Secular Spirituality

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by -1- »

Add to fooloso4's reply: currently there is a huge wave of political correctness (no, it has not died, it is alive and well and getting more and more monstrously strong) that wishes to embrace and promote females in the philosophical fields. (I applaud the embracing them, but apparently they did not mean it literally... luckily I had a better defense counsel than Plato.)

Another thing that threatens philosophy as a field is, like F4 said, the explanation of old philo questions by modern science. You can look at it the same way as filling the god-gaps. Philosophical polyphilla is threatening the questioning of questionables, because the polyphilla offers actual, concrete answers that render further discussions moot.

A third thing that keeps philosophy at bay is Quantum Physics. QP destroys natural and inalienable intuitive human preconceptions on how logic works in every turn. Law of excluded middle? Out the window by physical manifestation that belies it. (Schrodinger's cat.) Causation on a cause-effect timeline? Again, belied by QP experiments and observations. You can't get there from here, without going through a path? Smashed to smithereens. (Quantum leap of electron clouds in excited states.)

Philosophy is weakened, abused, and tied up with fences and dragged down... I hear a very gentle sound. Put your ear down to the ground. We want the world and we won it! Now... NOW!!
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Greta wrote:Marj and I could not have made it more clear that secular spirituality need have nothing whatsoever to do with pseudoscience. Your response above is very weak, displaying mechanistic thinking and a general lack of comprehension. There is not much point wasting time unless you can lift your game.
Are you making reference to any particular description of "secular spirituality"? Because I do. I made perfectly clear which source of descriptions I'm referring to in my comments, and so I have also restrained myself from advancing any description of what "secular spirituality" ought to be. Unlike you, I have never stated that "secular spirituality" has to do or not with something. I just pointed at a description of "secular spirituality" posted in the OP, made it clear that I would assume it's a correct description and said that as an atheist, humanist and secularist, I could not support such view. Is your definition of "secular spirituality" the same as the one in the link provided in the OP? If so, then for sure I don't embrace your view either, but then you will have to solve the contradiction between that source and the descriptions you are proposing. Perhaps then we will see who's responses are weak and who's lacking comprehension.
Greta wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:Eusociality and sociality might have things in common, just like agency in the paramecium might have something in common with human agency, but humans cannot be reduced to parameciums.
An inappropriate analogy that misses the point. A chimp would have been a better example because the difference between human social structures and those of other other eusocial animals is not great.
Actually you're the one missing the point. The evident fact that humans are very unlike parameciums (an extreme example) and yet have something in common shows that having something in common does not make bees and humans alike. As you well know, there's no support to your view that humans are eusocial or closely related to it: there's not in biological sciences (other than the sole claims of E. O. Wilson), sociological literature, anthropology, or anything with a scientific label on it. It could not be any other way because it doesn't make any sense: in humans, a good part of social behavior is transmitted to future generations with the development of cultural practice, while ants will continue to organize exactly the same as all their previous generations did.
Greta wrote: Or do you think humans operate more like a pride of lions or a herd of gazelle, or like a bacterial colony? Or are they more like an ant or bee colony? We are clearly eusocial - no other model is even remotely close. It is no surprise that, as with everything humans do, we extend on that which other animals do.
No, I don't have to think humans operate like any other species, but the human species.
Greta wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sure, I never doubt diversity is the way the go, but I'm also aware of the ways people can be cheated into believing they are moving forward and immersed in diversity, in other words, fooled by the appearance of difference...
Yes, that can happen. However, not in this case unless you want to suggest that I am a crystal-waving fucktard again.
I don't remember ever suggesting what you are or what you believe in. I said what I don't endorse and you seem to find yourself alluded to.
Greta wrote:No crystals. No homoeopathy. No chakras, aura cleansing, anti-vaxxing, anti-GMO or anti-science. No religion. No nuns, priests, ministers, rabbis or imams. No churches, creeds, cults, or even ideologies. No pseudoscience. Whatsoever.

Conde, do you understand now?
Oh, yes, whatsoever. You forgot to mention yoga and meditation, siblings of the aforementioned crystal-waving fucktardness. In the link provided in the OP it clearly states that:

"In the West, yoga has been "modernized, medicalized, and transformed into a system of physical culture".

Yes, "medicalized", you got that one right. Not like "no pseudoscience. Whatsoever", but pseudoscience in the same line of homeopathy and acupuncture.

And then it says:

Western yoga students cite health, fitness, and stress reduction as reasons for yogic practice,

Just like the striving science of alternative medicine, anti-vaxxing, anti-GMO, etc. But that's nothing compared to its other benefits:

However, many practice in order to reach "contemplative states of consciousness and spirituality", a goal that falls within the realm of secular spirituality


As such, this medicalized, secularized version of meditation has been allowed into secular institutions within Western society, such as hospitals and schools


This just the tip of the iceberg. The entry is full of references to the themes of New Age spirituality. Some of the names cited as authorities are theologians advancing the assimilation of traditional religious doctrines into science.

Do you understand now?
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Greta »

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?

BTW, all species and their modes of organisation are unique to some extent, not just humans. Are we going to claim that zebras don't organise into true harem societies because the females don't stay in related groups like lionesses and elephants? No. There are differences, obviously, but more similarities than differences. Same with humans and other eusocial species.

So if I am supposedly embracing pseudoscience for seeing the connectivity and passion of life to be spirituality then you must be embracing humanity as divine and transcendent of other species. A closet creationist perhaps? :P

However, I am not suggesting that because I like to think we can do better than misrepresenting one another.
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by marjoram_blues »

For a final clarification re the OP and the exploratory nature of this thread:

Most here will have noted the wiki link provided in the OP was the starting point for exploration with a specific interest in the quote by Solomon.
There has been an invaluable sharing of ideas and experience, including other links.

Unfortunately, CL chooses to focus on certain aspects of the wiki content, despite being corrected.

It is fine to be challenged - in the spirit of philosophy.
However, this type of continual misrepresentation is not.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Belinda »

-1- wrote:
currently there is a huge wave of political correctness
If there is a huge wave of feeling and action towards being decent to other people that is good.
You would find that objections to "political correctness" is either lies about or exaggerated reporting of efforts to be nice to others.

It's at best an exaggeration to accuse philosophers of lacking scepticism about the findings of modern science. While many philosophers include works of imagination and exploration such as metaphysical theories, those works are accepted as theories which although reasoned are not empirical . Spinoza himself was a scientist whose interest in optics extended into actually grinding lenses.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Greta »

marjoram_blues wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:57 amUnfortunately, CL chooses to focus on certain aspects of the wiki content, despite being corrected.
A good devil's advocate, but needs to eschew the low hanging fruit :)
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by marjoram_blues »

fooloso4 wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:03 am Marjoram_blues:
How can philosophy self-correct ? The content or syllabus could change…
In my opinion, most importantly, by a recognition of the centrality of what is often derisively called psycholism and lived experience.I am not prone to use the word 'spiritualism' because in order to be understood one must first dig out from the layers of sediment that have accumulated, and even when one has gone through the effort, as some posts here make clear, the term is still obstinately and willfully misunderstood; but having said that, the self-correction can come about through the work of Solomon, Hadot, Nehamas, and others.
MB:
Do you mean 'psychologism' ? I have looked this up and remain unclear as to its meaning.
I have an inkling it might involve a deeper appreciation of human behaviour and psyche; the importance of developing well-being in both mental and physical health.

I agree about the obvious difficulties in using the word 'spirituality' ( not the same as spiritualism).
Indeed, I mentioned near the beginning that I appreciated why Solomon preferred 'naturalized' instead of 'secular' and that it was a pity there was no real alternative to 'spirituality'.
Given the amount of time and energy expended on correcting continual misunderstandings, I will take time out to read Solomon and others.
I am not even sure what is currently studied, or its main focus.
It varies from school to school and even from class to class. As in other fields, some change comes about when the old guard begins to retire, prevailing views are chipped away at but sometimes swept away. The dissenting views of a few gain traction, students become teachers, and their students come to feel much less pressure to defend their views against a waning prevailing view. In philosophy there may be renewed interest in a philosopher or some aspect of his work seen from a new perspective, cross disciplinary work such as neurophilosophy, philosophical biology, and philosophical problems in physics are currently strong.
MB: Yes, it is a slow process to change prevailing views. I note that female philosophers came to the fore during the war when unfortunately the males had to go fight and be killed. I did wonder whether the mention of spirituality might be offputting due to its association with emotions, seen traditionally as being related to females; rationality being the province of males.
Fortunately, attitudes seem to be changing. The 'old guard' of predominantly white males in Western Philosophy being supplemented by other human perspectives.
Is Philosophy really in trouble ?
In some sense I think it is. Narrow specialization, jargon, and an emphasis on unassailable arguments runs counter to the tradition of philosophy seeing the big picture. I don’t think things are dire. There is still interesting work being done. For some idea take a click on “interviews” here: http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/.
....

An interesting case is political philosophy. Important work by political philosophers often does not fit well in the academic culture of either philosophy or political science. At the same time theoretical physics has become more philosophical. It may be that old divisions will come to loose their clear distinctions. Multidisciplinary work is in one sense a narrowing of fields but in another an enlargement.
MB: Thank you for all links and references. Could more of a focus on the practical applications of political philosophy be a way forward. Getting in to the nitty gritty of real life policy and its consequences to supplement the theory. Marcus Aurelius was pretty much hands-on.
Perhaps we need a Philosopher Queen :wink:

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by fooloso4 »

Marjoram_blues:
Do you mean 'psychologism' ?
Yes, typo.
I have looked this up and remain unclear as to its meaning.
I may be easier to understand what is at issue from the perspective of anti-psychologism. Roughly, it claims that logical truths are independent of whatever it is we might think. By extension, psychology is irrelevant to philosophy. Compare this to Socrates characterization of himself as a physician of the soul (psyche - psychology).
I did wonder whether the mention of spirituality might be offputting due to its association with emotions, seen traditionally as being related to females; rationality being the province of males.
See below on Plato’s education of the philosopher.
Could more of a focus on the practical applications of political philosophy be a way forward.
There is an interesting parallel between the Socratic revolution and the focus on science in philosophy today. Socrates turned from the natural philosophy of his predecessors to a concern for the human things, that is to say, political philosophy.

Plato and Aristotle’s answer was not so much a focus on practical applications of political philosophy but rather the political education of aristocratic gentlemen who would become the rulers of the polis.

One thing that should be mentioned in the regard is the relationship between the public and the private. Political education must be based on the politics of the soul. 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”.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Conde Lucanor »

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.

The reason I focused on the Wikipedia article should be obvious. As the starting point of this thread, it's the objective source of information about the topic. Perhaps questionable, unreliable, but it is what we got to start with. If I wanted to discuss whether one should embrace the Catholic faith or not, there are many options to frame the discussion, but the most appropriate one will be the one that looks for a concrete reference, which in that case will be the official positions of the Catholic church. Then one might start to discuss how and why one diverts from this point (which might include different sources of information), mapping the entire spectrum of opinions, in a way that everyone can understand where they stand in relation to each other.
Greta wrote: BTW, all species and their modes of organisation are unique to some extent, not just humans. Are we going to claim that zebras don't organise into true harem societies because the females don't stay in related groups like lionesses and elephants? No. There are differences, obviously, but more similarities than differences. Same with humans and other eusocial species.
The differences might be as important as the similarities, but if one looks only to similarities between two distinct realities in order to approach the problems of one of those realities in terms of the other, one has actually reshaped the problem to reach the results one is looking for. If you're forcing the analogy it might be because you want ants to be the model of how human society should work.
Greta wrote:
So if I am supposedly embracing pseudoscience for seeing the connectivity and passion of life to be spirituality then you must be embracing humanity as divine and transcendent of other species. A closet creationist perhaps? :P
I'm not really sure now what you embrace. Do you see yoga and meditation as part of your "secular spirituality" program?

I don't think other species even have consciousness of their own existence as species.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Conde Lucanor »

marjoram_blues wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:57 am
Unfortunately, CL chooses to focus on certain aspects of the wiki content, despite being corrected.

It is fine to be challenged - in the spirit of philosophy.
However, this type of continual misrepresentation is not.
As noted from the confessions of some participants, they all have done the same, including yourself.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by Belinda »

marjoram_blues wrote: Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:29 pm What is 'Secular Spirituality' ?
Would you agree with the suggestion below that it is 'the ultimate goal of philosophy'?
From wiki:
According to Robert C. Solomon, an American Professor of Philosophy, "spirituality is coextensive with religion and it is not incompatible with or opposed to science or the scientific outlook. Naturalized spirituality is spirituality without any need for the 'other‐worldly'. Spirituality is one of the goals, perhaps the ultimate goal, of philosophy."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_spirituality

If religions are defined as credal institutions then spirituality isn't like religions. Far from being coextensive with religions a man may be spiritual despite some creed, or his spirituality may oppose all authorities that are supported by creeds.

If religions are defined as aids to prayer and aren't credal then a man can be spiritual and religious at the same time . This interpretation of 'religions' would suit the mystics. Religions are not all the same and some of them are largely or partly aimed at social control and not mystical experience of divinity.

Somewhat similarly there are scientists who don't believe that spirituality is anything more than unrefined emotions and wishful thinking, although I gather that scientists are generally better informed than that.

Beyond the experiences of spirituality which are associated with individuals' psyches there are experiences of spirituality which are associated with the collective and its welfare. I doubt if Western religions would suit those collectives at all because of Western religions' propensity to be platforms for imperialistic individuals and demagogues.
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by marjoram_blues »

fooloso4 wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:36 pm
...There is an interesting parallel between the Socratic revolution and the focus on science in philosophy today. Socrates turned from the natural philosophy of his predecessors to a concern for the human things, that is to say, political philosophy.

Plato and Aristotle’s answer was not so much a focus on practical applications of political philosophy but rather the political education of aristocratic gentlemen who would become the rulers of the polis.

One thing that should be mentioned in the regard is the relationship between the public and the private. Political education must be based on the politics of the soul. 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”.
Excellent. Thank you. A lovely final sentence bringing it together.
I have Solomon's book and will take time out for further reading.
It seems, thanks to you and others, that my interest has developed from the general to a more narrow, yet deeper focus. Particularly with regard to the individual psyche; the well-beingness of self, related to society. Philosophy based on theory but put to practical, perhaps psyche therapeutic use. This would include looking at and bringing together relevant elements within psychology and psychiatry.

Previously discussed, the book: 'Spirituality and Narrative in Psychiatric Practice - Stories of Mind and Soul'. Important in listening to and understanding individuals with mental health problems, allowing expression of their spirituality. I have an interest in Anxiety and Depression; how this develops in all age groups and can be managed.

Your mention of Plato reminded me of an extremely massive and heavy book I bought some time ago. It has now been dusted off.
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 ?

Also, I may have to revise my rusty research skills...I'm not so great on taking notes as I read.
Perhaps if I see it as a 'spiritual practice' and reflect in my own good time and space.
It's been a real joy to be so inspired, thanks.
fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by fooloso4 »

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.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by -1- »

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.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Secular Spirituality

Post by -1- »

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.
Post Reply