I don’t tend to think the universe gives a sweet patootie either; I choose to associate certain meanings with things nonetheless. The universe doesn’t care whether or not I have those meanings in my head; some individual things might notice as I act accordingly, but in the long run, my brain, that meaning-creating entity that it is, will rot. I find that level of long run to be not terribly useful for judging what I’m doing now, though.
I think I agree with Left Hand of Dorkness rather strongly in some ways; my sense of spirituality is very tightly related to my sense of aesthetics. I find the process of creating a sense of meaning very similar to the process of creating a sense of beauty, and I happen to prefer activities in which I can combine them. (This is also why I find certain forms of religious/spiritual arguments deeply pointless; I don’t derive any value from arguing about What Is Art, Anyway either. I can’t bring myself to treat differences of subjective human valuation as matters of cosmic importance.)
A Christian follows the teachings of Christ, a Muslim the teaching of Mohammed. These definitions may not be completely correct, but they are close. Spirituality is far more nebulous.
I thought Gandhi was a hindu and MLK was a christian? In any case, if they claimed to be ‘spiritual’, I’d be tacking on an =flake until I found a reason to remove it.
I don’t get it. In my own mind, it seems like it would be “/=”, but instead it seems to be “!=”. Most likely you can press Control, and some nuber or another, to get this ≠ but I do not know what number. ( I cut and pasted it from an Edit type program.)
The definitions are far broader than that. Christians may follow what they believe to be the teachings of Christ and the specifics of those beliefs vary quite a bit from one chiristian to another. The same with Muslims. There can also be extreme differences in how their beliefs effect their behavior.The same with folks who claim to be spiritual rather than religious. Beliefs vary and the type of people who make the claim vary quite a bit.
The subject of the thread seems to be specifically spirituality apart form organized religion. That is not the limit of it’s meaning.
Spirituality exists within the individual and whether or not they choose to be a member of an organized religion doesn’t change the fact that they are spiritual people. I would guess that within every congregation, mosque, or temple you might find some who are very spiritual and some who are not. You don’t have to read much of Gandhi’s writings to see how very spiritual he was. MLK fashioned his own life and cause in large part after Gandhis’. If these two men were flakes then I hope a lot more flake’s show up. The sooner the better.
Yes, but when someone says they are a Christian, I have a pretty good idea of what that means. That statement could range from a fundamentalist to a think about it come Christmas time variety of believer. It could cover a broad range of sects from Catholic to Protestant. But at least I know what the underlying tenant is. Someone who says they are Spiritual can range from Flake to Christian Light to any number of things. My experience has been ‘=flake’ for those who say it. If you say Gandi and MLK were spiritual then I’ll say it doesn’t always equal flake. Rules sometimes have exceptions.
This begs another question that probably deserves its own thread, “Do you have to be Spiritual to equal the accomplishments of a Gandhi?”.
And as I sit here thinking about it another could be, “What did Gandhi accomplish that was so gosh darn important?”
I think I’d rather hit my thumb with a spirit hammer than a real one when I miss while driving in a nail, but the spirit hammer takes such a long time to drive that darn nail, so I continue to take my chances with a real hammer.
Basic spirituality is how you feel about yourself, the universe, and others. If this is a positive feeling then I believe you are spiritual. One need only follow the path of Love to find fulfillment.
I don’t think anything is supernatural, all things are natural to this universe, some may happen infrequently, but still natural.
Some spiritual people are advanced enough to do so-called “supernatual” things. Others think they are advanced enough to follow them. Be careful here.
But no one needs to do those things to be spiritual.
My take is that spirituality is a mindset that gives the owner a sense of meaning and purpose. It fulfils the emptyness that some suffer who would otherwise turn to drugs, gambling or shopping.
Different owners have different versions of this spirituality of which you speak, but it serves the same purpose.
Surely you remember the story of the two pessimistic German philosophers, one of whom exclaimed “How much happier were it never to have been born.” To which the other replied “True! But how few are those who achieve this happy lot.”
Being in touch spiritually gives you great love which in turn leads to fearlessness. I would say Yes, it is necessary to be spiritual to accomplish great things.
Look at all the people who accomplished great things and you will have your answer.
By the way, Gandhi was the main player in convincing the British that India should govern herself.
I don’t mean to piss on your attempt at cleverness, but your division fallacy skews your analogy. Meanwhile, your thumb is already dying. And if it’s pain that bothers you, there are solutions from drugs to neurosurgery. That which is real ought not to be contingent on conventions of thought or language, and ought to exist regardless of subjective observations; e.g., empirical ones. It ought to be eternal, essential, and necessary.
It has been suggested that an “ought” cannot be inferred from an “is”. Do you agree? You seem to be deriving an “is” from an “ought”. Why is this more legitimate?
An “ought” implies a “necessary”, and a “necessary” implies an “actual”. Therefore, an “ought” implies an “actual”. (Which happens to be Malley’s First Axiom.) That all assumes that by “ought” we mean “it is obligatory that”. It is a deontic modality.
