Using the word Spiritual

[Anomalocaris]

In my opinion, "spirituality" is a half-way house for people who are still recovering from religion.

Being “spiritual” is often just a make belief haven from whence the mushy brained can assert a distinction without any meaningful difference from the rather perjoritive description of being “religious”.

It is in exactly the same category of confession without atonememt as “god but not religion”, “nondenominational”, or “bible based”.

[robvalue]

Maybe "I'll make you spiritual" could be a new kind of threat?

[emjay]

There are some uses of the word I don't mind:

"The little wascal has spiwit"
"Has what sir?"
"Spiwit"
"oh yes, he did sir"
"no no, spiwit... bwavado... a touch of dewwing-do"
"oh er, about eleven sir"

[vulcanlogician]

I might use it, if I had a solid working definition. Otherwise I dont bother with the labels.

Solid definitions help. They really do.

At the colloquial level (like say in rural Bhutan) an everyday Buddhist might have beliefs in unseen forces, spirits, or demi-gods who answer prayers. But within the Theravada --and even outside of it-- there exists a strain of fully-developed philosophical materialism that appeared years ahead of most materialist schools founded in Europe. Does that make them "not spiritual"? Who knows? It depends on the definition you use. If rising from bed at 6 in the morning and meditating for three hours, thereafter spending time in contemplation of the world and the actions you take within in it counts as "spiritual" then you'll have to stop equivocating it with woo. Because there is no "woo" in that. Another definition of spirituality might be "consisting of genuine and deep contemplation". For future reference, that's what I mean when I use the word.

After reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra, one might be inclined to categorize Nietzsche as "spiritual." Not just that book--many other of his works too-- but especially that work. At one point in the book he heads each paragraph with the exclamation "O my soul!" -like TWENTY TIMES IN A ROW- and says things like "I've strangled the strangler called 'sin.'" But anyone who knows anything about Nietzsche is familiar with his ardent atheism...

I'd like to hear others' opinions on the quoted passage below--does it move the spirit or not? It does mine. But look at its content. Nothing "woo" in there at all. But plenty of deep contemplation. Maybe that's what I'm trying to say altogether with my post. Perhaps (like the concept "morality") the concept of "spirituality" has been commandeered by the woo-heads and the religious folks... and I'd like to get it back.


Nietzsche passage below for any who are interested:

---

From Thus Spoke Zarathustra, F. Nietzsche - Translated by Walter Kaufmann

On the Despisers of the Body

I want to speak of the despisers of the body. I would not have them learn and teach differently, but merely say farewell to their own bodies --- and thus become silent.

“Body am I, and soul” – thus speaks the child. And why should one not speak like children?
But the awakened and knowing say: body am I entirely, and nothing else; and soul is only a word for something about the body.

The body is a great reason, a plurality with one sense, a war and peace, a herd and a shepherd. An instrument of your body is also your little reason, my brother, which you call “spirit” – a little instrument and toy of your great reason.

“I,” you say, and are proud of the word. But greater is that in which you do not wish to have faith – your body and its great reason: that does not say “I,” but does “I.”
. . . 

Behind your thoughts and feelings, my brother, there stands a mighty ruler, an unknown sage – whose name is self. In your body he dwells; he is your body. 

There is more reason in your body than in your best wisdom. And who knows why your body needs precisely your best wisdom?

Your self laughs at your ego and at its bold leaps. “What are these leaps and flights of thought to me?” It says to itself. . . . The self says to the ego, “Feel pain here!” Then the ego suffers and thinks how it might suffer no more ---- and this is why it is made to think. The self says to the ego, “Feel pleasure here!” Then the ego is please and thinks how it might often be pleased again – and that is why it is made to think.
. . 

I want to speak to the despisers of the body. It is their respect that begets their contempt. What is it that created respect and contempt and worth and will? The creative self created respect and contempt; it created pleasure and pain. The creative body created the spirit as a hand for its will.

Even in your folly and contempt, you despisers of the body, you serve your self. I say unto you: your self itself wants to die and turns away from life. It is no longer capable of what it would do above all else: to create beyond itself. That is what it would do above all else, that is its fervent wish. 

But now it is too late for it to do this: so your self wants to go under, O despisers of the body. Your self wants to go under, and that is why you have become despisers of the body! For you are no longer able to create beyond yourselves.

And that is why you are angry with life and the earth. An unconscious envy speaks out of the squint-eyed glance of your contempt.

I shall not go your way, O despisers of the body! You are no bridge to the overman!

Thus spoke Zarathustra. 

---

[robvalue]

(Since I mentioned this earlier...)

It seems like me doing any kind of critique of "the moral landscape" would be entirely redundant. I knew it was flawed at its core, as it's simply Harris asserting his own ideas of morality as somehow objectively true and correct (No True Scotsman); but if this video is anything to go by, it's actually a really garbage book. I'm rather shocked and disappointed. His attempts to hand-wave away Hume's guillotine are weaker than I thought.

[Joods]

I used to describe myself that way, after I no longer attended any church, but still believed on god.

For an atheist to use that term, I think, would have to imply that they aren't really an atheist at all because they still believe in some form of a deity. Honestly, it's just a term that I feel is used by people who are like I once was.

[robvalue]

I think here in England there would probably be quite a lot of atheists who would call themselves spiritual, as they fuck about with crystals, talking to the dead, "energy", all that jazz. Atheism is getting on for 50% of people here now, and far from all of them are sceptically minded.

[sdelsolray]

How many atheists here use that word to describe yourselves? How would you define it? I'm hesitant in using it because the word has a lot of supernatural baggage.

Well, the definition of "spiritual" in the dictionary suffers from root infection, i.e., it uses the root of the word (spirit) in the definition.

The definition of "spirit", again from the dictionary, has well over a dozen definitions, some overlapping and some quite distinct.

I would think use of the words "spirit" or "spiritual " are susceptible to confusion.

That being said, a few of the definitions for "spirit" (and implicitly "spiritual") deal with religion, metaphysics and associated woo woo.

Once a speaker/writer uses the word, and is clear that they are speaking/writing from the religion/metaphysics/woo woo perspective (good luck at getting many of them to be so clear), then the conversation can proceed.

[vulcanlogician]

^^^ Yup. With no definition, the thread becomes meaningless...

OP: Do you consider yourself to be "spiritual"?

"No. I'm not because I'm using the word to mean [this]"

"Yes. I am spiritual, because (to me) the word means [this]."

etc... etc... etc...

[Reltzik]

I'll echo what lots of others have said here.

"Spiritual" is often taken to mean something supernatural, which I would not describe myself as. Even if it might have a meaning (linked to something emotional or contemplative) that can coexist perfectly with a naturalist view and which even might apply to me, I would still not use the word "spiritual" because so many people would so quickly misinterpret what I was saying. Instead, I would use different words to convey the same concept with less confusion.