When I started to read new posts here at this thread I stumbled across this (yours) post at first place. It's surely true that our idea about spirituality is (fundamentally) different and we actually do not know about each others what we personally mean by that..(this is reflected in the details of previous posts) .... Anyway 'it' is something (as you have made clear opposed to 'emotional') and we both know what emotional means. I stumbled across to it even because I myself personally find it hard to let myself out of emotions when involved in arguing. Relying on 'spirituality' (as opposed to emotional stuff) also means (for me) to concede enough 'room' for other persons which are part (here) of this conversation. Room to let people 'be' by paying attention to what they say and to listen with presence of my (own) spirit. 'Spirit' is no mystical cr@p. It's a simple idea...(just to clarify what I mean)...not to 'know it better'... Spirit appears as 'derivation' of absolute Spirit / consciousness as dualistic pair of spirit and matter. More density / less spirit / level of awareness = matter and less density more spirit / awareness = human spirituality. It is not 'spirituality' that assigns cr@p to it, it's a person's intellect. An aware / conscious human is spiritual. It has presence. An unaware / emotional is not. Classification of spirituality is an intellectual process and by doing that mostly a system of own values is assigned. Here is the fundamental difference btw... It is 'nothing' without us BUT only because it requires humans which are capable of making a notion of it at all. Consciousness was / better said IS 'before' humans. And no it requires NO brain to create it. The brain is product /appearance of it just like any-thing is product of it! OK, just skip that. I am serious anyways...this should be no point of discrepancies...just saying.. Yes I try to... My intention is not 'doctoring' about your profession / capacity as Philosopher. By far not. I wanted to 'doctor' about the way you post / appear and the impressive post I quoted at top here (again). Impressive because I cannot myself all the time be 'spiritual' without drifting to emotional stuff.... Some examples: Simple question: Is that related to your lauded 'spirituality' or rather to the opposite = 'emotional' actions? I am probably not capable of doctoring but putting a mirror in front of your face....and I am not doing that because I want to question your profession and you as Philosopher. I acknowledge the strengths of yours as well THAT's even the reason why I am doing that because I think you do not need that. And I think by posting the way you did you don't give other's spiritually a chance / enough room to evolve and a chance for an interaction with yours.
Funny, this - I thought I was putting a mirror in front of your face... Emotional is bad - in which world? Prussian? It's part and parcel of who we are. The trick is in capacity to be reflective...... Spirit in "duality"... see, this is ABC and you obviously do not know these things, sorry I have to say this: in Hegel's speculative approach there is no duality: he starts from Unity (Spirit, if you wish, which is externalised, i.e. mediated via labour) and ends back in Unity, having developed it (in between these points) via Labour of Notion (and vice versa)... In short, your "spirituality" is not seriously thought through, as opposed to Hegel, whereby it encompasses Senses, emotions/passion/heart ("Nothing great comes without great passion!"), Understanding, Common Sense, Reason in a more narrow sense of the word - and it is carefully developed, so it all comes back together in Absolute Spirit/Geist/Reason/God/(his Absolute, Speculative) Philosophy etc. But OK, you will now "teach" me again about that which is by definition my profession because you "feel" spirituality "differently"... Have it your way...
people have different ideas and beliefs so what the duck does belittling them and arguing acheive? bad vibes. lock thread and good riddance.
Btw, you are right in quoting me above, giving some of them tons of insults - but you are wrong to take it out of context and then try to interpret it without it! When attacked, when I see an attempt at belittling me, denigrating me etc. - yes, I will respond in kind and tenfold, if I can, because obviously, to them it is allowed to do so... They get away with it, time and time again, being aggressive, patronising, cynical, sarcastic etc. about ideas and people they disapprove of or do not understand. And such people have a tendency to aggregate and mobbing ensues... See, nothing or very little happens here to the guys who are attacking others, so I do defend myself, yes...... I don't see a problem in this. If, on the other hand, this would have been forbidden and if they would be required to show some consideration towards others, then there would be no need for me to respond in kind with hurling back all the abuse I get from people who are from the Right and some who are even from the nastiest Right imaginable...
AHHHH your their victim now dude u dont know s**t no human does... something were never meant to be known...now go on and hit that pipe of yours.
Believe it or not, yes there are posts which did that..and yes...some were posted by you. I did not say emotions are bad. I referred to your statement that you are a professional spiritual that's opposed to emotional. "Spirit opposed to emotional" and then you criticize other's idea of spirituality when they re-join the thread? Unfortunately almost nobody knows about since not many have studied Hegel. And how is the definition of the 'right' idea of it? Would it be human 'common' probability then you'd lose...you have to live with the fact that philosophical notions are mostly different to common meanings.... Chemists have there no problem. They use own language / even a nomenclature such as IUPAC. Either one knows 'it' or not there is no 'common' second meaning/sense....except a second non-scientific / trivial BUT different name. Then everybody referring to your post where you mentioned 'spirituality' would 'teach' you?! I quoted them because I think emotional addressing provokes/causes emotional replies. It's goading each other...and repeating just like ping-pong...(this is btw the mentioned unawareness).. By doing that it restricts 'spirit' and no real debate can evolve. (The 'room' I claimed for is not there)... It is not even a real conversation between two 'spiritual entities'... It is just an emotional self-refection that addresses the other emotional self-reflection. The original goal (reasonable debate about the subject) gets into background because self-preservation of this emotional construct has become the only goal.... I can notice that at social media / chats / convos / forums /..and even more at politics...
Yeah, well... As for the "others": look above - mobbing or not? "Spiritual" my foot... Emotional and nothing else... I rest my case... "I referred to your statement that you are a professional spiritual that's opposed to emotional." - Oh, dear... Sorry... I have to compose myself now... You write "Spirit opposed to emotional" under my quote which says something very different... But OK... And when it comes to Philosophers/Chemists: it's the same thing with professional jargon! You wrote: "Either one knows 'it' or not there is no 'common' second meaning/sense....except a second non-scientific / trivial BUT different name." Now, change chemists to my profession and live with "trivial but different", "either you know or you don't"... Yes, "trivial" and yet everybody wants to be an expert in my profession, regardless of how much they know, how much they studied the issues etc. Blimey! So, instead of conclusion: in Chemistry we simply know or we don't know but in Philosophy, politics... we're... all equally... errmmm... emotional... Right...
Ehm not quite....I mean why the hell hasn't Hegel invented an own 'definition / term' for Spirit(uality) according to Hegel? There is no single, widely agreed upon definition of spirituality! When we talk about electronegativity -for instance- would ever somebody even try to use that therm otherwise (trivially)? Or has electronegativity a 'common sense' which could be mystical cr@p? Oh, I feel your electronegativity is not as advanced and well thought than mine? Science has definitions which are unified and acknowledged on the entire world. Or...how would 'others' ever 'know' what is one meter if there would be no established reference which is accepted by any human? There is no 'meter according to...' and no western meter or eastern meter and no mystical meter
Says an otter, FFS... You can't make this s*** up... Yen, Hegel (and many others, "professionals in the area" ) defined it very, very clearly, dealt with it carefully, from different perspectives. As opposed to you, sadly. Just a fuzzy, warm feeling... I still haven't seen anything of the sort, not even elementary stuff. Moreover, when I ask you what on Earth are all those professions dealing with "Human Spirit" doing so wrongly to be sidelined so "generously" by anyone who doesn't want to be obliged in any way by the huge amount of work already done in the area... silence! Suddenly, similar obligation is "normal" in Chemistry, just not in Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology.... Post-modern to the core! 'Nuff said...
Why not just saying (referring to topic). The meaning of life is to have an idea of spirituality / a study according to Hegel and to live conform to it. If spirituality is something natural / a natural condition then one has to think about whether one is 'enjoyed' by the intellectual approach about it or by spirituality itself. AKA just being spiritual.
And you want to know why peeps get an attitude about you? It is your inept replies that attempt to belittle others here. If someone makes a comment, you can not just ignore it and let it go. You feel that you need to be childish, retaliate and act all Trump like?
An opinion is just that. An opinion, or, ones feelings about something. If you disagree, it doesn't make them any lesser than you, or someone who needs to be converted to your way of thinking. if someone is quoting the law, or science and they are wrong, that's a different story. But it still doesn't give you the right to belittle or insult them. If you take the time to explain WITHOUT belittling or humiliating them, then you've earned their respect. Respect is a precursor to trust. And that's how you make friends and gain allies.
Yeah, the Right-wing gang here are angels, no nasty attitude all the way to racism and eugenics based on their superiority complex and intense hatred of the other - and of course, they just freshly fell out of the sky here, all innocent ("Who, me? No way! Whatrever I do is "natural" and "right", that is how everybody should behave!"), they have no idea what this is all about, sure... Autistic, perhaps? Short attention span, poor memory? What a larf! Yen, I asked you already a few times and you are ignoring the issues here: what is "spirituality itself", somehow totally separate from "intellect" and "Reason", completely disconnected from emotions, what is that "pure spirituality" which is "unmarred" by "intellect" and "thinking"? What are philosophers doing - pumping iron? Yes, we have to introduce various distinctions into our work, how things differ from one another but as philosophers (and scientists) we should be able to see how things are related, too, non? Definitio fiat per genus proximum et differentiam specificam. Perhaps one should pause here a little, let that sink in...? What is one doing here? What is our Subject-matter? Any takers? But of course, in physics or chemistry this is all "natural", an idea that "others" (non-scientists) are to be schtum - it's just that in Philosophy everybody is... of "equal knowledge" and "opinion", equally "spiritual", sure... Sooper-dooper... One wants recognition and respect for one's work, talent etc. - but one doesn't feel equally obliged to recognise and respect other people's work, talents, experience etc. Swell! HOW VERY SPIRITUAL OF ALL OF YOU WHO FEEL LIKE THIS, WITH AN ATTITUDE LIKE THAT!!!!!