Talk:Spirit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spirituality (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Death (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Spiritual grammar in native american military worship[edit]

I am wondering if someone would know how this would be interpreted [1]:

  • All living things and objects have a spirit.
  • When taking the life of a plant or animal of the Earth, a person must pay respect to the spirit of that plant or animal.

I am uncertain if the native american viewpoint of spirit (which would also apply to non-living things such as rocks and water) is represented here, and how it could be interpreted. Tyciol 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why you should not say real[edit]

On the distinction between fact and belief (as it goes to stating the spirit explains conciousness, but it applies in general):

Although one might hold the personal belief that the existence of an entity is fact, this does not imply that it is. Remember that however severely convinced one's belief in the existence of entity is, this still does NOT imply it's existence in reality. One's extreme conviction might surely be stated as fact, but history has well shown that people are often mistaken in what is fact or fiction. Therefore, when we speak of a theory, one at best may state that it has been confirmed to such a degree, that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. That is, when there is such a undeniable SHITLOAD of evidence to support it, that any sane person would do so. This, is certainly not the case with the statement that the spirit is the explanation for conciousness. Many think it is at best an historic, primitive, outdated, alternative explanation. I see how at the dawn of man one might jump to the hasty conclusion that there must be a spirit, but nowadays this goes against all neuropsychology. The amount of support for the theory of the spirit as an explanation for conciousness is not just disproportionate to that of modern neuropsychology. There scientific literature leaves little space (to, one might argue to practically no space) for the theory of the spirit as a possible explanation for conciousness, and with our everyday developing understanding of the nervous systems of living things, continues to do so less and less.

Therefore I concider it very misleading and inappropriate to state that the spirit explains the conciousness of living things, without stating that this is a held belief.

Give me one empirical observation that proves the existence of a spirit and we'll talk further (I said a real one, not some balony YT video that you declare as fact, something that has held up to critical inquiry. And yes I am aware of the danger of falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy with such statements, no conclusions have been made part of the premisse here.) FelixAkk

Ghoasts are real. So lets note it. GhoastUser 03:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You spelt ghosts wrong. --Majo(rly?) 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did spell it right. In Lu we spell it ghoast. GhoastUser 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)They are so real b couse i own one,from syco


"Ghosts" have not been proven to be real. Theirs no way we can note your opinion. Randy6767 21:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

the spirit's relation to the body and soul[edit]

I have removed this article, perhaps temporarily. It may return with some changes. Randy6767 20:58, 19 January 2007


Hebrew etymology reference[edit]

I think 'ruah' (said to be Hebrew 'spirit' in the article) is mind, not spirit. See:

the 7 consciousnesses (or 'spirits before the throne' of God--in the 7 lamps)
English: Hebrew

divinity: Hashem
holy spirit/oversoul: chhaya
spirit: jeshida
soul: neschamah
mind: ruach
emotions: nefesh
life: coach ha guf

Could anyone get the autiots for jeshida?--Dchmelik (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Ruach is very often translated as "spirit". See already Genesis 1:2. Gesenius gives the following range of meanings:

  • 1) wind, breath, mind, spirit
    • a) breath
    • b) wind 1) of heaven 2) quarter (of wind), side 3) breath of air 4) air, gas 5) vain, empty thing
    • c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation) 1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour 2) courage 3) temper, anger 4) impatience, patience 5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented) 6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable impulse 7) prophetic spirit
    • d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals) 1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at death, disembodied being
    • e) spirit (as seat of emotion) 1) desire 2) sorrow, trouble
    • f) spirit 1) as seat or organ of mental acts 2) rarely of the will 3) as seat especially of moral character
    • g) Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son 1) as inspiring ecstatic state of prophecy 2) as impelling prophet to utter instruction or warning 3) imparting warlike energy and executive and administrative power 4) as endowing men with various gifts 5) as energy of life 6) as manifest in the Shekinah glory 7) never referred to as a depersonalised force

Your "seven lamps" are apparently a reference to Revelation 4, but I don't know how you get the list of Hebrew words to go with it, let alone the English translations. --dab (𒁳) 10:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Terminology is very confused. I've come across in different sources the 3 components of human identity described as
  1. body, mind & soul
  2. body, mind & spirit
  3. body, soul & spirit
Peter jackson (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It's interesting to note that in common Christian speech the word "soul" is usually used to mean a disembodied spirit of the dead. There are Christian denominations which do not believe in the unconditional immortality of the soul, but believe that when you die you are dead, IOW, as Jesus put it, one "sleeps" until the resurrection of the dead at the Second Coming of Christ. To them immortality was an original human attribute at creation, it was lost because of sin, and is only restored after the resurrection when the saved will then live forever with God. The Hebrew use of the word often clearly implies that they are simply using the word to mean living individual or being. They even use it in reference to living animals, calling them souls. At the time of Christ there was division regarding belief in the afterlife and the state of the dead. The Pharisees were very conservative and believed in miracles and the resurrection, while the liberal Sadducees didn't. The Sadducees were the skeptics of their day. -- Brangifer (talk)

Animas[edit]

Animas

The life force spirit found in all substance. A G(g)od. The binding force of all matter that is pro-active in all life forms. Gnostics (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Spirit as unconscious force[edit]

Could somebody please review the following article of mine to see if it qualifies in an 'external links' section, and please insert it there. http://www.two-paths.com/spiritfish.htm Matswin (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Merging with Soul[edit]

Closing this proposal as not having a snowball's chance, never having been given a rationale grounded in policy or guidelines, having been apparently abandoned by the proposer, and the proposer being the only support it has with four opposed. Involved non-admin closure, so if you don't like it, revert it. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I proposed this article to be merged with Soul. As far as I am concerned, these two words are synonyms. This article is much poorer than Soul, so I think the former's material should be merged with the latter's. --Λeternus (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. Though there is a degree of overlap between the usages of the terms, they are not synonyms, being treated as meaningfully distinct terms extensively in reliable sources, so personal regard of them as synonymous isn't relevant. It's not necessarily clear that you're giving Spirit's quality as a reason for merging (as opposed to a reason for what should be merged where), but it isn't necessarily clear that you aren't, either, so I'll address it: present quality of a (non-stub) article is not a reason to merge it, any more than it is to delete it. It's a reason to improve it. Lastly, Soul is an enormous, 71k article that should not be needlessly burdened with material that naturally factors to another topic; per WP:MERGE, "Discretion should be exercised to make sure merging does not result in an article that is too long or drawn out". —chaos5023 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I almost wanted to discuss this topic rationally, before realizing I was actually trying to waste my energy/time arguing about non-existent/rational stuff. So good luck defending your position with your "reliable" sources. --Λeternus (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you're confused about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia summarizes and provides references to what reliable sources say about a topic. It matters not in the least whether the topic actually exists or is rational, no more with Soul and Spirit than with Optimus Prime. If you persist in wanting this merge to happen, you should probably find an argument for it that is grounded in Wikipedia policy or guidelines rather than your personal opinions. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I too strongly oppose merging the two articles. The two words are not synonymous. Mike Hayes (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand "soul" to be a subset of "spirit" therefore not the same. Hurricane2u (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Hurricane2u
  • Oppose too The soul is the unit of incarnation. Spirit isn't bound to a singular physical instantiation. K2709 (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Removal of devotee-published sources[edit]

I have removed the reference to Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu. For discussion, see RS/N and this Talk page. Simon Kidd (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the RSN page you link to that gives you the right to remove referenced text. You are removing valid information from articles acting against consensus. Hoverfish Talk 20:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I linked to two pages. Fifelfoo said on his Talk page: "I'd suggest editing out OR and inappropriately sourced content, citing policy and appropriate discussions, and discussing at length on the talk page." The relevant policy/guideline says that an article "must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if [among other things, it] is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials". Kalchuri fails this test, since he is published by an organisation affiliated with the subject. Simon Kidd (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't unilaterally decide that Lord Meher is not a reliable source. You can't unilaterally decide that it is devotional and not a reliable biography. What is "Devotional"? and who decides. Not You, Mr Kidd. Hoverfish Talk 16:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)