DenoPenno, people can give any meaning they want to any word they utter or write; but they do so at the peril of being fully misunderstood and eventually having their words being deemed as irrelevant. Again, the Third Definition effort is for those that want to use the word Spiritual and be able to communicate clearly, like in academia or in serious conversations.

@maturin1919 That's it. No word has a meaning only usages. But some are less meaningful than others.

@maturin1919 Yes that may be true, but that is just the way it is, any person or group can, and frequently do, make up their own new meanings for words when ever they want. The dictionaries just follow in the wake. Example 'cool', which only a quarter century ago meant, between hot and cold, then meant without affectation, but now means in fashion. Words change and evolve all the time, and no force on earth will ever stop it. Personally I find the challenge of keeping up stimulating.

Language may exist, but it has never helped us to communicate thoughts clearly and accurately with one another, and indeed there are many forces at work within human society trying their best to make sure that it does not.

Femapple, your point about the meaninglessness or vague meaning is very well taken. I realize the understating of the enormity of the task, but I am not one that takes that as a deterrent, and I hope to recruit those that have same attitude.

If giving a more precise definition to the word makes some people stop using it, so be it. The central idea behind the Third Definition is to have a clear way to communicate when using the word. Like I have said elsewhere in this site, the dictionary does trail the evolution of language but it is the contract we all agree upon in order to communicate clearly, just like we are doing right now.

No one is trying to force anyone to do anything, but we better hold an interlocutor accountable for the words someone is using when talking to us. Evasive people will continue being evasive, regardless of meanings agreed upon.

maturin1919: Yes, that is what definitions are for and that is the idea behind the Third Definition effort.

If any of you want to participate in the effort, I created a group on this site called: SPIRITUAL: A Third Meaning. I invite you to join it.

Thank you.

@Rodatheist Good luck. I shall watch out for you.

@Fernapple Thank you.

Excellent. I hope you find agreeable to join our group. SPIRITUALITY: The Third Definition,

It is precisely because every one has their own definition that therefore the term does not convey any effective meaning when used. We need a definition to mean what we say and say what we mean, and to avoid having people using it in contradictory terms like "I am spiritual but not religious".
About being pigeonholed, allow me to make an assumption: looking at your profile photo, I think you are a woman. Does being thought of as a woman pigeonhole you?

@Rodatheist I’m not so caught up in defining all the terms that folks obsess over on this site. We can decide what we want “spiritual” to mean, but that’s not gonna bind people to using the word for that purpose only.

Being a woman is a fact. Being “spiritual” carries so many shades of grey that a definition is only a piece of the whole. Again, I for one refuse to be pigeonholed by it.

Short and Sweet, I like that.

I have taken note of your point. If you want to help on the effort, I created a group named: SPIRITUALITY: The Third Definition. You are welcomed to join and contribute and expand in your opinion.

A dictionary could be in error and it could be a type of appeal to authority fallacy.

@blahblah So what? Are all dictionaries in error? And what the hell kind of conspiracy theory are you pushing regarding dictionaries? Do I have to wear a tin foil hat to open one?

g

@genessa I don't do conspiracy theorys

@blahblah rofl you don't SPELL conspiracy theories either! but anyway, good. except "a type of appeal to authority fallacy" sounds like some kind of conspiracy theory.

g

@genessa are you not familiar with appeal to authority fallacy?
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. Wikipedia

@blahblah a slew of dictionaries is not wikipedia. the latter is written and edited by people who may or may not have some expertise, or an agenda. the former is a kind of book well researched and peer-reviewed and agreed on by all kinds of actual experts. if you think appealing to ANY kind of authority on ANY issue is a fallacy, then that is a conspiracy theory. dictionaries are fallable but they are not hit or miss like, say, wikipedia (whose writers do at least cite THEIR authorities, which we may then, by our logic and/or experience trust or not).

g

@genessa you say" if you think appealing to ANY kind of authority on ANY issue is a fallacy, then that is a conspiracy theory. "

I've never heard that one.

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4] The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.[5] wikipedia

@genessa I have no problem with dictionary OR wikipedia use as a starting point. What I do not like is saying "because the dictionary says that is what it is required to be".

@blahblah Okay you can pretend that's what I said and I can pretend we didn't even have this ridiculous conversation, which is going nowhere and has no especial value for me. I could be napping.

g

Genessa, we do have to make up new definitions, not just to keep the dictionary current, but more importantly, to be able to agree on what we are saying.

Now, what blahblah is referring to is that if the dictionary contains an error, that error can be used by someone to invalidate your argument, and that determination of lack of validity would be a fallacy because it is based on a false piece of information, in essence, on a false argument.

And that is precisely what is behind the Third Definition for the word Spiritual. Right now, when some non-religious people use the adjective Spiritual to define themselves, the bast majority of people would understand or assume that they are religious or believe in the existence of the spirit or the soul. So, what is going on? The dictionary contains an error; an error that can be solved by adding a Third Definition that implies the feelings that are experienced due to the awe and wonder for nature and the universe and their respect for all manifestations of life, which has nothing to do with a higher power or religious ideas or the spirit or the soul.

And you are right, unlike the process of having an entry in Wikipedia, it is not easy to get an entry into a formal dictionary. That only makes the Third Definition endeavor a more interesting and challenging one. I think the key is coming up with a solid good and encompassing definition that many people can agree upon.

In any case, I hope you don't think that napping is better than reading my post. : )

@Rodatheist napping isn't necessarily more interesting than reading your post, but sometimes, due to my ill health, it is more compelling!

i agree that sometimes a dictionary needs to be updated. however, the word "spiritual" is so emotionally charged, and so heavy with its current meanings, i still do object to just creating a third meaning, which still wouldn't cover the gazillion ways it is used; several new meanings would need to be added, which would really render the word not only as annoying as it already is but toothless as well. i would rather people choose a more precise word, if any word at all were necessary, to describe what they mean than just keep adding meanings to an overloaded old word..

g

@genessa Coining a new word is something that one of the members of the group has proposed. We are going to look at that.

And the Third Definition would not have to be all things for all people, just like the two currently accepted definitions do not either, but if it is broad, and solid enough, it just may be adopted by those who happen to be non-religious but still feel something about the universe and its wonders.

@Rodatheist I like coining new words for new concepts, not so much for old ones. I like how old words develop new meanings naturally, not so much forcing new meanings on old words just because people can't agree in what they mean -- especially controversial or emotionally charged words.

g

Simon1: It is precisely to be able to use the word Spirit without the implication of the control by a supernatural being, and only stay with the feeling derived from experiencing the universe in all its facets and the respect for all living things that the proposal of the Third Definition comes about.

Like the word "sick", youngsters now use it to mean something good.

@Moravian that's a sick observation! Lol

Cutiebeauty, can you expand on your comment? How does it apply to the effort behind the Third Definition? Thank you.

Seriously?

Just don't ban the fucking

Athena, since we better not get in the business of banning words, the idea is coming up with a definition that holds accountable those who use the word in a way different than the two current definitions in the dictionary. And we can only do so if we get a new good encompassing Third Definition that can be accepted and used by many many people.

@Rodatheist

I don't like the word and was making a joke. How does one truly ban a word?

And how do people go about actually agreeing on an additional definition for a word that already means something different to EVERY single person who uses it?

Follow "your own" truth. Very post-modern.

Perfect.

The Third Definition will not deter anyone from doing what you propose, but it will be helpful for those who do not want to live with such confusing state of affairs.

Don't worry, I don't take it as a show of disrespect at all. This is an idea and it has no personal connection to me other than I find it interesting to promote it in response to many comments of frustration about not being able to now what people mean when describing themselves with the adjective Spiritual, specially those that say "spiritual but not religious". Right now, and because of the limited dictionary definitions of the word, such expression is a contradiction of terms. Clarity and accuracy in communication is the idea behind the Third Definition. And like I have said several times by now, the difficulty of the task is not a deterrent.

Agreed.

[en.wikipedia.org]

"i’m spiritual but not religious" Are they not just denying God? as is their right?

@Mcflewster usually? it tends to be said by people who believe in some kind of soul, an afterlife, etc. but don’t follow an organized religion. most often, they don’t believe in a traditional deity. but that’s only from the people i’ve known who identify as spiritual but not religious.

@Mcflewster ohferpetessake, "denying God"??????? Yuppers! And not capitalizing the word AS IF it had actual meaning, either, just sayin'

in order to come up with a good solid definition that can be accepted by many users, it would be good to consider other ideas too. Would you like to participate in our group: SPIRITUALITY: The Third Definition, and hep us by bringing to the table the uses you have encountered?

@basher The current definitions already refer to soul and religious ideas. The Third Definition would be to give non-believers a clear definition and for all of us to have more of an agreement of what we are talking about.

@Rodatheist not really, no. many words have multiple definitions. that’s just the way language works.

Certainly. "Luck" is when something that happens to you is described as being "good." Now you can see why and how you have both good and bad luck.

CallMeDave, luck is defined as "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions". Do you mean that such definition does not satisfy your experience using or hearing the word?

@Rodatheist "apparently" is the crux

Davesnothere, this effort is for those that do not want to avoid the word and also to reduce the time it gets to arrive to an understanding after the "What do you men by ____?"

After much use and adoption by serious thinkers, many well defined words have become clearly defined, even in philosophy.

@Rodatheist True, but what % of folks ever bother to learn Philo? If we all did, I think a lot of these isues would vanish themselves.

What I do ot understand is WHY? Why would people not want to avoid a religious term originating from religious ideas they do not hold.

Why is "I was out in the forest today, it was spiritual."
superior to
"I was out in the forest today, it was awe inspiring."

Seems to me just another religious habit so many of us have had to struggle through, like a fear of hell.

@Davesnothere The percentage of people that learn philosophy is not relevant for the argument I am making. You said that "Even if the room or entire site agrees upon a usage for the term Spiritual, the world at large will not. New people coming in either won't use it, or won't agree with that usage, and we will again be having the conversation." and I only said that words even in the field of philosophy have able to be clearly defined.

Now, why would people not want to avoid a religious term? You are right. What I then contend is that by creating a Third Definition of the world "Spiritual", without a religious connotation, the word would not have to be avoided, and instead would help to convey a better understanding for some non-religious people that nonetheless have a deep feeling of connection to nature.

@Rodatheist "only said that words even in the field of philosophy have able to be clearly defined"
Completely agree, but I have found it necessary to do so conversation by conversation, because you never know how another person is using a term.

I do not need to agree with how you are using a term, I need to understand HOW you are using a term.

"a Third Definition of the world "Spiritual", without a religious connotation"--you could do so, it might have an effect in a century or so, but in the here and now the MAJORITY are believers and use the term in various ways, often blended by conflation.

To me it seems like this. My tire is flat, do I want to plug it, patch it, or replace it?

Storm1752. Thank you for your thoughtful response. As I will not be in any way the ultimate judge of what the definition should include, I am taking note of the points you are making, and if I have a question of what you say is not clear to me, I will ask you for clarification, which by no means is a questioning or rejection of your proposed ideas and points. I may ask you to expand on a point to clarify an idea so as to make it clear to everyone participating in this effort.
The fact that you are not a priest does not, in any way, shape or form, make you the wrong person to ask. I hope to make this an effort of the many, so, you and everyone else that is serious about this effort, is very welcomed.
I will send you an invitation to become part of the group I just created a couple of days ago, precisely to dedicate it to this endeavor. There is no obligation whatsoever of pertaining to the group. But I will bring your ideas and those of others into that group in order to discuss them and either make them form part of the definition or not. If you join the group I will ask you some questions about your points; if not I will return to this thread to ask them.
Thank you Again.

@Rodatheist Well I'm flattered. I just re-read what I wrote, then your response. All I can say is, I have the facility of stating the obvious with occasional eloquence.
I HAVE been thinking of the difference between religion and spirituality, and unless some people are "spiritual" and some are not--an open question but I think EVERYBODY is to one degree or another--perhaps one example is interesting to consider, to help draw a distinction between the two:
I personally don't think there is any such thing as 'evil,' and never have. The concepts of good and evil are foreign to me, and I believe should be to anyone aware of modern 'abnormal psychology,' if that's the right phrase.
One is a product of both environment (nurture) and genetic makeup (nature). The product is an always developing and evolving human being.
Religion would deny that and, due to past ignorance, label that person 'good' or 'evil,' or some combination of both, and describe the cause in terms of angelic or demonic forces.
Spiritualism? It would depend. A SECULAR spiritualist would acknowledge we don't know enough yet about the workings of the human brain to figure out each individual case, BUT we know enough to say one is born with a baseline of characteristics, a superstructure, upon which everything else is built.
Take that factor and add environmental influences, all experiences from upbringing to friends, events, decisions, even 'luck,' and we have an explanation for why people are who they are, and do what they do.
I might add, there MAY be a 'paranormal' aspect to it as well, ultimately explainable in scientific terms, but again, our knowledge is limited. As an agnostic I certainly don't rule that out. There is sufficient inconclusive yet compelling evidence to to think there is more to reality than what we can detect with our five senses.
I could go on, but I've already rambled on long enough.
Thank you again for the invitation.

@uuberdude Well I'm not religious. When you say a "religious experience," are you (or is James) referring to an ecstatic, transformational breakthrough, like a religious 'vision?'
Or just a feeling about , a sense of, a way of looking at, an UNDERSTANDING of, the natural world.

As one who has become independent of religion and churches, I DO have insights. I claim them as uniquely my own, and carry them with me wherever I go, whatever I do. Not as some one-off, blindingly miraculous EVENT.
Do others see things in a similar way? How could I possibly know? Why should I care?

IS there a difference between experiences which are 'religious' as distinct from 'spiritual?'
Yes, I believe there is.

RELIGIOUS experiences, I'd think, are gleaned through the filter of the particular religion to which one adhers. Maybe one feels the presence of Jesus or Allah, for instance. Believes a 'guardian angel' looks after him or her and thanks that creature for percieved help/guidance. And so on.

SPIRITUAL experiences, to me, would be very different:
As I alluded, I'm frequently amazed at my/our existence, the sheer apparent 'impossibility' of a creature who has evolved into an awareness of itself. Looked at with naked clarity, it is overwhelmingly mysterious...how can this BE?
I maintain the mystery ITSELF is the 'spiritual experience.'

One pre-disposed, on the other hand, to either agree with, or react against, a set of beliefs and meanings surrounding a personal deity--and all the images, suppositions, and assumptions attached to that orientation--cannot see life as a singular phenomenon in and of itself.
He or she merely attributes the whole thing to 'god' and leaves it at that.
This IS the perpective, the orientation, which precludes them from looking through an untinted lens at one's very existence.
That preclusion is the (potentially) deadening wall to be removed.

So it doesn't matter what a church, or an advertising agency, or a 'society,' THINKS.
I believe this must be percieved in the solitude of one's own mind...shared, and it is automatically belittled, discounted, and discarded.

Any sign you think you have "special insights"--rather than "normal, socially-sanctioned" ones--is viewed with suspicion or outright hostility.

Drinking ' spirits' definitley have a force behind them which can for example knock you in a stupour onto the floor.

You are right. Spirit is also defined as "those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period". and in ancient times spirits were thought to be "a highly refined substance or fluid thought to govern vital phenomena", as in the fluids that run through our body, or that of any living thing, and effects the various living processes. Also, spirits are distilled liquids for drinking.

However, when it comes to the word "Spirituality", not Spirit, we are proposing a Third Definition that does not refer to anything religious or to the spirit, or to the soul, in the supernatural sense of these words.

blahbla, I believe that the "Life of spirituality If a person is living a life that is motivated by the force of an ideal or a thought, they are being lead, or motivated by the force of the thought and their actions are working towards or in conjunction with that ideal or thought." could be considered to become part of the Third Definition.
If you are interested in participating in the Third Definition effort, you could join the SPIRITUALITY: The Third Definition group that I created for this purpose. If you do not want to join the group, let me know if I can use this words that I quoted from you toward creating the definition.

by the way, everything you say about spirit is very well explained. I like the fact that it is related to the motivation of the individual, more in the sense of ethos, and that way it is understood that such motivation will die when the individual dies, as opposed to be part of some ulterior existence separated from the material existence.

@Rodatheist Sure, the words could be used. If your concern is that this may draw a prize, something like a Nobel for such an addition, I would not be too much interested in the notoriety but some prize money might be useful considering the sharing both ways.

@blahblah Well, we are interested in creating a useful definition for a word. I am not sure Nobel prices are given for that. : )

AngiePoo: so far, and because of the first definition of the word Spiritual in the dictionary, you make a good assumption. However, there are those who indeed do not believe in a higher power and are not religious, and so, yours would be a wrong assumption. Therefore, if you are interested in knowing more about them, you could ask whether they are Spiritual according to the first, second or third definition. A third definition that is not yet in the dictionary and that this effort toward establishing a Third Definition is all about.

Except for the bullshit part, that definition is already in the the dictionary, but some using it do not want to say they are religious. And perhaps they are not, and so it would be better to have a Third Definition to have a better degree of clarity when using the word.

@Rodatheist like lawyers say in trials when they object, asked and answered.

Thank you for your response and opinion. I respect it just as all others. I do expect many who will say it is not possible or even those who just do not care, and that is fine; the effort will continue.

@OwlInASack because it's the internet. A Spiritual Place.

@OwlInASack

Well thank you for asking Owl in a Sack. You either have bird issues or you may be a Harry Potter fan.

I will answer your question in terms of Harry Potter so you will maybe feel a little more comfortable with the answer. Now please understand I really don't follow Harry Potter so this is a loose analogy.

You see we are going to win "because we have something worth fighting for."

"He is back!". You see the danger is real, like Voldemort it has never really left. In this analogy Voldemort is religion.

You can try to cage spiritual, but like those goblets, it just makes the problem multiply.

Spiritual is a verbal shield for the mudbloods.

The danger is real, the fear of death comforted by fantasy causes more to die. If you don't believe this Owl in a Sack, then ask yourself how much shorter your lifespan will be? How much more are you and your loved ones going to suffer by the hands of time, because of religious beliefs fighting and retarding the growth of science and medical technology?

I say, don't make my definition of spiritual the new definition. Make it even more harsh. Make it even more direct. Because, VOLDEMORT IS REAL!

@OwlInASack

No. Not okay. That is not what I do. Nor is any of what I have stated confrontational.

But, thank you for your opinion. Glad you understand the point. Hope you see it's necessity.

This effort is to establish a term to be used by those who, while genuinely not being religious, nonetheless experience a feeling that has to do with their connection with something bigger than themselves, but not a super power at all, but more like life and nature in all its real and material facets. In that sense, perhaps there are worthwhile people that have something interesting to say and ideas that we can pay attention to, without dismissing them because they are identifying themselves with an adjective that is now insufficient in its meaning.

Deb57, thank you for your comment.

This effort aims to help those who use the word to do so with more clarity, to say what they mean and to mean what they say.

I believe I will spend my whole life and I will never end up using in conversation all the words in the dictionary, but I certainly appreciate their existence and that they are well defined for clarity of communication. : )