What are they????

[SPQR]

Hi Kaith

why cant it be the other way around? Why cant a philosophy be a religion?

/Yari

Philosophy tries to prove everything through logic, etc. Religion has many things based on believes that could not be proven logically.

 

[SPQR]

Religion: A system of beliefs force-fed to an individual by other individuals in funny robes and/or hats. 'Cross pollenation' of beliefs between systems is generally frowned upon, though they mostly say the same essential things. Most often, a 'higher power' is involved. Oddly enough, the 'higher power' usually is not impressed by funny robes and/or hats. Go fig.

Spirituality: The belief that other individuals in funny robes and/or hats can force feed others a system of beliefs. One can have spirituality without having religion, but always has a philosophy.

What do you expect from me? I ain't had my coffee yet!

Cthulhu

I agree that there has been a lot of forcing when it comes to religion throughout the ages. But why see only the negative? There have been many spiritual teachers that did not do that - Buddha, Lao Tzu, Krishnamurti, just to name a few.

 

[tsunami]

Lets try to find some definitions of
Spirituality
Religion
Philosophy
and how they interrelate and oppose each other. Can they all be the same thing or are they totaly different.

Philosophy is the practice of questioning what you have been taught, to determine if you know it to be true for yourself. Not just accepting it because everyone else tells you it is true.

Religion is a certain doctrine used to establish, express and or explain belief.

Spirituality is inside you.

Religion and spirituality are connected but you can have one without the other
and philosophy (the practice) is used to question them. Don't confuse this with having a philosophy.

 

[heretic888]

Contrary to the general attitude being expressed on this thread, I'm gonna have to go with the contention that these words are not Platonic Forms.

Words are part of a pre-existing languge. They do not exist independently of the individual, history, or cultural context. You can cite all the dictionary definitions and etymology that you wish, but at no point do we ever come to any kind of 'objective' meaning of any given word. Instead, it is a more viable option (in my opinion) to see words as intersubjective truths, mutually interactive constructions that cultures continually develop for their own use. And, in a relatively pluralistic culture such as ours, a single word can have a plethora of meanings to different people (or even to the same person).

As such, in rational discourse, I think it is always useful to define what you mean regarding any ambiguous term or definition, so as to avoid any confusion. The meaning doesn't exist pre-given, for any all to see. It is an intersubjective construction.

That being said, I think the delineations between 'religion', 'philosophy', and 'spirituality' is by and large arbitrary. We see no real rigid delineations between these subjects in history. What was once philosophy becomes religion and then becomes philosophy again. What was once considered a personal spirituality can become ritualized or organized into a religion, and then break down into a personal spirituality again. Nothing is concrete here.

Although, as a side note, I much like Paul Tillich's characterization of spirituality as one's sense of "ultimate concern".

 

[Xue Sheng]

Spirituality, philosophy and religion as not the same. Add one particular word to all three and that becomes evident. Extremism, which is defined as the quality or state of being extreme, advocacy of extreme political measures, radicalism. (Webster’s 9th new collegiate dictionary)

If you have a Spiritual extremist it is not likely that they will cause much if any problem, a philosophical extremist, possibly. But a religious extremist is a whole different breed of cat. Religious extremists have been responsible for the Crusades, cults and much of the international terrorism of today.

Also Philosophies can become religions, examples of this are Taoism and Confucianism.

And the definitions of these three words is not exactly the same if you are taking Eastern Philosophy not Western.

But since, I am assuming, we are all Westerners, and in this discussion, since you are comparing Spirituality, philosophy and religion I am assuming that you are referring to Religious philosophy. If that is the case there is no difference between the 2. But Philosophy is not religious philosophy. Religious philosophy is a part of philosophy much the same a historical philosophy and scientific philosophy.

Philosophy, Spirituality and Religion are defined as follows in the Dictionary of Philosophy and religion, Eastern and Western Thought.

Philosophy - From the Greek philos meaning love of and Sophia meaning wisdom.

From Pythagoras
Philosophy can be divided into 3 types
- those that love pleasure
- those that love activity
- those that love wisdom

From Socrates
Self-knowledge, through the gaining of conceptual clarity, to be the function of philosophy

From Plato
The discovery of reality or absolute truth,

From Aristotle
Philosophy begins in wonder, tells us that this discipline is concerned with the investigation of the cause and principles of things. But within this there is first philosophy or theology.

From Descartes
Philosophy is the elucidation of ultimate truth whose starting point is found by pushing skepticism to its limits. At that limit the certainty of ones own existence is revealed.

Spirituality from Spiritualism – A term with both philosophical and religious associations. Philosophically, the term is something used as a synonym of Idealism. In religion the term sometimes refers to the indwelling of the Holly Spirit.

Religion - from the Latin religare (“to bind fast”) typically the term refers to an institution with a recognized body of communicants who gather together regularly for worship, and except a set of doctrines offering some means of relating the individual to what is taken to be the ultimate nature of reality

 

[heretic888]

Spirituality, philosophy and religion as not the same. Add one particular word to all three and that becomes evident. Extremism, which is defined as the quality or state of being extreme, advocacy of extreme political measures, radicalism. (Webster’s 9th new collegiate dictionary)

Well, as I said before, the meaning of these terms is not pregiven.

You can cite all the dictionaries, etymologies, and historical tomes that you wish, but this does not change the fact that these words are parts of our languages, which are parts of our cultures. Ergo, they are little more than sociocultural constructions erected by us --- whether consciously or unconsciously --- to communicate certain ideas.

They don't have some kind of 'objective' meaning independent of the communicator. As such, context is very relevant within such discussions.

Laterz.

 

[Xue Sheng]

They don't have some kind of 'objective' meaning independent of the communicator. As such, context is very relevant within such discussions.
Laterz.

You know, I had a long response written, and I decided to delete it and not get into this.

Have a nice day.

 

[heretic888]

You know, I had a long response written, and I decided to delete it and not get into this.

And, yet, you still felt the need to inform me of this fact. Very interesting.

Laterz.

 

[Xue Sheng]

And, yet, you still felt the need to inform me of this fact. Very interesting.

Laterz.

And yet you still feel the need to prove superiority in some way. That is equally as interesting.

I will not get into a debate based on semantics and rhetoric, it is a pointless.

I am here for "Friendly Discussion", not battle.

one who knows does not speak
one who speaks does not know

let it go, I am.

 

[heretic888]

And yet you still feel the need to prove superiority in some way. That is equally as interesting.

If you say so.

I will not get into a debate based on semantics and rhetoric, it is a pointless.

Actually, the entire point of this discussion is "semantics" and "rhetoric".

We are discussing the possible meanings of a given set of words. This necessarily invokes semiotics and hermeneutics.

I am here for "Friendly Discussion", not battle.

If you say so.

[one who knows does not speak
one who speaks does not know

Sure thing, Socrates.

let it go, I am.

Whatever you say.

Laterz.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Sure thing, Socrates.
Laterz.

Actually it's not Socrates.

First I apologize to all that are in this post for this, but this is the ground I was forced to stand on and after this I will only respond to subject if I make any comment in this post.

heretic888

I truly do not want to get into this with you here, but I will respond to you one final time, and please feel free to respond to me at anytime you wish, but I will no longer respond to you after this.

I am guessing you are much younger than I am, about 20 years, give or take 5 years. You are either in college for your Bachelors, Masters or PhD or recently graduated from a college with your Bachelors, Masters or PhD. I am also guessing it is in a Social Science or a Liberal Art Area. Either that or you are very well and recently self-taught. All of these are commendable achievements to be proud of and I congratulate you.

But new knowledge is like a new toy; we like to show it off. And it can sometimes make us very arrogant. I was guilty of this during and after my college days, many many years ago. At that time I would have welcomed your type of debate. However as the years past and things changed I began to realize that it just wasn’t that important. There were and are other things in life that are much more important than proving superiority or intelligence. And for me to continue a debate with you would require me to take out books that were put away long ago and are no longer important to me.

However I should probably thank you for showing me something, by example when you assisted in the hijack the Qi discussion, something that I suspected I was doing in some of these posts prior to that hijacking. Also your attacks on me made me remember some things that I had forgotten. And I suppose I brought this on myself for responding to some of the your posts prior to your undeclared war of rhetoric and semantics that you unleashed.

What you pointed out to me by example, like you are, I was becoming arrogant and a bully with words. I have sense changed my tone in these posts, and I thank you for that. What you made me remember was the Eastern philosophy that I have studied, that I suspect you would scorn, so I will no discuss that with you.

I am done now, feel free to respond, declare victory from the highest mountain, tell all you see that you won and celebrate to your hearts content, it matters not to me.

I wish you all the best.

 

[heretic888]

You know, I had a long response written, and I decided to delete it and not get into this.

I will not get into a debate based on semantics and rhetoric, it is a pointless.

....but this is the ground I was forced to stand on and after this I will only respond to subject if I make any comment in this post.

I truly do not want to get into this with you here, but I will respond to you one final time, and please feel free to respond to me at anytime you wish, but I will no longer respond to you after this.

Uh huh.

 

[Cryozombie]

Knock it off.

 

[NLMontana]

My, my. Two very well-read and well-spoken artists.

Religion is tradition.

Spirituality is between an individual and Source (God, Goddess, You At Your Highest State Of Being, etc.).

Philosophy is the DO by which we choose to live our lives.

I choose to live by way of the Shihando, the Way of the Master.

Thank you for this interesting thread.