I like having the option of a view outside of rationality but steeped in it. I’d call that spiriuality - respecting, using, practicing the space inside us closely aligned with consciousness.

The critical evaluation of the facts of experience is truly important. I’m not so sure I am arguing either/ or … I try to be inclusive: both/ and.

I know from experience with centering prayer, my critical eval of the facts of that experience has lead me to celebrate my spirituality.

You said: “This definitions emphasis on ‘spirituality’ is not rational enough for me.”

I have to be able to live in a super-rational experience. I have to take care not to limit my experience to just rationality. I have to grow into everything human and sometimes the rational limits that or try to take ownership of it. We can make a god of rationality.

Zen says if you know you don’t know.

More later Jacko! Peace, Out: Smaka

I look forward to your thoughts on ‘spirituality’ and appreciate your reference to ‘Webster’ as an authoritative source for our definitions. Authority is one of several sources of knowledge (more on the others later).

Point #1: Definition of Philosophy

Coming to terms with the definition of philosophy:

From the Sophia Project (see separate post):

1) PHILOSOPHY = “A critical examination of reality characterized by rational inquiry that aims at the Truth for the sake of attaining wisdom (”the proper understanding about the nature of reality.”).
Jac’s comment: This definition dictates a ‘Rational Inquiry”, therefore it excludes the ‘irrational’ (read spiritual inquiry) and so I find it too limiting.

From Webster:

2) Philosophy: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means

Jac’s comment: This definitions emphasis on ‘speculative’ vs. ‘observational’ is too limiting.

From Sid:

3) philosophy is a theoretical basis for knowledge, conduct & governance. There are the actual processes of knowledge, conduct & governance - philosophy looks at these processes & offers ideals based on the cognitive and spirituality (a sense of mystery, higher power, God, Creator)

Jac’s comment: This definitions emphasis on ‘spirituality’ is not rational enough for me.

From Sahakian’s (Barnes & Noble College Outline Series: Outline — History of Philosophy.)

4) Philosopy: the critical evaluation of the facts of experience.

Jac’s comment: Short sweet and to the point.

Does ‘spirituality’ have a place in philosophical discussions? Yes, with respect to defining ones reality, but if as you suggested

Spirituality also offers ideals for knowledge, conduct & governance based on a sense of mystery, higher power, God, Creator
Then I’m extremely confident we’re in for some really great dialogue because unlike you I believe ‘spirituality’ is extremely sensitive and influenced by the current environment. Philosophy, on the other hand, has a 3000 year history of progress upon which current ideas are built and tested.

Please don’t miss understand me, I am not being dismissive of ‘spirituality’. If it helps an individual or segment of society without adversely affect the larger society, then press-on with your mythical beliefs —- but, when the mystic demands society universally accept their beliefs then it’s time to silence the mystics.

Carol S. Pearson wrote a fantastic story on spiritualism entitled “Awakening the Heroes Within.” I like to share with you the first three introductory paragraphs of her book:

Some people, we say have “soul”. They have loved, they have suffered, they have a deep sense of life’s meaning. Perhaps most important, they know who they are.

Other people seem to have lost their souls. They have material possessions — the right house, the right car, the right job, the right clothes; they may even have a stable family life and be religious. But inside themselves, they feel empty. Even when they go through the right notions, it is a movement without meaning.

Still other people love and suffer and feel life intensely; but they never really get their lives together. They cannot seem to find work or personal relationships that are truly satisfying them, and so they feel constantly constrained. Although they may be connected to their souls, they feel cut off from the world.

She goes on to suggest that this quest for spirituality is replete with dangers and pitfalls “…but it offers great rewards: the capacity to be successful in the world, knowledge of the mysteries of the human soul, and the opportunity to find and express your unique gifts in the world, and to live in a loving community with other people.”

Jac’s comments: Pearson infers ‘spirituality’ is necessary for one to find success in the world and express their unique gifts!!!

Wrong! I’d argue only a rational approach, with its predictive and explanatory powers, is able to critically evaluate our unique gifts and successes based on previously established criteria.

Philosophy - Merriam Webster: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means

“We want the word philosopher to recover its true meaning of lover of wisdom, which is another word for spirituality”

Overview response: Jac, I believe I gravitate towards spirtuality over philosophy because spirituality connects me to life more readily than philosophy. Philosophy seems to keep me in my thoughts; I seem to have a plethora of ways to disconnect me from life: various addicitions, self-pity, lethargy, procrastination. Philosophy tends to disconnect me from life too.

I know I’ve digressed away from point 1 but I wanted to start our dialogue by stating my preference for spirituality.

In addressing point one I think philosophy is a theoretical basis for knowledge, conduct & governance. There are the actual processes of knowledge, conduct & governance - philosophy looks at these processes & offers ideals based on the cognitive mileau of the day.

Spirituality also offers ideals for knowledge, conduct & governance based on a sense of mystery, higher power, God, Creator

Point #1: So if, according to Robinson these are the ‘overarching’ problems of philosophy, what’s so special about philosophy. Why don’t we call it religion, ethics, sociology, or social interaction?

Point #2: Conduct and governance sound the same! Why not economize and call it behavior, and then break behavior into subcategories like individual and social. I’ve always had a problem with food, clothing and shelter. Isn’t clothing shelter in the most individual form? If you accept that premise then our most basic needs are food and shelter. Shelter can be broken down into two subcategories: 1) individual and 2) social.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password: