A Basic Definition of Spirituality (of True Faith)

[Leonardo17]

I’ve read some of the religious posts some people posted on the forum and the atheist reactions to them. So I decided to share this story about the Philosopher Aristotle in an attempt to define where science and rational thinking ends and where spirituality (as I’m defining it) begins:
 

---

 

   One day, Aristotle walked along a beach, intensely preoccupied with trying to dissect and solve the great, complex problems of the universe. He noticed a man furiously running back and forth with a teaspoon, scooping water from the ocean and pouring it into a tiny hole he had dug in the sand.

   Curious and somewhat amused by the futility of it, Aristotle stopped the man and asked, "What in the world are you doing?"

   The man replied, "I am emptying the ocean into this hole."

   Aristotle laughed. He told the man how absurd and insane he was, explaining that the ocean was infinitely vast and could never fit into such a small hole with a single teaspoon.

   The man paused, looked Aristotle directly in the eyes, and said, "You mock me for wanting to fit the ocean into this small hole. Yet, you are arrogant enough to believe you can fit all the secrets of the infinite universe into your brain, which is also basically just a small hole. Which of us is crazier?"

 

The Meaning:

 

   Often attributed to an encounter between Aristotle and his fellow ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, the story serves as a humbling reminder. It suggests that our intellect is limited, and trying to rationalize or control the entire meaning of existence through thought alone is like trying to empty the ocean with a spoon. To truly experience life, one must accept that the universe is far larger than the human mind can grasp

 

---

 
- So this is the feeling I usually get when I try to study this or that subject. Don’t get me wrong. I love spending time on learning interesting stuff. But the more you learn stuff, the more opposing ideas, different theories, and different approaches, more traditional vs. more modern approaches and/or ideas in the light of new observations there are. This is true for most science and/or disciplines. This doesn’t make anything less enjoyable or less profitable but that’s just the way it is.
 
Spirituality on the other hand is when someone give you a set of methods. If you can apply these methods in a correct manner, you get to know Knowledge itself.
 
And Intellect in general is described as a very sharp tool. That sharp tool is supposed to be subordinated to our true knowledge of our Inner Nature.
 
I’m not promoting anything but I find this approach especially useful to the more intellectual people of this world.
 
See: The Ignorant will usually come in masses. We may be quite strong and energetic individuals but scores of people (or groups of people) have lived a miserable life, unable to reach their goals simply because their timing wasn’t right (like the painter Vincent Van Gogh for instance).
 
So again: We might be bright individuals (like Aristotle) but we may be unaware of our limitations). Belief or awareness of some sort of higher intelligence (or Intelligence itself) might be very helpful. Especially in times when the chaos seems to prevail.
 
- And this is the only type of spirituality that I know of. Dogmas and repetitive rituals are simply outdated. These new approaches on the other hand can be life-enhancing and sometimes even life-saving.

[Angrboda]

Spirituality on the other hand is when someone give you a set of methods. If you can apply these methods in a correct manner, you get to know Knowledge itself.
 

What evidence do you have to support your belief that this is the case, whatever you mean by it?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think it surprises any rational person that there are gaps in our knowledge. It often surprises me what people want to cram in them, though. I also wonder why people who believe in spiritual whatsits would want to erect a wall between their beliefs and rational ones. I'd say think it through....more carefully..but considering the aim...

At any rate, what you're describing with a set of practices given to people by some authority figure would likely be called a religion, not spirituality.

[Angrboda]

Spirituality is an interesting map, it just doesn't seem to correspond to any actual territory.

[AFTT47]

Spirituality is an emotional, subjective thing. I don't begrudge anyone for feeling spiritual.

I spent many years in the tropics, an environment very different from the temperate NE continental US I grew up in. I experienced 'spiritual' feelings in Guam and Palau where I regularly saw double rainbows from one end to the other. I was similarly moved diving the incredible coral reefs of Palau. But the feeling was just an emotional response. I treasure the memories but I recognize them for what they are - My subjective experiences.

As a scientifically-minded person, I don't see any conflict between my own emotional reactions and understanding the physical differences between the tropical Pacific and New England. I recognize the difference though. A native of Palau might be 'spiritually' moved by the riot of color of the changing tree leaves of the New England Autumn. Being a summer person, I always found the changing leaf colors depressing, a sign of death. The never-ending summer of the tropics is more my speed.

The bottom line is that spirituality is subjective experience.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Leonardo17

Often attributed to an encounter between Aristotle and his fellow ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, the story serves as a humbling reminder. 

The attribution is absurd on the face of it.

Boru

[awty]

Another of Leo's fever dreams.

[Belacqua]

But the more you learn stuff, the more opposing ideas, different theories, and different approaches, more traditional vs. more modern approaches and/or ideas in the light of new observations there are. This is true for most science and/or disciplines. This doesn’t make anything less enjoyable or less profitable but that’s just the way it is.

I'd say this is one of the more important reasons for learning stuff. It's a fact of life that there are opposing ideas, theories, and conclusions about just about everything, and when we settle into one viewpoint while condemning all the others we are closing ourselves off. This doesn't mean that we have to accept everything, but that valuable lessons can come from any direction. 

Spirituality on the other hand is when someone give you a set of methods. If you can apply these methods in a correct manner, you get to know Knowledge itself.

I looked up "spirituality" on Wikipedia just now, and I was amused to see that one researcher identified "twenty-seven explicit definitions among which "there was little agreement"." So it seems the word can mean different things to different people. 

Your definition might be as good as any, but I'm not understanding it very well so far. 

You say that the method you're thinking of can give you "Knowledge itself." But as I understand it, knowledge is always knowledge of something. You can't have content-free knowledge. So the obvious question is: knowledge of what? 

"Know thyself" is always good advice. Is this the kind of thing you're thinking of? 

The fact that you say "Knowledge itself," rather than just "knowledge" indicates that you're thinking of some kind of pure, final level of knowledge. I am skeptical that we can ever have any knowledge that is unmediated by interpretation of one kind or another. Simply to be aware that one has knowledge is to have achieved a certain kind of interpretation. 

So the idea that there is a "true knowledge of our Inner Nature" perhaps needs more explication. Is the Inner Nature something unchangeable and given from birth, like Aristotle's concept of a human essence? Or is it something one develops and learns through spiritual practices? 

Intellect can be a very sharp tool indeed. Normally people think it isn't sufficient for spirituality. 

We may be quite strong and energetic individuals but scores of people (or groups of people) have lived a miserable life, unable to reach their goals simply because their timing wasn’t right (like the painter Vincent Van Gogh for instance).

I'm reminded of the quote from Stephen Jay Gould:

"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”

Dogmas and repetitive rituals are simply outdated.

Surely it depends on which dogma and which ritual. Some are outdated. Some are still useful -- though I agree that when people believe something these days they are reluctant to use the word "dogma." 

It seems to me that new dogmas and new rituals might be useful for a lot of people.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

^I wonder when the word ‘dogma’ became a perjorative.

Boru

[Deesse23]

Spirituality on the other hand is when someone give you a set of methods. If you can apply these methods in a correct manner, you get to know Knowledge itself.

Spirituality:
Ask 10 people about a definition and you get 20 different answers with 25 methods, none of which can be demonstrated to actually work.
Science on the other hand is when someone give you a method. One that works. If you can apply this method in a correct manner, you get to know Knowledge itself.
 

And Intellect in general is described as a very sharp tool. That sharp tool is supposed to be subordinated to our true knowledge of our Inner Nature.

Meaningless drivel / navel gazing, indicative of "spirituality".
 

I’m not promoting anything but I find this approach especially useful to the more intellectual people of this world.

Being intellectual is like being king: If you have to tell everyone you are, then you most probably arent. The "title" is usually a result of others paying you appropriate respect, not by you proclaiming to be one.
 

Belief or awareness of some sort of higher intelligence (or Intelligence itself) might be very helpful. Especially in times when the chaos seems to prevail.

How? Why? ...sniff...sniff... do i smell some kind of utilitarianism here? Do you care at all if belief in a higher intelligence is warranted? Do you even care if your belief(s) are true?
Do you think belief in vampires might be very helpful? Especially in times when people die for miraculous causes? They turn pale, become bedridden, without any energy and will to live. A wooden stake here or there might work wonders.
 

- And this is the only type of spirituality that I know of. Dogmas and repetitive rituals are simply outdated. These new approaches on the other hand can be life-enhancing and sometimes even life-saving.

Do you think unwarranted beliefs like this are a net positive or net negative to the individual and society, aside from sometimes being life saving?