind, which we divide (why? :chin:) into conscious and unconscious, and the latter is, by definition, observation and actuality, inaccessible to our introspection. There are feelings and emotions. And there are beliefs, often arrived at by means we know not of. All of these things are difficult, all of them exist (confirmed by the observations of billions of humans), and it is this context/arena that spirit exists. So of course it's difficult to discuss. — Pattern-chaser
I don't buy into any kind of mind/body dualism. The mind is a part of the body. — NKBJ
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. — Galuchat
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. — Terrapin Station
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. — Pattern-chaser
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. — DingoJones
But, if you consider this discussion pointless, what are you doing posting here, in this topic? :chin: — Pattern-chaser
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.