# What is this "Spirituality" you Earthmen speak of? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2005, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029 "2005-06-27T12:51:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2005, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/321 "2005-07-09T11:01:49Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > What is real must be objective without regard to subjectivity or conventions of thought or language. Existence is itself a convention of human thought. **Lib** , I understand how _existence_ is a subjective convention of human thought, but I’ve never quite grasped why _essence_ is **not**. Could you elaborate? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2005, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/322 "2005-07-09T12:43:34Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > **Lib** , I understand how _existence_ is a subjective convention of human thought, but I’ve never quite grasped why _essence_ is **not**. Could you elaborate? To understand the answer to that question, it is necessary to understand the etymology of the word. “Essentia” was a word coined by confounded Roman philosophers who were baffled when translating Aristotle: specifically, his phrase “to ti ên einai”, literally, “the what [that] it was to be”. A thing’s essence, basically, is its tautological identity, or as Aristotle called it, its “kath’ hauto” (meaning, “in respect of itself”). It is that which a thing — if it is to exist at all — cannot help but be. A thing can have essence _without_ having existence. Take, for example, a unicorn. It does not exist, but if it were to emerge into existence, its essence is already known. In other words, you would recognize a unicorn if you saw one _despite that you never will_. (Important note: Understand that we are not talking about the word “unicorn”, but the thing _unicorn_. This is similar to the differentiation between the numeral “2” and the number _2_.) Another way to put it is that essence is necessary. Underlying all subjective attachments is objective essence. The universe, for example, is essentially a probability distribution. But different creatures and things may or may not attach significance to any or all perceived attributes of it. To a rock, the universe is nothing more than its essence. But to a modern physicalist, the universe is a rich tapestry of existential meaning with enormous potential for discovery. Without essence, existence would be devoid of all context, including subjectivity. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2005, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/323 "2005-07-09T13:58:16Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > \ A thing can have essence _without_ having existence. Take, for example, a unicorn. It does not exist, but if it were to emerge into existence, its essence is already known. In other words, you would recognize a unicorn if you saw one _despite that you never will_. (Important note: Understand that we are not talking about the word “unicorn”, but the thing _unicorn_. This is similar to the differentiation between the numeral “2” and the number _2_.) > > Another way to put it is that essence is necessary. Underlying all subjective attachments is objective essence. The universe, for example, is essentially a probability distribution. But different creatures and things may or may not attach significance to any or all perceived attributes of it. To a rock, the universe is nothing more than its essence. But to a modern physicalist, the universe is a rich tapestry of existential meaning with enormous potential for discovery. Without essence, existence would be devoid of all context, including subjectivity. If I understand you, we grasp essence only through the “filter” of our own subjectivity, whatever that subjectivity may be (yours, mine, a rock’s, a camel’s, etc). Given that, I’m not getting how we can grasp the essence of, say, a unicorn. It seems to me that we’d be in the position of blind men fondling an elephant; able to provide rich descriptions of our subjective experience, but completely oblivious of the elephant. I’m not seeing how my subjective unicorn-y thoughts enable me to know the _essence_ of “unicorn” any more than a blind man holding an elephant’s tail knows what an elephant is. If essence is the clay from which we subjectively mold our experience, how can know of the clay _qua_ clay? Is our knowledge of essence arrived at strictly analytically, or is there a subtle experiential component I’m overlooking? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/324 "2005-07-09T16:54:49Z")
It doesn’t really matter. (It seems like) you’re trying to figure out whether essence is noumenal or phenomenal, analytic or synthetic, a priori or post priori, in an attempt to — pardon the pun — Kantify it. All perception is subjective. Once you have found a unicorn, you might show it to another man who says, “Bah. That is not a unicorn. That is just a horse with a horn on its nose.” Neither your discovery, nor the man’s cycnicism, changes what a unicorn essentially is. As another example, a man might mistakenly get five when he adds two and two, but that doesn’t mean that the essence of everything involved has changed. In fact, what we would say is that the man is essentially mistaken, the unicorn is essentially a fabled creature symbolic of virginity, and an elephant is essentially what it is, while the men examining it are essentially blind. If these things weren’t all true, then your question wouldn’t even make sense. If the elephant had no essence, then it wouldn’t matter who is touching what part. In fact, the parts would be indistinguishable from all other parts, and elephants indistinguishable from unicorns. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/325 "2005-07-09T18:17:30Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > In the sense that synapses fire when the brain has thoughts, yes. Some moral decisions are acted out with non-self objects (like other people, animals, and things.) But some are merely conceived. How do you distinguish between moral will and non-moral will, then? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/326 "2005-07-10T00:14:19Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > How do you distinguish between moral will and non-moral will, then? A moral decision is an aesthetic judgment — it contributes either to edification (goodness) or destruction (evil). Other decisions are more primitive; e.g., intellectual decisions (Is this inference valid?), emotional decisions (Does this make me sad?), motor decisions (Should I scratch my itch?), etc. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/327 "2005-07-10T01:40:11Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > A moral decision is an aesthetic judgment — it contributes either to edification (goodness) or destruction (evil). What counts as edification or destruction? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/328 "2005-07-10T10:53:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Your point of view is called “existentialism”. The opposing point of view is called “essentialism”. Existentialists argue that existence precedes essence, and essentialists argue that essence precedes existence. You have not established that the universe, with its atoms and what-not, is real. What is real must be objective without regard to subjectivity or conventions of thought or language. Existence is itself a convention of human thought. _Cogito ergo sum_ (I think, therefore I am) is an existential statement, relying on the logical device of modus tollens. Without rules of deduction the statement is not true, and without man’s cognition, there is no rule of deduction. God does exist, yes. (In fact, He cannot not exist). But His existence is as trivial as our own. It is His essence — goodness — that compels Him to exist. That’s because the essence of goodness is edification. Therefore, if anything at all exists, then God must exist as well. The universe will die. But the essence of God (and man created in His image) will not. I disagree, essesence must come from something, it cannot reside on it’s own.If man was created to the image of God then he would be invisible! For you cannot see God,and unless you believe that God is everywhere. And to say God is he, is a fallacy, for the Word is a noun, (Person place or thing). You can believe “A " God exists, but that is your right to do so, and I would defend your right to believe. But if you interpet the Word to mean what exists,Which is what The Torah quotes God saying o Moses, that” I am what is". Of course there is no historical evidence tha Moses was a historical person except in the Torah. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/329 "2005-07-10T12:10:38Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > What counts as edification or destruction? The closer you are to what you value most, the more edified you are; the further away, the more destroyed. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/330 "2005-07-10T12:12:13Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I disagree, essesence must come from something, it cannot reside on it’s own.If man was created to the image of God then he would be invisible! For you cannot see God,and unless you believe that God is everywhere. And to say God is he, is a fallacy, for the Word is a noun, (Person place or thing). You can believe “A " God exists, but that is your right to do so, and I would defend your right to believe. But if you interpet the Word to mean what exists,Which is what The Torah quotes God saying o Moses, that” I am what is". Of course there is no historical evidence tha Moses was a historical person except in the Torah. > > Monavis Being created in the image of God does not mean that man is invisible, nor does it mean that God has arms and walks on two legs. Being created in the image of God means that the essence of man is spirit. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/331 "2005-07-10T14:05:07Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Being created in the image of God does not mean that man is invisible, nor does it mean that God has arms and walks on two legs. Being created in the image of God means that the essence of man is spirit. Amen ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/332 "2005-07-10T15:03:50Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Being created in the image of God does not mean that man is invisible, nor does it mean that God has arms and walks on two legs. Being created in the image of God means that the essence of man is spirit. So is “man” the only creature created in this image and consisting of this “spirit”? ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/333 "2005-07-10T16:43:08Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > The closer you are to what you value most, the more edified you are; the further away, the more destroyed. So if someone values being a cannibal, they’re being good by doing that? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/334 "2005-07-11T10:30:22Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > So if someone values being a cannibal, they’re being good by doing that? Yes, of course. Why would you think otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/335 "2005-07-11T10:31:28Z")
> [@honeydewgrrl](#): > > So is “man” the only creature created in this image and consisting of this “spirit”? Not necessarily. But possibly. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/336 "2005-07-11T10:52:44Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Amen I agree to disagree. A horse is said to be spirited, we use this word in may ways, but not as a personification of someone. We say he,she, or it is in good spirits today. I do not see the essence of a man being spirit.you do and that is your priviledge. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/337 "2005-07-11T11:00:00Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I agree to disagree. A horse is said to be spirited, we use this word in may ways, but not as a personification of someone. We say he,she, or it is in good spirits today. I do not see the essence of a man being spirit.you do and that is your priviledge. > > Monavis Okay. What do you see as man’s essence? The flesh? Call it what you will, but whatvever part of us survives this mortal body, is what I refer to as our spirit, or soul if you prefer. The other uses of the word don’t diminish anything. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/338 "2005-07-11T11:03:57Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I agree to disagree. A horse is said to be spirited, we use this word in may ways, but not as a personification of someone. We say he,she, or it is in good spirits today. I do not see the essence of a man being spirit.you do and that is your priviledge. > > Monavis There’s no point in equivocating. A logical fallacy isn’t going to help your argument. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/339 "2005-07-11T11:11:34Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Being created in the image of God does not mean that man is invisible, nor does it mean that God has arms and walks on two legs. Being created in the image of God means that the essence of man is spirit. Essence described in the dictionary is: :the basic or necessary constituent of a thing;a substance from a plant,drug,or the like by distillation,infusion, etc. a spiritual or immaterial entity". So we were in existance before our birth as was everthing. When we our bodies decay we go back to being the atoms etc. that we were made of before. I believe we were not created but came about as the atoms etc. of which we are composed came together in our ancestors genes and have been passed down so in other words I live as a human and will return to existance as i was before. We know we shre DNA with all things. Chimpanzee’s share over 90 % of our DNA. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/340 "2005-07-11T11:20:50Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Essence described in the dictionary is: :the basic or necessary constituent of a thing;a substance from a plant,drug,or the like by distillation,infusion, etc. a spiritual or immaterial entity". So we were in existance before our birth as was everthing. When we our bodies decay we go back to being the atoms etc. that we were made of before. I believe we were not created but came about as the atoms etc. of which we are composed came together in our ancestors genes and have been passed down so in other words I live as a human and will return to existance as i was before. We know we shre DNA with all things. Chimpanzee’s share over 90 % of our DNA. > > Monavis I would add a post script. In the Genesis story the price for sin, was death, not loss of soul. " Now that you know the difference between good and evil you must die". It didn’t take into account that animals and plants were dying so man could eat. They decided later on, when good people were dying, that perhaps man had a soul and that is what didn’t die, but then came the idea that Good people went to a happy place and the bad went to hell. It gave people a reason to try to be good.And man did not like the idea of not living. Monavis [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029.md?page=18)