Philosophizing on YouTube with Pyrrho314
14 responses to “Philosophizing on YouTube with Pyrrho314”
It seems like you two should get together again and talk this through..and Kuhn will certainly help…I kind of feel I’m an irrelevance here in this discussion…feel like I am talking to myself. I should know better!
You might both want to look at http://hugofgaia.com/2014/05/25/towards-a-definition-of-spirituality-and-pentecost/ and then you might not !
A bit lost on the context of the discussion – references to Gary and others are unfamiliar to me. Apologies! Did like the sort of spur of the moment, back and forth though, in the act as opposed to hidden and obfuscated by a formal presentation – it lacks pretense. A couple of comments:
(1) I agree with this ” I just feel like it serves us better (as people trying to defend the relevance of spiritual experience and discourse about such experience) not to use specific scientific paradigms (for ex., quantum theory as described by the double slit experiment) as “proof” of spirit. ” Not only for more general philosophical reasons as you go on to say but to preserve and “show” that other avenues to knowledge, other significant relationships with the world are possible than the mere desiccated terms of a ‘scientific’ ontology. Its important to communicate or live the idea that our relation to nature as such need not be laboratory like – we need not, as a matter of course, before we say anything consult the latest book of scientific findings. If Philosophy can preserve or hint towards, or encourage us to develop these different paths then great – the hegemony of technocratic thinking is becoming too much. Something needs to resist this totalizing of knowledge, this equation of knowledge with technology.
(2) With that said, I’m a bit wary of terms like Spirit and Spiritual as they connote a religiosity that is reflexively dismissed..even by me. But there are no neutral terms here and I often wonder if trying to use different concepts is just running away from the full implications. Not sure but I’d like to discuss these things without having to talk about the supernatural or Christianity in particular. I suppose a question is, is there a way to affirm the spiritual without thereby advocating for a Religion? Paradoxically, I’m asking is there a way to think of the Spiritual naturalistically? But of course, not a Naturalism that is merely Materialism but a Naturalism open to including what we term the “Spiritual” as distinctive and real in the actual world. By this I mean, quite literally, the question can be posed is what we call “spiritual” real and non-material, but not ‘supernatural’? Is this offending to “Spirit” ? I often wonder how blasphemous this might be to devout believers. As much as it maybe, I find it difficult to engage the particulars of any Religion but I also find reductionist ideas repellent. Thus,I try to navigate a middle path. This middle path involves the intense reflection on our lived experience, finding the right tools to ‘talk’ about it without choking it off at the root for its inability to be codified into simple abstractions.
What do you think?