121
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
121 points (91.2% liked)
Asklemmy
44052 readers
829 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I upvoted you but I totally disagree - the idea that one can’t share their own “spiritual” experience without defining and agreeing (with others) on the definition doesn’t hold water for me.
Spirituality is inherently subjective - my wife feels it when she gives gratitude…my comment above is for sure more stupid but still valid
Do you mean "spiritual" as actually feeling a connection with the rest of all life, or understanding that each person is a tiny speck in an incomprehensibly vast universe, or imagining a connection with a personal deity, or imagining a connection with the dominant deity of the area, or feeling a peaceful satisfaction of connecting with yourself?
Religious people are likely to experience a different interpretation of the word spiritual than non-religious people. The use of the word spiritual at all will likely turn off a large part of the audience.
So I’m taking issue with the attempt to box in the word spiritual in one of your definitions.
If the post was asking about “happiness” instead of spirituality, nobody would be commenting “well hold on, before we begin discussion we’ll need to agree on what happiness means”
I’m not religious whatsoever btw.
To answer your question directly, I guess for me it’s the sense that something else is going on that is bigger than me. I’d personally also get this type of feeling by staring at the ocean.
I agree with you that if the OP had used the word happiness instead of spiritual there wouldn't be any confusion.
Perhaps it comes from the difference in whether one believes in a soul or not? I'm not sure. Honest question, not trying to fight or argue, could you clarify for me what you're taking issue with?
For sure, I sincerely don’t understand why anyone on a mostly anonymous Internet forum would need to define their own version of spirituality to talk about their personal experiences they think were spiritual
I’m not trying to be obtuse, super promise, but spirituality is inherently a pretty subjective subject. We’re not all going to align. We don’t need to.
There is a definition of spirituality, but it’s meaning to folks will differ.
Again, I am not really spiritual (in my own meaning of the word) but I take issue with a proposed need to define but because it almost feels idk gatekeepy?
You and I probably have a different understanding of the meaning of spiritual. We don’t need to align those meanings for me to share my dumbass acid story that I found spiritual.
I understand what you're saying. Thanks for answering.
I also agree, because we all pretty much understand what "happy" means.
No one seems to understand what "spiritual" means with any definition, and hence we shouldn't just be using it like we do, in my opinion.
Apparently for you it means "gives you perspective into your own insignificance", when I think for many people it, instead, means, "offers evidence for God or at least for the supernatural, in a non-spooky way".
So.. it's a good way to get a group of people all talking about different things and feeling like they're agreeing about things they don't necessary agree by means of an equivocation fallacy.
I agree with your last statement!
Appreciate the discourse btw. Lemmy has been a positive place for it for me so far so thanks for continuing that.
Thanks. Respectfully, though, it sounds like you are saying it's OK to take an event that happened to you and arbitrarily decide that it's going to be called "spiritual" without knowing what that means?
And then other people can take their own definitions that might be different, and read your story and be like, "Oh, I understand what this person means," without actually knowing.. potentially adding or removing their own meanings to it (the implication of the existence of a dirty, say) when that wasn't part of the original person's construct?
Because if that's right, I don't think I can go for that.