/lit/ - Literature

>>14830407
Spirits listen.
Religion speaks.
Humans conceive of both to create a mythology.
Mythologies teach about religion and spirits.

I mean this difference is in ontological level: while religion is based on the sacral (i.e., religious, holy) sphere, spirituality does need this as necessary way of existence. There is a difference between secular and profane or mundane.

Spiritus - according to philosophical antrhopology of Max Scheler - should be understood as the substance of a human being; the spirit should be regarded as a

directly personal way of being. So spirituality could be not only religious one, but also non-religious, as vertical dimension of human life.

>>14830407
I'd say religion is the whole framework of spirituality, including myth, beliefs and rites/rituals. Religion is like the symbolical topos which link humans to a Source; it's both a process and a narrative.

Spirituality is understood badly today, as some form of individual search for truth/connection, while religion is seen as external.; as if religion cannot be internalized.

Claiming Spirituality and Religion as divorced is a post-Enlightenment symptom, as people tend to rebuke old systems of belief in order to replace them with hybridized, more self-tailored frameworks.

I'd say spirituality as a whole is a general definition for any given world-view which accepts that reality is not bound by our material experiences, which is why most though movements today are by definition anti-spiritual.

The subject matter becomes even more difficult as you can argue anti-spirituality religions exist (Buddhism) or even anti-religious religions (Scientism). I know this sounds odd but this is in the vein of what Eliade said, that humans are "homo religiousus" in the sense that religion (it it's fullest sense, not the planking-term we perceive today) is the core of human nature, just as faith is the kernel of cognition (you must first believe in a given system of reference before you can enact judgments upon it).

>>14831470 this is also pretty good

>>14831527
I'm glad you brought up the topos. Many people don't see that connection.

spirituality is for faggots who do yoga

>>14830407
Spirituality in common speech usually reduces to feelings and it’s normally a feminine thing (feminine but not exclusive to females). It’s some “force” that makes them feel good or special and gives them warm fuzzy feelings, like looking at cat pictures on Instagram or eating an ice cream. Thus modern “spirituality” can be reduced to and explained by purely psychosomatic factors. Guenon was memed to death here and debased but his critique of modern spirituality is spot on.

I don’t recall the use of the word spirituality by any pre-modern philosopher or theologian but if they did I’d assume it would mean the same as religiosity.

>>14831771
Oh yes, now I remember. In pre modern times the spiritual pertained to the realm of the supersensible or intellectual (in the Platonic, not the modern sense). So I’d imagine that spirituality would pertain more specifically to the realm of contemplation (theoria, again in the Neoplatonic, not the modern sense), apophatic and mystic theologies, hesychasm, etc.

>>14831651
what books do i need to read to understand pic related

>>14831800
Cont.

Thus one can take from that that the religious as opposed to the spiritual would pertain more specially to the domain of piety, external worship, ritual, duties towards God and neighbor, observance of rules and customs, etc.

The broadest explanation is relativism Vs absolutism

>>14831818
No idea. Working on it, though.

>>14831818
Topology? That’s an advanced field of mathematics. You need to understand linear algebra and vector calculus first before you can read a book on that.