Secular Spirituality

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Nick_A »

-1- wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:18 pm
fooloso4 wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:36 pm
.To bring this back full circle, the guardians and future “philosopher kings (and queens)” of Plato’s Republic were from the “spirited class” (Greek thymos or thumos) , the education of the philosopher begins with an education of the spirited part of the soul. Although thumos or spiritedness is not the same as what we generally mean by spirituality, the education of the philosopher is, as described in the Republic, a spiritual education. It begins with the cultivation and training of those things that characterize thumos - feelings, emotions, anger, courage, loyalty, desire for recognition. It is, however, not simply a matter of moderation of high-spiritedness, spiritedness must to appropriately directed to those things worthy of honor, loyalty, and recognition. This ties together nicely with Solomon’s “thoughtful love of life”.
I have a huge problem with Greek words. Everyone insists they mean somewhat different form words we have in the English language.

This is hard to conceptualize, or even to believe. English has over a million words. And human feelings, that is, the genome that dictates the emotional make-up of humans presumably has not changed in two or three thousand years in the English lineage of humans, that would make it different from the Greek lineage of humans up to Plato's time.

Therefore I claim that the Greeks had words to mean things that we, speakers of the modern English language have. There is no difference between Thumos and an English word which I don't know, but I am sure it exists. People are simply awed by the Greek minds of philosophers, but I am telling you, they were guys just like you and me. They had no special powers of the language or of logic. Or of ideas, or of thoughts. Their words were reflections of concepts they had in their minds, and I claim that the concepts in their minds were the same as the concepts in our minds. Therefore the two languages (modern English and classical / ancient Greek) expressed those concepts with precisely equally.

If you deny this, then you deny that Greeks and English are of the same species.
My great great granduncle was an archbishop in the Armenian church and defender of the pure Armenian language. He believed that modernization of the language was losing its depth of meaning. Of course his defense of the classic Armenian language lost. Modern philology may well turn out to be justifying the loss of meaning in language. Progress
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by -1- »

Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:30 pm My great great granduncle was an archbishop in the Armenian church and defender of the pure Armenian language. He believed that modernization of the language was losing its depth of meaning. Of course his defense of the classic Armenian language lost. Modern philology may well turn out to be justifying the loss of meaning in language. Progress
??? I don't understand what you say. There is no meaning in it. Are you perchance speaking (writing) in modern English in the quote? so it seems... ah, then makes perfect sense now why you don't communicate. Try ancient Armenian. We on these forums will be instantly your captive audience.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Nick_A »

-1- wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:45 pm
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:30 pm My great great granduncle was an archbishop in the Armenian church and defender of the pure Armenian language. He believed that modernization of the language was losing its depth of meaning. Of course his defense of the classic Armenian language lost. Modern philology may well turn out to be justifying the loss of meaning in language. Progress
??? I don't understand what you say. There is no meaning in it. Are you perchance speaking (writing) in modern English in the quote? so it seems... ah, then makes perfect sense now why you don't communicate. Try ancient Armenian. We on these forums will be instantly your captive audience.
You'll never make it in philology. If you think ancient Armenian is insulting, try ancient Hebrew and the meanings of letters along with the many different words to express God. Stick with secular spirituality. It will feel good and you won't have to concern yourself with depth of meaning.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Greta »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:41 am
Greta wrote: Conde, I have made clear what I see as secular spirituality. I would rather not have the Wiki article attributed to me - I happen to have my own mind which means that my version of secular spirituality does not coincide with Wikipedia's.

Why are you attributing things I haven't said to me? Why try to undermine my position with things I haven't said? Why not address what I did actually say?
Greta, as Marjoram_blues seems to have noticed (since I've stated it repeatedly) I have chosen to focus on the Wikipedia article. And I've just stated above that I'm not saying what Greta believes or should believe, but yet you come back to complain about it. I know my English is not top notch, but I think I've done enough to make myself be understood. So I must suspect you're just upset that I'm not being enthusiastic about affiliating to any version of "secular spirituality", just because you do embrace something that fits that label.
No, I'm irritated by your attempts to undermine my, and others', positions with false association between what we consider to be secular spirituality and new age pseudoscience. Suddenly, regardless of how we personally feel about those things, we are associated by you with crystals, homoeopathy, etc, which is absolutely not the case.

You need to believe me when I say that I truly do not care about your enthusiasm for the concept. In fact, knowing what I do about you, I would have been shocked if you'd been supportive. What I didn't expect were the persistent undermining false associations, as if Marj had endorsed every part of the Wiki article as if it was her holy book rather than just a reference to provide a starting point for conversations.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by -1- »

Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:00 pm
-1- wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:45 pm
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:30 pm My great great granduncle was an archbishop in the Armenian church and defender of the pure Armenian language. He believed that modernization of the language was losing its depth of meaning. Of course his defense of the classic Armenian language lost. Modern philology may well turn out to be justifying the loss of meaning in language. Progress
??? I don't understand what you say. There is no meaning in it. Are you perchance speaking (writing) in modern English in the quote? so it seems... ah, then makes perfect sense now why you don't communicate. Try ancient Armenian. We on these forums will be instantly your captive audience.
You'll never make it in philology. If you think ancient Armenian is insulting, try ancient Hebrew and the meanings of letters along with the many different words to express God. Stick with secular spirituality. It will feel good and you won't have to concern yourself with depth of meaning.
Obviously you haven't passed SARC101.

Secularity has its perks, too. Spiritual wisdom is not all that it's cracked up to be. For instance, there is not one joke in the bible. Either testaments. I could fix that, but hey, I don't want to be crucified. (Jesus fixed the old testament, hence my extrapolation and prophesy.)

You know, NA, you are not the only one who can see the future. I predict that if I jump off a really high cliff, higher than 100 yards in drop, then I'll die.

How is that for a really accurate prediction. Jesus never came up with ANYTHING so accurate.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Greta »

-1- wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:55 pmFor instance, there is not one joke in the bible.
There may be many jokes in there for all we know, in which case people could be living by the tenets of ancient satire :)
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by -1- »

Greta wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:21 am
-1- wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:55 pmFor instance, there is not one joke in the bible.
There may be many jokes in there for all we know, in which case people could be living by the tenets of ancient satire :)
I'm sorry, Greta, but I trust myself to laugh when something is funny. The Bible has not one funny line.

This is important. To me a joke is something that is funny, that you laugh at. To many others, not to all, but to many, a joke can be either something funny or else a prank, a practical joke, that has no humour value, only a the value of feeling superior by easily fooling a lot of people (or some people). My brother is a prankster, while he also has a sense of humour. I see no value in pranks. It is easily done, it is not an achievement in and by itself, and it is mostly ugly. It hurts people, that's its value. I don't condone that.

I see your point, and I appreciate it, that the Bible is a prank, or could have been created to be such, but it's not a joke, it has no humour in it.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Nick_A »

-1- wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:29 am
Greta wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:21 am
-1- wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:55 pmFor instance, there is not one joke in the bible.
There may be many jokes in there for all we know, in which case people could be living by the tenets of ancient satire :)
I'm sorry, Greta, but I trust myself to laugh when something is funny. The Bible has not one funny line.

This is important. To me a joke is something that is funny, that you laugh at. To many others, not to all, but to many, a joke can be either something funny or else a prank, a practical joke, that has no humour value, only a the value of feeling superior by easily fooling a lot of people (or some people). My brother is a prankster, while he also has a sense of humour. I see no value in pranks. It is easily done, it is not an achievement in and by itself, and it is mostly ugly. It hurts people, that's its value. I don't condone that.

I see your point, and I appreciate it, that the Bible is a prank, or could have been created to be such, but it's not a joke, it has no humour in it.
If you understood why Jesus didn't laugh you would understand a great deal.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by -1- »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:31 am
-1- wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:29 am
Greta wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:21 am
There may be many jokes in there for all we know, in which case people could be living by the tenets of ancient satire :)
I'm sorry, Greta, but I trust myself to laugh when something is funny. The Bible has not one funny line.

This is important. To me a joke is something that is funny, that you laugh at. To many others, not to all, but to many, a joke can be either something funny or else a prank, a practical joke, that has no humour value, only a the value of feeling superior by easily fooling a lot of people (or some people). My brother is a prankster, while he also has a sense of humour. I see no value in pranks. It is easily done, it is not an achievement in and by itself, and it is mostly ugly. It hurts people, that's its value. I don't condone that.

I see your point, and I appreciate it, that the Bible is a prank, or could have been created to be such, but it's not a joke, it has no humour in it.
If you understood why Jesus didn't laugh you would understand a great deal.
If I understood a lot more things than I do now, then indeed I'd understand more than I do now.

Thank you for this valuable insight, Nick_A.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Greta wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:45 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:41 am Greta, as Marjoram_blues seems to have noticed (since I've stated it repeatedly) I have chosen to focus on the Wikipedia article. And I've just stated above that I'm not saying what Greta believes or should believe, but yet you come back to complain about it. I know my English is not top notch, but I think I've done enough to make myself be understood. So I must suspect you're just upset that I'm not being enthusiastic about affiliating to any version of "secular spirituality", just because you do embrace something that fits that label.
No, I'm irritated by your attempts to undermine my, and others', positions with false association between what we consider to be secular spirituality and new age pseudoscience. Suddenly, regardless of how we personally feel about those things, we are associated by you with crystals, homoeopathy, etc, which is absolutely not the case.
That's evidently false, because I've made no associations between any statement of yours or anyone else in this forum and new age or pseudoscience. Again, I've been very specific about the Wikipedia article. I've complained about the article for being elusive of materialism and for openly advocating yoga and meditation as healing practices and all the usual pseudoscience that surrounds these subjects. That's it. You cannot provide any statements where I have made associations with crystals, homeopathy, etc., outside of the Wiki article, so you don't need to feel alluded if it's true that you don't support the Wiki article.
Greta wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:45 pm You need to believe me when I say that I truly do not care about your enthusiasm for the concept.
That's fine for me, unfortunately you don't walk the talk, so you keep coming back to me to complain about "attempts to undermine" a concept that you endorse, even though I haven't made references to your beliefs. People can believe whatever they want. If they bring those beliefs to a forum, they might expect that they'll be debated, but again, if you don't believe what's in the Wiki article, there's no reason to feel alluded.
Greta wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:45 pm In fact, knowing what I do about you, I would have been shocked if you'd been supportive. What I didn't expect were the persistent undermining false associations, as if Marj had endorsed every part of the Wiki article as if it was her holy book rather than just a reference to provide a starting point for conversations.
I've said it and will say it again loudly: I don't like the bloody Wiki article. It's my prerogative. If you want to support part of it or all of it, it's your legitimate choice, but I don't have to amend my opinion, so that your particular position stays untarnished. I have not associated the article with you, but I do see a persistent effort from your part to be associated with my criticism. That's not my fault.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Dubious »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:31 am If you understood why Jesus didn't laugh you would understand a great deal.
Just because it isn't stated explicitly in the bible doesn't mean he didn't laugh. If he didn't he could never have been as charismatic as he presumably was and unlikely to have the following he had. Can you understand that?
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by marjoram_blues »

fooloso4 wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:49 pm marjoram_blues:
It's 'Plato - the Collected Dialogues, including the Letters', edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntingdon Cairns. But where to start ? The Introduction, then the Phaedrus ?
I’d skip the introduction. The Phaedrus is a good place to start. It is a rich and varied dialogues whose outward simplicity belies its depth. Translation can be a problem. The impression that Plato is old-fashioned usually has to do with old-fashioned translation. Try to look past that.

A central issue of the dialogue is on reading and writing. Paying careful attention to it, is a key for how to read Plato (but of course not only Plato). The dialogues are written as carefully composed wholes and should be read as such. He uses the analogy of an animal where each part has a function and all work together as a whole.

In line with Plato’s dialogic form I think it most appropriate to read the dialogues in dialogue with others. In that spirit perhaps you will start a topic once you have gotten underway of finished the dialogue.
Thank you again for help and suggestions. I understand that it would be appropriate and useful to read the Phaedrus with others - or even listen to it. The wiki article provides links to free resources, at very end.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedrus_(dialogue)

So, another thread perhaps...
We'll see...
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Nick_A »

Dubious wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:04 am
Nick_A wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:31 am If you understood why Jesus didn't laugh you would understand a great deal.
Just because it isn't stated explicitly in the bible doesn't mean he didn't laugh. If he didn't he could never have been as charismatic as he presumably was and unlikely to have the following he had. Can you understand that?
I do understand that you are too caught up with superficial arguments to experience that the New Testament contains levels of understanding to correspond to where a person's understanding is at the time. You are closed to the idea of relative qualities of forces and their function. A person with normal curiosity will wonder why some dropped everything to follow Jesus while others wanted to kill him? You call it charisma and that answer satisfies you. Not everyone is content with this answer.
fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by fooloso4 »

-1-:
I have a huge problem with Greek words. Everyone insists they mean somewhat different form words we have in the English language.
Two quick comments. First, the problem is not limited to translation. Consider the term ‘spirituality’ and how much effort has gone into clarifying what it does and does not mean as it is being used here. Second, it is not just Greek words. It is a fundamental problem of translation in any language. It is often the case that there is not a one to one correspondence between words. Each word has its own history. Meaning is not static. Words come to mean different things over time. Philosophers are notorious for using common words in a new way.

marjoram_blues:
The wiki article provides links to free resources, at very end.


I highly recommend that you read the introduction to Charles Griswold’s “Self-Knowledge in Plato’s Phaedrus”, available free if you look it up on Amazon and click on “Look inside”.
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by marjoram_blues »

fooloso4 wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:10 pm
I highly recommend that you read the introduction to Charles Griswold’s “Self-Knowledge in Plato’s Phaedrus”, available free if you look it up on Amazon and click on “Look inside”.
OK. Will do. Thanks.
Post Reply