News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Your take on "spirituality"

Started by widdershins, March 13, 2013, 06:21:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Sleeper"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The terms you chose are certainly effective to someone with a good command of the language.  Unfortunately, that is not often the case.

I personally prefer listening as well as talking, myself.  And when someone uses a word like "spiritual", I prefer to listen to their definition before deciding that they're being disingenuous or cuntish.
I understand and appreciate that. It's all a matter of preference which is why I used terms like "I choose not to..." and "use whatever terms you wish..." I never really agreed with the "cunt" comments, though it is true for some people. I think the_antithesis might have been doing what many of you were doing in my atheist celebrities thread - making a negative generalization that probably does not apply to most here making the positive assertion. If I'm wrong, I'll happily be corrected.

Touché.
<insert witty aphorism here>

widdershins

This thread seems to have gotten off on a tangent here.  There seems to be two basic groups.  There are those who use the actual definition of the word and those who use whatever definition the person speaking the word intends.  It should be obvious by now which side I am on.

I do realize that people don't always mean exactly the definition of a word when they utter it.  Annoying, but okay.  But if you have a working definition of a word which is contrary to any actual definition you should not be offended when people say to you, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."  I understand that language is ever evolving, but definitions give our language meaning, so the actual definitions cannot simply be discarded for any common use of a word we choose without explanation.  If you choose to use some definition of a word which is not an actual definition that's find, but you need to be able to define it.  And if you're going to go through all of that trouble why not just use the right words in the first place?  If I find out I'm using a word wrong I quite using that word in that context.  I don't insist that it's right by my own, personal definition, and there are several reasons for that.  Here's a short list.

1) Refudiate - it makes me look stupid
2) Theory - it confuses people and disseminates misinformation, sometimes intentionally
3) Spiritual - people have no fucking clue what the hell I'm talking about, even after looking it up in the dictionary, until I explain it to them...or get them to read a book about it
4) Scientific - the same as theory
5) Atheist - same as theory

I don't exactly think definitions are sacred or anything, but any time a word has one or more perceived meanings which are contrary to any actual definition it muddles the conversation and confuses the issue, as has happened this entire thread.  So if you use a word in a way not intended by its definition you should be ready to define the word in the context you are use it (NOT refer to the use of the word in a quote as a "definition") and you should be willing to accept that there are people out there, like myself, who simply will not accept your own personal definition, but instead will insist that, based on your personal definition, you are using the wrong word.  Because you are.  If you think going out to debunk a haunting with your tape recorder and digital camera, memory card still half full of pictures from last weekend's barbeque is "scientific" then you are using the wrong word.  Don't get pissed off when I tell you that you're using the wrong word.  Don't insist that you are using it correctly when the dictionary says you are not.  And don't insist that any definition you choose to use is correct because it's right for you.  It may be right for you.  I can accept that.  But when you're speaking to me you are trying to convey something to me.  In that case "right for you" is completely irrelevant.  You either use the words correctly or you misrepresent what you're saying to me.  I have no way to look up your personal definition of a word, nor should I have to.  Can you imagine how tedious it would be if we had to look up every word every person ever spoke in their own personal dictionaries to see what the hell they were saying?

So, if you want to use words incorrectly, fine.  Go ahead.  But don't insist it is correct, don't expect me to know what you're saying and don't get pissed when I say:

This sentence is a lie...

Mathias

Quote from: "widdershins"
Quote from: "Mathias"widdershins,

It wasn't just about the "next" you mentioned. Your words:

QuoteWhatever the case, Sagan was wrong Either (gasp!) because he was using an incorrect definition or he held dear some form of woo (gasp again!). or, Perhaps, he just liked to say things Which Sounded really cool and deep.

I don't think I am wrong, much less Sagan, and I'm not trying to "win" an argument because I have already made my point of view very clear and respect of those who consider the word inappropriate for any connotation that isn't religious.
And of course you still have not read the book that mentions Sagan's quote - The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - because otherwise you know why he wrote that.

In short, I accept the definition of Sagan, a poetic concept of spirituality, a word whose root goes beyond the religious sense. Just as the phrase "we are a way for the universe to know itself" doesn't literally mean what it says.
When I want a "definition", I go to a dictionary.  Please explain what the "definition" of spirituality is that Sagan gave.  The quote you copied had him using the word, not "defining" it.  Popular and beloved people simply don't get to rewrite the definitions of words.  So, again, either Sagan was using the word incorrectly or he believed in woo.  Personally I would assume he was using the word incorrectly in the "common sense", if you will.

But all of that is beside the point as you are simply playing semantics here to avoid addressing the point of your logical fallacy.


1) I mistakenly translated the word "woo". I thought it was an onomatopoeia for supernatural.

2) I don't seek complex settings, especially philosophical, metaphysical, etc.. in a dictionary, but each one to his trade, right?

3) I defined the concept of spirituality in the second page of this topic, but I repeat to you, "no problema":
It can be defined metaphorically as a full set of intellectual faculties. In the case of Sagan, the facultie is delighted with the understanding of the model of reality through knowledge acquired through scientific methodology.
"There is no logic in the existence of any god".
Myself.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "widdershins"But if you have a working definition of a word which is contrary to any actual definition you should not be offended when people say to you, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."  I understand that language is ever evolving, but definitions give our language meaning, so the actual definitions cannot simply be discarded for any common use of a word we choose without explanation.  If you choose to use some definition of a word which is not an actual definition that's find, but you need to be able to define it.  

I get all that; that's why I took the time to give examples of what arouses the feelings to which I atatch the label.  Language isn't always precise and I do have an obligation to make myself clear.  I think I discharged that obligation, too.

What was shitty was this guy:

QuoteWhen I hear the word spiritual, I'm listening to someone completely full of themselves. It's like fucking an elf. Tolkien's elves were kind of like the pinnacle of perfection. So to fuck an elf is to touch that greatness with your dick. So when someone says they are spiritual, they mean that they think they are in touch with or experience things deeper, better than you do. It makes them feel special. It doesn't even matter what the actual thing is. What matters to them is that they feel special because they are self-centered cunts.

This little shitbag comes in, drops some name-calling, makes a very uncharitable imputation, and splits never to return.  That's cool.  Apparently there's only one way to see the world, his, and because I don't use his preferred term, or share his own viewpoint, I'm a "cunt".  Well, fuck him.  He's apparently not intelligent enough to disagree agreeably, and I won't bother wasting time on such a thoughtless blowhard any more.

The absence of any subsequent comment on his post makes me wonder if there's not some agreement with it, or if he's just been ignored by folks, or what.  I'm pretty new here and don't really know.

That is the bee in my bonnet, not the fact that I have to explain a little.  I did that already, without complaint, because I enjoy discussing these sorts of things with a heterodox group.
<insert witty aphorism here>

widdershins

Quote from: "Mathias"1) I mistakenly translated the word "woo". I thought it was an onomatopoeia for supernatural.
Basically it is.  It generally refers to any type of beliefs held which are not scientifically validated.  Woo could mean magic, Bigfoot or holistic medicine.

Quote from: "Mathias"2) I don't seek complex settings, especially philosophical, metaphysical, etc.. in a dictionary, but each one to his trade, right?
Dictionaries define words, not "complex settings".

Quote from: "Mathias"3) I defined the concept of spirituality in the second page of this topic, but I repeat to you, "no problema":
It can be defined metaphorically as a full set of intellectual faculties. In the case of Sagan, the facultie is delighted with the understanding of the model of reality through knowledge acquired through scientific methodology.
I don't even know how to respond to this as I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.  If Sagan was using a metaphor here then it was a poor one unless there is some underlying tone of the book that I'm not aware of.  I'm going to assume that is probably the case since you keep getting on me about not having read it.  But my response to that quote, taken by itself, is accurate in my estimation.

Now, if we could get off Sagan and definitions and please address my original problem with your response, the final word in that response.  Was it or was it not an indication that the matter was settled by the quote?  If yes, it was still an argument to authority.  If not then I have misunderstood and this entire conversation was unnecessarily drawn out.  What was the purpose of ending the post with, "Next!"?  I still cannot see any reason for it other than as a claim that the matter was definitively settled and it was time for the "next" thread.

If I'm wrong, if that is not the case, then I really don't have a problem with your post at all.  Sagan is definitely cool enough for any party as far as I'm concerned.  Taken as is, I don't agree with what you quoted, but he is no less in my eyes for it.  Hell, Bill Maher, at least at one time, and recently, was an inoculation denier.  He doubted the proven science behind inoculations because "some guy on the Internet" said there was mercury in them and they were bad for you.  He's also for doing away with the second amendment, which I am not.  I still respect him.  I still watch and enjoy his show.  As I have said multiple times my only real "problem" with your post was the last word, which I took as a statement that you had definitively settled the discussion and nothing more needed to be said.  If that is not the case, what did it mean?  If it was the case then come clean with it and let's get on with our lives.
This sentence is a lie...

Mathias

widdershins,

The intention was to say that my opinion was given and I thought (perhaps wrongly) that there was nothing more for me to add, much less discuss. As for me there's no supernatural spirituality, the metaphoric point of view, the term can (and I think should) be used as something poetic, just as a person can get in cartase to glimpse a "secret" of reality.  I may have demonstrated arrogance, but it was actually "spirituality" :)

There's an expression in portuguese, "pig spirit", which means an ignorant, reckless and malicious person. When the person is friendly and cheerful we say she is witty, which is written in Portuguese "eSPIRITuosa".
"There is no logic in the existence of any god".
Myself.

widdershins

Quote from: "Mathias"widdershins,

The intention was to say that my opinion was given and I thought (perhaps wrongly) that there was nothing more for me to add, much less discuss. As for me there's no supernatural spirituality, the metaphoric point of view, the term can (and I think should) be used as something poetic, just as a person can get in cartase to glimpse a "secret" of reality.  I may have demonstrated arrogance, but it was actually "spirituality" :)
Okay, that got a chuckle.  I don't know if I missed it before or if this is the first time you've spelled it out, but for your intention to be that there was nothing more for you, personally to add, I have no problem with.  I misunderstood that intention, but if I hadn't we wouldn't have gone on this long, frustrating journey which ultimately lead to our mutual understanding and personal growth, so you owe me big time.
This sentence is a lie...

Mathias

Quote from: "widdershins"...our mutual understanding and personal growth, so you owe me big time.


Ok, anytime...
"There is no logic in the existence of any god".
Myself.

Sal1981

"Spirituality" and its derivatives have a religious feel to them, so I for the most part dismiss them.

And trying to Shanghai the definition to mean something like awe or feely wheely seems pointless and just leads to confusion.

widdershins

Quote from: "Sal1981""Spirituality" and its derivatives have a religious feel to them, so I for the most part dismiss them.

And trying to Shanghai the definition to mean something like awe or feely wheely seems pointless and just leads to confusion.
I concur.  I don't think most people do it on purpose though.  I think it's just a "muddy" word which is poorly understood by most.
This sentence is a lie...