Is spiritual fulfillment necessary for humans? Almost all societies

>>2307977
Absolutely. Spirituality is an essential part of the human experience.

Spirituality is inalienable from consciousness. When we project ourselves into the past, future, some happenstance far away or close by or merely make-believe, we put ourselves in the abstract and learn something about how we must behave to sate our desires.

Can spiritual also mean transcendent, or simply serving something bigger than oneself such as one's nation?

>>2308034
"Serving your nation" isn't spirituality. It's ideology.

>>2308040
it depend according to what ideology you follow

Absolutely necessary. Naturalism is cancer

>>2307977
>Is spiritual fulfillment necessary for humans?

No. Although most societies have had "spiritual outlooks", it was often the case that the large majority of people did not particularly indulge in these spiritual endeavours, and contented themselves with giving it lip service, and only interacting with these spiritual constructs when it was thought these could grant supplicants earthly wishes (a good harvest, victory in battle, the securing of a good trade deal, etc.).

So no, it isn't.

>>2310443
That still makes in important in life.

Transhumanist techno-mysticism is endgame for humanity.

>>2307977
I think spitituality is a way of pussy footing around using the word religion.
Religion is just a meaningful explanation of nature and being and comes along with symbolic thought.
All humans are religious and the ones who claim they aren't haven't thought about it too hard and/or are restricting religion to very narrow definition

>>2312189
No, systems mysticism.
From a semiotic perspective mysticism is just sensing symbolic meaning, and is as accurate as the knowledge that is being sensed.
Have you ever been an ecosystem?

True endgame is Dao De Jing/Yi Jing.
You read it here first.

>>2307977
Most people are far to ignorant to care about spirit, decency and enlightenment (look at all the people having relations with beasts--think they are capable of "deep" conversations?).

>>2312334

I'd argue that your definition of religion is too broad. I agree that sometimes using the term spirituality very much IS pussyfooting, though.

>>2307977

>but isn't the journey of finding meaning and purpose in ones life a spiritual journey by definition?

Well put.

I'd say that yes, it is necessary. Which makes me question what I'm doing with my life. Leo Tolstoy's later writing would agree with you, too.

>>2313640
muh wuh whey lol its literaly the same of some forms of hinduism, and buddism, they just call it differant things and try to word it from differant angles, its all the same lol

I think people focus too much about themselves in a way. You said that you feel that you can discuss about every subjects and that you're not ignorant. But your purpose cannot be in that Spiritual or in an enlightenment because as a human being you live in a world of reality and trying to find a purpose outside your own reality is a non-sense.Your purpose in this world must be concrete and real to really feel it and that changed things in a way that they are suppose to be by or u would like them to be without any damages to other people purposes.

>>2315584
>because as a human being you live in a world of reality and trying to find a purpose outside your own reality is a non-sense.
Maybe, but esoteric concepts are also part of our existence. Part of the human condition is being able to conceive of ideas that do not necessarily exist in reality. Does that mean they have no meaning? Humans give life to thought, there is no natural law that says Americans must obey the US constitution and yet the obey it all the same because what is objective and real sometimes doesn't matter as much as artificial constructs that help us to live safer, more fulfilling and more meaningful lives.

>>2307977
>Today people seem to think that a purely scientific and materialistic view of life is sufficient for people, but this idea seems to be flawed since no matter how many questions science answers about biology, astronomy, physics or chemistry, there are two things it can never give a person. Meaning and Purpose.
That people can't derive those things from science doesn't mean they can only derive them from spirituality, assuming you're defining it as inherently supernatural. They can derive it from their personal values.
>isn't the journey of finding meaning and purpose in ones life a spiritual journey by definition?
Only if spirituality isn't defined as inherently supernatural, unless you say these things can only be attained through supernatural spirituality, I suppose.

>>2315668
There is no meaning that can be derived from a purely naturalistic view of the world because a purely naturalistic view of the worlds depends on the very fact that there is no greater 'meaning' to your existence and that you are the result of a great cosmic coincidence. It's the death of meaning. To give meaning you need to actively fight against objectivitism and claim that your subjective opinion holds more meaning than the objective naturalist view that it doesn't

>>2315648
I understant what you mean, I think that esoteric concepts doesn't help us find a purpose but help us create an interpretation of that meaning to us and to others if they share and understand them. But those esoteric concepts are a consequences of the naturalistic world and not the other way around. Our ideas and thoughts is just the way that we perceive, analyse, compare the real world to his possibilities also based on natural experience. But is it possible to find an answer and eventually a purpose in what is not? Maybe I don't know.

>>2307977
>Of course the materialists usually say that as for those things they need to be identified by each individual, but isn't the journey of finding meaning and purpose in ones life a spiritual journey by definition?
So you understand why materialism doesn't exclude the pursuit of spiritual fulfillment?

File: desktop.jpg (527KB, 820x505px)

527KB, 820x505px

Anyone have any experience with Baha'i here? I am a seeker.

>>2315730
>So you understand why materialism doesn't exclude the pursuit of spiritual fulfillment?
It does because no purely materialistic philosophy can grant spiritual fulfilment

>>2315682
How so you know there is a "meaning" to life?

How insecure are you ffs just live your life and don't be a dick you are not Hercules you are not following a path to glory or some shit.

Isn't this place already good enough for you?

Work find a wife fuck her, have children, work more, have some good days, have some bad days, die.

You are just a mammal accept it ffs.

>>2315807
Is this the "just turn your brain off and enjoy it" argument? Just because the answers to the questions that gnaw at the back of your mind are uncomfortable doesn't mean you shouldn't ask the questions. You're being decidedly anti-intellectual here. If you want to live like a mammal than do it, I'll live like a human and continue asking questions no matter where the answers lead me.

>>2315818
No this is the "deal with reality and stop making up stuff because you are insecure" argument.

You can ask as long as you want but stop making up answers just because you like them.

>You're being decidesly anti-intellectual here.

No you are

>>2315834
How is the attitude of "don't think about it man, don't question anything just fuck, work and die like an animal" not anti-intellectual? You realize that the root of scientific inquiry is asking "why?" right?

>>2315848
Nice strawman I never said "do not think about it".

Prove there is a meaning and we are fine.

Now let me think about the meaning of blue or 3for the rest of my life.

You get it now? There is no answer for every question.

Fucking pseudo intellectual prpving once again how cancerous and retarded the philosophy community is.

>>2315869
So you think Aristotle was wasting his time and we all would've been better off if he threw his hands up and said "Welp, we can't prove anything better not bother thinking about it"? And you say you're not anti-intellectual? If you don't want to think about things, nobody is forcing you to. The fact that you're so aggressively against philosophical thought suggests you have an issue about where the answers lead

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1480814230772.jpg (161KB, 499x632px)

161KB, 499x632px

>>2315848
Asking why about stuff that is geounded in reality like why thunder or why sun.

Are are trying to put meaning into stuff whitout even proving if there is something like meaning and if there is meaning what it is.

Philosphy ladies and gentleman circlejerking about non existent stuff without the chance of ever ending rhe discussion or coming to a solution.

An you "phosophists" really still ask yourself why everybody looks down upon you?

>>2315884
Aristotele was asking about perception of reality (a real thing).

Stop comparing your meaningless question to his.

File: stop it faggot.jpg (9KB, 300x198px)

9KB, 300x198px

>>2315884
I sware to whatever waifu you pray to if you use one more strawman I will hang up on your ass.

>>2315884
>If you don't want to think about things, nobody is forcing you to. The fact that you're so aggressively against philosophical thought suggests you have an issue about where the answers lead

>you have an issue about where the answers lead

You do not have an answer that is my issue, you just like to think about stuff without caring if your answer is correct.

If you have an answer go ahead tell me what the "meaning" of life is and what rational process you used to come up with that answer.

But first prove that something like "meaning" exists and if so what it is.

This is gold.

> you have an issue about where the answers lead

Holy fucking shit spoken like a generic religious retard.

>>2315899
Aristotle asked a lot of questions and proposed a lot of answers. You clearly don't understand what you're discussing if you think Aristotle was focused on one field, his philosophy covered a huge range of subjects ranging from mathematics to metaphysics to biology. Aristotle got a lot of things wrong, but it was never a waste of his time to ask the questions and his rigorous logical thought processes paved the way for the scientific method.

Again if it's too hard for you to think about things then nobody is forcing you too.; Why are you so invested in stamping out philosophical thought? Just because we may never have objective answers doesn't mean the questions aren't worth asking. If people all thought like you we'd still be living in the stone age because apparently considering things that we don't have answers for yet is a waste of time.

>>2315908
>Holy fucking shit spoken like a generic religious retard.
Ah I see the problem, you're projecting. I'm not religious.

>>2315909
>f you think Aristotle was focused on one field

Ok that was the last strawman.

Bye faggot, btw good job ignoring all the questions you can not answer.

>Again if it's too hard for you to think about things then nobody is forcing you too

Oh yeah it is just too hard for me, and you you are just to smart for me.

>>2315915
>you are just to smart for me.
To be fair it's not a high bar when you think naturalism is the be all end all of human thought.

>>2315911
>you have an issue about where the answers lead

You are you just call it being spiritual.

> I know an answer to a question (the question might not even be relevant to life but whatever) I can not prove that my answer is correct and this answer gives me an advantage over you moronic idiot who relies on facts and evidence for his decisions.

^ This is ground level religious mindset, you make up something without proving it and then call me an idiot because I rely on logic and facts for my worldview.

You are religious you are just tap dancing around the word religion by using "spiritual".

>>2315925
Nice ad hominem again, you are already desperate aren't you?

>To be fair it's not a high bar when you think naturalism is the be all end all of human thought.

Another strawman.

To end this discussion here, you not only failed to prove that something like a "meaning" exists you also used strawmans and ad hominems to get a pseudo advantage over me, you ignored the questions you couldn't answer and went on with.

>well it is just too hard for you
>you be afraid of them answers
>I have a advantage by believing in something that has no grounding in reality and is not proven to exist.

^Your mindset is highly irrational and you use the same arguments religious people use to avoid clear answers.

I feel sorry for you.

goodbye.

>>2315928
I haven't made up anything that can't be proven. You're projecting again.

>>2315946
>you not only failed to prove that something like a "meaning" exists
Prove to me that you perceive the color red the same way I do. Can't do it? Guess you see red as blue, you can't prove otherwise.

>>2315961
Other than answering the question I will turn this shit around and ask him x.

>I am not religious

>I can answer your questins, but I won't.

Fucking lost, bye lad.

>>2315974
Prove to me that you perceive red in the same way I do and I will prove to you that meaning exists. Deal?