With deeper reflective thinking, I believe the idea of "spirituality" and its ultimate root cause manifest from an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis driven by an evolutionary default, i.e.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 12:52 pmA 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.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 7:25 am 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.
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.
- 1. All humans are evolved with a neural algorithm that triggers terrible primal fears upon any threat of impending potential death, this is to facilitate the basic survival of the individuals, groups and the human species.
2. For good reasons, only humans are endowed with a reasonable self-awareness.
3. Unfortunately, all humans are self-aware of the threat of certainty of mortality [death]; this triggers 1, i.e. constant terrible primal fears.
4. To ensure basic survival, humans are also evolved with inhibitors to modulate the arising fears from 3.
5. But the inhibitors are not fully effective and there is leakage within the subconscious manifesting as inherent unavoidable existential angsts.
It is likely this "internal struggle" existential crisis had been going on for hundreds of thousands of years via animism, paganism, primitive and modern religions and it is only relatively lately that the word 'spirituality' was coined to represent this internal struggle and its various actions.
Fortunately for humans, the unavoidable existential angsts could be suppressed immediately with beliefs with animism, paganism, primitive and modern religions, e.g. just believe in an independent supreme entity and viola salvation is promised which soothed the existential angsts.
I believe this same independence is extended to realists [philosophical] as driven by the existential angsts manifested in language.
This "internal struggle" of an existential crisis is generic for all humans, thus this is why even atheism has claimed for 'spirituality'. Btw, Buddhism is an atheistic religion, so are the Jains and some others.
As such, I hypothesize, the ultimate root cause of 'spirituality' is linked to the inherent unvoidable existential crisis and its related existential angsts related to inevitable mortality.
I believe when we review Hadot's and the ancient spiritual exercises, the greater weight is those related to dealing with 'death'. This is the same with all religions either via soteriological beliefs, "spirituality" or modulating the existential angsts as in Buddhism.
Spirituality in this case is negative i.e. to mitigate the inherent potential terrible primal fears and angsts.
On the other hand, philosophy per se [as a way of life (total)] is "positive" i.e. proactive in moving forward with 'spirituality' [partial] as its subset.
I believe both philosophy and its subset spirituality are grounded within the inner life.
Your views on the above?