How Can P-Realists Understand Anti-Realism?

[Angelo Cannata]

And yet you know what I am referring to.

I don’t think I know: I cannot refer to independent reality, because, as soon as I try to think of it, I see that I am automatically conditioning my concept of it. I think that what I can refer to is only the illusion of being able to refer to independent reality. As a consequence, I think that all the same happens to other people as well.

You're taking language rather literally. That it recreates what it talks about rather than points.

I don’t think that language is able to create or recreate anything. I think that language, like reality, is another thing we try to talk about, but totally conditioned by our perspective. When we say that a word points to something, we are painting a picture, we paint the word, we paint the something that the word refers to, so that everything, that is, the word, what the word is talking about, the whole structure of how the word means something, all of this is conditioned by our perception, mentality, perspective. Otherwise I would be building a metaphysics of how language works in relation to reality and we would be again back to square one.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And yet you know what I am referring to.

I don’t think I know: I cannot refer to independent reality, because, as soon as I try to think of it, I see that I am automatically conditioning my concept of it. I think that what I can refer to is only the illusion of being able to refer to independent reality. As a consequence, I think that all the same happens to other people as well.

You're taking language rather literally. That it recreates what it talks about rather than points.

I don’t think that language is able to create or recreate anything. I think that language, like reality, is another thing we try to talk about, but totally conditioned by our perspective. When we say that a word points to something, we are painting a picture, we paint the word, we paint the something that the word refers to, so that everything, that is, the word, what the word is talking about, the whole structure of how the word means something, all of this is conditioned by our perception, mentality, perspective. Otherwise I would be building a metaphysics of how language works in relation to reality and we would be again back to square one.

I agree with your above points but I believe there are more deeper elements to it.

Curious? What is the basis of your philosophy reference [if any] to your views.

Mine is based on
1. Kant's Copernican Revolution [suspend judgment on triggers of p-realism]
2. Pyrrohonian skepticism [suspend judgment on triggers of p-realism]
3. Buddhist skepticism [suspend judgment on triggers of p-realism]
3. Scientific Anti-Realism
4. Constructivism
5. Rationality and critical thinking.

I accept relative [regulative] empirical mind-independence but not absolute [constitutive] transcendental metaphysical mind-independence [philosophical realism] which can lead to dangerous ideologies.

My ANTI- view is, p-realism is triggered by an inherent evolutionary default of externalness [body independence] that is necessary for basic survival; ex nihilo nihil fit, a cracking sound among the bushes MUST be by a hidden prowling sable-toothed tiger, this instinct is adaptive an inherent in all humans.
Unfortunately [perhaps necessary], upon an emergence of an existential crisis from self-awareness this basic instinct is turned to be an ideology that has evil potential and hindrance to humanity's progress in the longer run.

ANTI-p_realism [re above listing] from reflective thinking need to be the trend towards the future to facilitate greater progress within humanity.

[Angelo Cannata]

What is the basis of your philosophy reference [if any] to your views.

My philosophy reference is 99% Gianni Vattimo's "weak thought".

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is the basis of your philosophy reference [if any] to your views.

My philosophy reference is 99% Gianni Vattimo's "weak thought".

Noted.
There are many types of antirealism which is against [ANTI] the absolute mind-independence realism [philosophical].
I had a glance at "Weak Thoughts" which [..I interpret] is a form and grounded on the basic principles antirealism via Gadamer, Heidegger, Nietzsche [whose fundamental philosophy I agree with] and others.
However, I don't have a common interests where Vattimo veered into Marxism [pure or otherwise].

[Angelo Cannata]

... whose fundamental philosophy I agree with...

Have you ever thought of making a group with those who, more or less, follow your orientation?

[Veritas Aequitas]

... whose fundamental philosophy I agree with...

Have you ever thought of making a group with those who, more or less, follow your orientation?

You are one of the very rare one I have come across in Phil-Now where we share[?] the fundamentals of anti-realism.

I am not sure it will be that fruitful for me if I were to discuss with 'birds of feather' [an added positive if there were more of those who think alike fundamentally] in contrast to be being in a crocodile-pit like here.
The few anti-realists who appeared never lasted long in here in the presence of long fangs.

My interest in this forum is not to seek agreement but rather than having a very selfish interest in expanding my philosophical database and refreshing on existing philosophical views.
My wish is those who disagree with me will continue, so that will enable me to use the disagreement as a leverage and motivation to research deeper and wider.

Earlier I only had files on ethics in my Kant-folder, but after fighting with the 'crocs' here, I now have 1785 files [some duplications] in 109 folders in my non-Kantian Morality-Ethics folder.
I have also raised more than 300 threads in the Ethical Theory section acting as a Biblio for my project.

[Angelo Cannata]

My wish is those who disagree with me will continue, so that will enable me to use the disagreement as a leverage and motivation to research deeper and wider.

I agree, I can say as well that I have deepened my ideas thanks to those who criticised them. But this doesn't help so much in exploring what comes next.
If we assume that anti-realism can be considered a progress forward, a step forward, compared to realism, I wouldn't like to spend the rest of my life stuck in debating my position with those who disagree. I want to explore what comes next my position, what is a step forward after anti-realism.

Obviously, we can debate if anti-realism is a progress or a regress compared to realism. I consider it a step forward because it welcomes much more criticism than realism does.
After that, I want to criticize further my anti-realism, to see what some next headway can be. In this perspective, debating with realists is not the best stimulation I can get.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My wish is those who disagree with me will continue, so that will enable me to use the disagreement as a leverage and motivation to research deeper and wider.

I agree, I can say as well that I have deepened my ideas thanks to those who criticised them. But this doesn't help so much in exploring what comes next.
If we assume that anti-realism can be considered a progress forward, a step forward, compared to realism, I wouldn't like to spend the rest of my life stuck in debating my position with those who disagree. I want to explore what comes next my position, what is a step forward after anti-realism.

Obviously, we can debate if anti-realism is a progress or a regress compared to realism. I consider it a step forward because it welcomes much more criticism than realism does.
After that, I want to criticize further my anti-realism, to see what some next headway can be. In this perspective, debating with realists is not the best stimulation I can get.

Being from the East, my initial background is Buddhism [ultimately antirealism] which provide
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
that enable one to translate philosophical theory to actions effectively via iterations and continuous improvements.

Buddhism's focus is more on practice.
Discussion on realism vs antirealism [the fundamental of almost all philosophical issues] provide a systematic understanding of the theory re Know Thyself or the 1st of the Buddhist's 8 Fold Path, the Right View [understanding, knowledge, epistemology].

In addition, the philosophical exploration could provide the opportunity for us to contribute to the philosophical advancement of humanity.

Btw, any comment on this:
PH [realist]: Question: from what perspective can it be known and asserted that knowledge and assertions must be perspectival? (How to eat your cake and still have it!)
viewtopic.php?p=685149#p685149

[FlashDangerpants]

Just sitting here waiting to see how long it takes this Angelo guy to spot the red flags VA is throwing his way.

[Angelo Cannata]

my initial background is Buddhism

I appreciate Buddhism, but, despite my essential interest in spirituality, I haven't had enough time to know it deeply. Based on my shallow knowledge of it, I have perceived that it doesn’t escape my suspicions that arise whenever I sense traces of metaphysics, established concepts, truths. An essential thing is its idea that our concept of being “I”, being a personal identity, a self, should be replaced by a conception where there are no defined identities, but we are all aspects of a whole unity. This sounds metaphysical to me, as well as any strong concept of the self. This way I perceive that Buddhism criticizes a strong concepts of the self, that is a metaphysical concept of the self, but it replaces this metaphysics just with another metaphysics, the moment it claims that there is no such thing as a strong self.

I find this problem in all spiritualities and religions. I have referred to this inescapable alternative of them in a recent post of mine on another forum.

This makes me think that we need to build a new spirituality based on the deep awareness of anti-realism that philosophy is able to give us, since essentially all spiritualities and religions fail exactly on this point. So, this is what I see in the current situation in the world: spiritualities and religions have not explored deeply the problems of metaphysics, realism, truth and similar things, because philosophy is not their speciality. On the other side, philosophy lacks the depth of spirituality, despite being born as a spirituality (as Pierre Hadot has shown us). As a result, spiritualities and religions have grown up as deep and serious experiences, but they look naive when we see how they fall into the problems of metaphysics. Philosophy has grown up as reasoning, while loosing, over the centuries, its spiritual depth; it has developed, obviously, much more and deeper awareness about the problems of metaphysics, but it hasn’t been able to go very forward yet. It has got lost in the confusion between continental and analytical philosophy (the latter seems to me just another metaphysics). In this context I think that now the way is this one, getting the best from both fields: I think we have to put together the depth of spirituality and the clever and critical anti-realism of philosophy, to build something that should be, at the same time, 1) cleverly critical and 2) deeply connected to the human daily experience of life.

[Dr Jonathan Österman]

Whenever P-realists encounter proposals by anti-realists, their first reaction is to condemn the antirealists' views as complete nonsense and in other derogatory terms.

Discuss?? Views??

Why philosophy of Idealism is counter-intuitive?
By Dr. Jonathan Österman, Ph.D., ETH Zürich, Switzerland

The view of the philosophy of Idealism is counter-intuitive to most people, and even to most philosophers.

It is not my intention to try and convert anyone to the philosophy of Idealism.

Many educated people, and many scientists who have educated these people, naturally hold the view of scientific materialism, which believes that “mind” is simply another way of saying that “brain thinks”, and that “consciousness”, as something separate from brain, simply does not exist in any other way than being an illusion that we all naturally experience and deeply believe in. And therefore, there is no such thing as “free will” either, our apparent “free will” being another associated illusion. Emergence of life was an accident, and our Universe is essentially meaningless.

OK, fine. If you like this view, then be happy with it. It does not bother me a bit, as a philosophical Idealist that I am. I think your view is naive and philosophically childish, and you think that my view is clearly and obviously wrong, to say the least. We agree to respectfully disagree.

Dr. David Chalmers PhD wrote:

” When I was in graduate school, I recall hearing: “One starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an Idealist”. I don’t know where this comes from, but I think the idea was something like this. First, one is impressed by the successes of science, endorsing materialism about everything and so about the mind. Second, one is moved by problem of consciousness to see a gap between physics and consciousness, thereby endorsing dualism, where both matter and consciousness are fundamental. Third, one is moved by the inscrutability of matter to realize that science reveals at most the structure of matter and not its underlying nature, and to speculate that this nature may involve consciousness, thereby endorsing panpsychism. Fourth, one comes to think that there is little reason to believe in anything beyond consciousness and that the physical world is wholly constituted by consciousness, thereby endorsing Idealism.”

Well, then, in a spirit of open-minded curiosity, let me ask you the following question, and let us know your answer, please.

My question pertains to the physical materialistic explanation of the mechanism (process) of sensory perception.

For the sake of simplicity, let’s consider the process of seeing only, because our sense of sight is dominant in our human experience.

THE PHYSICAL MATERIALISTIC EXPLANATION OF OUR EXPERIENCE OF SEEING:

Please, correct me if I am wrong, the long story short, photons hit the bottom of our eyes, as a result of it electric signals are being sent from eyes along the optic nerve to the visual cortex. The visual cortex, somehow, manages to do a very complex processing of these electric signals, and the end result of this processing is us seeing the external physical reality, OUT THERE.

The external physical reality OUT THERE, as opposed to the internal physical reality IN HERE, meaning inside the visual cortex, where our seeing happens, and our internal experience of this seeing (a produced image of reality), according to the scientific materialism, can’t be happening anywhere else than inside our visual cortex, similar to us being able to see our night dreams inside our sleeping brain.

So, how does it work in scientific detail ?

How exactly does it happen, according to mainstream physics, that we can see OUTSIDE of our brains also, and not exclusively INSIDE our brains?

Because the scientific fact is that we all see the external physical reality where it really is, OUT THERE, outside of our visual cortex exclusively, and never inside of it, like when we are sleeping?

Is it a wrong, or stupid, question?

Is it only me, who makes a problem of something obvious that is not a problem at all?

Well, I am not alone. Misery loves company!

William P. Byers, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Statistics wrote the following:

“ It is certainly conceivable that the clarity we perceive in the external world is something we bring to the world, not something that is there independent of us. The clarity of the natural world is a metaphysical belief that we unconsciously impose on the situation. We consider it to be obvious that the natural world is something exterior of us and independent of our thoughts and sense impressions; we believe in a mind-independent reality. Paradoxically, we do not recognize that the belief in a mind-independent reality is itself mind-dependent. Logically, we cannot work our way free of the bubble we live in, which consists of all of our sense impression and thoughts. The pristine world of clarity, the natural external world independent of the observer, is merely a hypothesis that cannot, even in principle, ever be verified. To say that the natural world is ambiguous is to highlight this assumption. It is to emphasize that the feeling that there is a natural world ‘out there’ that is the same for all people at all times, is an assumption that is not self-evident. This is not to embrace a kind of solipsism and to deny the reality of the world. It is to emphasize that the natural external world is intimately intertwined with the internal world of the mind.”

[Veritas Aequitas]

my initial background is Buddhism

I appreciate Buddhism, but, despite my essential interest in spirituality, I haven't had enough time to know it deeply. Based on my shallow knowledge of it, I have perceived that it doesn’t escape my suspicions that arise whenever I sense traces of metaphysics, established concepts, truths. An essential thing is its idea that our concept of being “I”, being a personal identity, a self, should be replaced by a conception where there are no defined identities, but we are all aspects of a whole unity. This sounds metaphysical to me, as well as any strong concept of the self. This way I perceive that Buddhism criticizes a strong concepts of the self, that is a metaphysical concept of the self, but it replaces this metaphysics just with another metaphysics, the moment it claims that there is no such thing as a strong self.

Prior to Buddhism-proper I was into hindu Advaita Vedanta with its metaphysical ultimate 'something', i.e. Brahman. Buddhism-proper [no thing at all] is a 180 degree paradigm shift from Brahman as some ultimate 'thing'.

Buddhism is very flexible, the Buddha [from his experiences and insights] understood the variations in human nature and therefrom he provided a teaching that cater to all from the crudest beliefs and practices to the most refined enlightenment of engagement yet indifference.
This is why you will find lay-Buddhists praying with joss-sticks and offerings to statues and idol of 'Buddha' but that is ultimately not a spiritual principle of Buddhism-proper; the temple authorities do not complain because they understand these are the best what the lay-Buddhists can do.
The Pure Land Sects has something like Christianity, i.e. just believe and salvation is promised.

At some levels, some Buddhists do replace the "I" [anatta] with something that is metaphysical in alignment to the limit of their spirituality. Their 'nothing_ness' is still 'something' [metaphysical] as you stated above.
This is the seduction and entrapment of p-realism ideologized from a very necessary evolutionary default [instinct] that led them to be delusional; albeit a useful illusion to soothe the inevitable cognitive dissonances arising from an existential crisis.

As Kant warned:

• "Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
  After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error;
  but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him." CPR B397

But Buddhism-proper [too advanced for the present majority] as intended by the Buddha at the highest sense, ignore and is indifferent [practical (not radical) skepticism] to any 'something' as in the tetralemma;

• 1. P
  2. Not-P
  3. Both P and Not-P
  4. Neither of the above

All the above must be adopted at the same time but different sense within the right circumstances and conditions.

This ultimate state 4 is reflected in the spiritual journey of the 10 stages re the 10-Bulls Story;

• 10. Return to Society
  Barefooted and naked of breast,
  I mingle with the people of the world.
  My clothes are ragged and dust-laden,
  and I am ever blissful.
  I use no magic to extend my life;
  Now, before me, the dead trees
  become alive

The point is, despite fully enlightened spiritually, his outward behavior is just like any ordinary person [mingling with people of the world] but the inside of his brain is highly developed spiritually whilst optimizing with the current environments and its constraints.

Thus the common phrase re enlightenment;
"Chop wood, carry water"

I find this problem in all spiritualities and religions. I have referred to this inescapable alternative of them in a recent post of mine on another forum.

That is true with most spiritualities and religions but Buddhism-proper is one exception [there could be others which I had not delved into seriously].

This makes me think that we need to build a new spirituality based on the deep awareness of anti-realism that philosophy is able to give us, since essentially all spiritualities and religions fail exactly on this point.
So, this is what I see in the current situation in the world: spiritualities and religions have not explored deeply the problems of metaphysics, realism, truth and similar things, because philosophy is not their speciality.
On the other side, philosophy lacks the depth of spirituality, despite being born as a spirituality (as Pierre Hadot has shown us).
As a result, spiritualities and religions have grown up as deep and serious experiences, but they look naive when we see how they fall into the problems of metaphysics.
Philosophy has grown up as reasoning, while loosing, over the centuries, its spiritual depth; it has developed, obviously, much more and deeper awareness about the problems of metaphysics, but it hasn’t been able to go very forward yet.
It has got lost in the confusion between continental and analytical philosophy (the latter seems to me just another metaphysics).
In this context I think that now the way is this one, getting the best from both fields:
I think we have to put together the depth of spirituality and the clever and critical anti-realism of philosophy, to build something that should be, at the same time, 1) cleverly critical and 2) deeply connected to the human daily experience of life.

Yes, philosophy has been bastardized via Academic Philosophy whilst some religions are laden with evil [e.g. the so-claimed religion of peace].
I believe humanity need to get into alignment which is philosophy-proper.
Philosophy-proper aligns with the intuitive natural 'love of wisdom' that need to be complemented with rational and critical thinking in striving for the continual optimal well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity.

While Buddhism proper is not highly organized, systematic and formal in its theories and philosophies, its contents are as highly sophisticated as the best philosophy at present.
But the Noble 8 Fold path's ultimate efficiency is the actual rewiring the neural algorithms in the brain towards higher spiritual developments.
This is achieved through its meditative techniques re Right concentration [Samarta] and Right mindfulness [Vispassana] done optimally via the Black-box approach with allowance to get into the Black-box [brain] when the sciences and technologies are up to it.

I am familiar with Piere Hadot's 'philosophy is a way of life'.
However to be effective, a Spirituality or Philosophy set need to cover both
1. theories & philosophies [complete and systematic] and
2. optimal practices that directly rewire the neural connectivity in the brain for the better - optimally on a continuous improvement [enhancement] basis.

Does your proposed new spirituality cover 2 above?

[Angelo Cannata]

Does your proposed new spirituality cover 2 above?

The thing that, in several conversations, I and other people refer to as "my spirituality" is actually spirituality as such. There is a lot of confusion today about what spirituality is. I have written an article entitled "What is spirituality?". It is freely available in several repositories, such as Zenodo, for example. In my research I have found that the best definition of spirituality is "inner life". This definition is discussed in detail in my article. As such, spirituality, defined as "inner life", includes all spiritualities, religions and even art. As a consequence, in doesn’t lack anything, because it embraces all spiritualities, the same way the word "music" includes all kinds of music.
Despite that, spirituality as such can be considered itself a perspective. From a critical point of view, even most general concepts, such as "music" or "maths", are just perspectives on what they talk about. This makes possible to experience spirituality as such as a specific experience that can be cultivated even as a way of life. In this context, spirituality as such is not an organization on beliefs into one system, one cocktail, the same way music is not a new style of music that melts together all kinds of music. Spirituality as such considers, studies and appreciates all particular spiritualities and cultivates its own study, its own path, that is about what is common to all spiritualities, which is, according to the best definition I have found, "inner life". This way, spirituality as such is able to be a personal path, a personal way of life, the same way anybody can dedicate themselves, including their emotions, their body, their whole life, being, existence, to music as such. This makes possible to "visit" any particular spirituality, the same way a musicologist can dedicate some time to the study and practice of violin or of Beethoven's music.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Does your proposed new spirituality cover 2 above?

The thing that, in several conversations, I and other people refer to as "my spirituality" is actually spirituality as such. There is a lot of confusion today about what spirituality is. I have written an article entitled "What is spirituality?". It is freely available in several repositories, such as Zenodo, for example. In my research I have found that the best definition of spirituality is "inner life". This definition is discussed in detail in my article. As such, spirituality, defined as "inner life", includes all spiritualities, religions and even art. As a consequence, in doesn’t lack anything, because it embraces all spiritualities, the same way the word "music" includes all kinds of music.
Despite that, spirituality as such can be considered itself a perspective. From a critical point of view, even most general concepts, such as "music" or "maths", are just perspectives on what they talk about. This makes possible to experience spirituality as such as a specific experience that can be cultivated even as a way of life. In this context, spirituality as such is not an organization on beliefs into one system, one cocktail, the same way music is not a new style of music that melts together all kinds of music. Spirituality as such considers, studies and appreciates all particular spiritualities and cultivates its own study, its own path, that is about what is common to all spiritualities, which is, according to the best definition I have found, "inner life". This way, spirituality as such is able to be a personal path, a personal way of life, the same way anybody can dedicate themselves, including their emotions, their body, their whole life, being, existence, to music as such. This makes possible to "visit" any particular spirituality, the same way a musicologist can dedicate some time to the study and practice of violin or of Beethoven's music.

Actually I don't fancy [rarely use prefer to avoid it] the term 'spirituality' because it is too loose.
I went along with you since you used the term but I was relating it with religion plus mental developments of the whole self.

Since there is no absolute meaning to any word, I believe the precise definition and context used is critical.

Spirituality as "inner life" may be more acceptable since that would dissociate spirituality from its very common association with religion and spirits.
But then "inner life" would also be a very wide term but I think it is critical to complement 'inner' with 'outer' life.

In any case, any discussion of "inner life" [or if spirituality] need to be discussed with its specified context.

I did a refresher on Hadot's Spiritual Exercises;

5. Spiritual Practices
a. Askesis of Desire
b. Premeditation of Death and Evils
c. Concentration on the Present Moment
d. The View from Above
e. Writing as Hypomnemata, and The Inner Citadel

a. Askesis of Desire
For Hadot, famously, the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises.
These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research.
However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition:
practices of attention (prosoche),
meditations (meletai),
memorizations of dogmata,
self-mastery (enkrateia),
the therapy of the passions,
the remembrance of good things,
the accomplishment of duties, and
the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things (PWL 84).
https://iep.utm.edu/hadot/#H5

The above are all covered within Buddhism-proper.

Note this claim;
Thomas McEvilley on Ancient Greek and Indian philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXBygl-ox5Q&t=62s
Thomas McEvilley speaks about Ancient Greek and Indian philosophy, and their co-mingling in his book: 'The Shape of Ancient Thought'.

“Ancient Greece, Rome were civilised by India.” Jeffrey Armstrong | Vedic Vidya | Indian history
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_48of2bcHbM

It is likely that Buddhist & Hindu philosophers had exchanges with Greek Philosophers.

[Angelo Cannata]

Since there is no absolute meaning to any word, I believe the precise definition and context used is critical.

Spirituality as "inner life" may be more acceptable since that would dissociate spirituality from its very common association with religion and spirits.
But then "inner life" would also be a very wide term but I think it is critical to complement 'inner' with 'outer' life.

A problem with the definition of spirituality is that it cannot be expected to be objective, since spirituality is based on subjectivity, the experience of the subject. This means that our idea of spirituality needs to be conceived as something dependent on our today’s culture; we must expect that tomorrow we might have a different definition and idea of spirituality. So, the definition of spirituality has to be considered as something that works for us, today, here.

An essential and useful criterion for a good definition is that it must include the possibility for everybody, in any of their typical activity, not to be excluded from being able to conceive themselves as “spiritual”. Today even atheists claim their ability to have their spirituality. In other words, a definition of spirituality must make impossible to tell anybody “You are not spiritual, what you do is not or doesn’t have spirituality”: this would mean discrimination, racism, marginalization, offence. The consequence of this principle is that, if we have to respect it, “spirituality” must mean something like “everything”; this would mean that spirituality has absolutely no meaning.

However, we instinctively, subjectively, have some feeling that spirituality is not something completely void of any meaning, any identification, it is not “everything”. Then we need to explore what this feeling is, how we can express it. The solution to this difficulty is in the awareness of the flexibility of the meaning of spirituality. The meaning of spirituality is flexible because it is a mix of subjective feelings and, let’s say, more objective critical observations. The idea of “subjective feeling” takes us to the popular perception of spirituality as something that refers to the perception or connection to invisible, even inexpressible, entities, forces, energies. The objective critical observation reminds us that “spirituality” must be able to include those who do not believe in the existence of anything non material.

The definition “inner life” is able to fit all of these requirements exactly because it is extensible, flexible, but, at the same time, from an instinctive point of view, it is not completely vague. The consequence is that those who want to say something rigorous, serious, academical, about spirituality, need everytime to state first some clarifications about what they mean by “spirituality” or “inner life”.

At the same time, those who don’t feel an urgent, serious, need of being precise, can use the expressions “spirituality” or “inner life” without being afraid that they mean absolutely nothing. They have a meaning, people perceive that they have a meaning.