What is the difference between Philosophy and Spirituality
“What is the difference between Philosophy and Spirituality?” This is a question that has been propelling much of my efforts in writing this blog. Generally here I have limited my meandering thoughts to those ideas and thinkers that tend to safely fall within the general spectrum of what are known as philosophies and philosophers. My recent musings on the writing of Ralph Waldo Emerson however, has veered dangerously close to the domain of the spiritual. I have also recently been reading about the existential philosophers and again they seem in many ways to have a more spiritual leaning to their perspective. (More on that to come.)
So what is the difference? What makes us call one set of thoughts philosophical and another spiritual? I think that I have come across an answer that helps me – but I definitely would like to hear from some of my readers on this and add your thoughts to the mix.
First of all let me state that I realize this is not a cut and dry distinction. There are philosophical traditions that seem very spiritual to me, and spiritual traditions that seem very philosophical. I would say the distinction must lie in a certain tendency in one and the other. As I see it that tendency can be stated as follows.
Philosophy is the domain of wisdom, knowledge and understanding about reality. A philosophy is an explanation of the way things are where spirituality is a description of a position that you as a human being should take in relationship to the way things are. Philosophies give us big, and to the extent possible, objective pictures of reality without telling us explicitly (although often they do implicitly) how we should be in relationship to that picture. Even in moral philosophy generally what we get is an explanation of why certain things are right and others wrong. What we don’t get is someone telling us that we should do the right thing. What we do with morality is left in our own hands. Spirituality resides in the realm of truth, spirit and moral judgment. Spirituality tells us how we should be in relationship to the way things are. Spiritualities always include philosophical explanations of the world, but those philosophical aspects are the backdrop for the main event which is direct instruction about how to live. I suppose that is why you usually speak of spiritual teachings as opposed to spiritual theories.
There are other possible ways to see this distinction and one is that philosophy tends to include wisdom gained through reason and rational argument while spirituality tends to be insight gained through spiritual experience and revelation. To my mind however this is a more specific difference and there are many counter arguments to it. So to avoid at least one fight I will leave this be for now and stick with my original distinction as a more general and more easily defensible one.
I believe that this gets us back to the two kinds of truth that I mentioned in an earlier post; Truth as Fact & Truth as Commitment. Philosophy is a tradition that comes straight to us from the ancient Greek thinkers. And this was the ‘Truth as Fact’ crowd. To them reality was riddled with universal laws that governed everything and that needed to be understood and lived in accordance with. Since these laws were fact, there was less need to dictate why a person must live by them, in fact, once you realize that they are true and that they are indeed universal laws it would be impossible not to live in accordance with them. As an example once you know that gravity is a universal force that must be obeyed, you don’t really need a spiritual teaching to tell you not to jump off a cliff. If you are foolish enough to jump off of a cliff knowing that gravity is a universal law, then you will simply suffer the consequence of falling. You cannot break universal laws. You can only live well or live poorly based on how you do or do not align with them. And so a philosophy only needs to tell you what the truth is in the sense of telling you what the facts are.
Spirituality, at least in the western world, can be most directly traced back to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Here we see a ‘Truth as Commitment’ crowd. The “fact” that Moses received the 10 commandments directly from God, or that Jesus was the promised messiah are not verifiable facts. They are matters of faith. Because they are matters of faith there is an onus on the indiviudual to stand for them, to act as if they are true, in order to make them true. The 10 commandments are not universal laws in the same way that gravity is a universal law. We don’t have to live by them. If we do live by them we can make them universal laws, but only through our adherence to them. For this reason a spiritual tradition can’t just tell you what the facts are, it has to convince, inspire or force you to live by them.
Any thoughts?
Spirituality finds its origin in the believe that we are One. God as symbol of the common source from which everything else originates. If these are the forms of Plato or God as father of God as nature, or emptiness, we are all connected, we are One. It is a basis for goodness. This is where the believe in goodness of human beings comes from. There is no goodness in plants or in animals (only ‘care’ caused by biological conditioning or genes). But goodness in the way we know it, originates in the idea of Oneness. This is what the Buddha and Jesus where telling us. There are many different ways to be connected to that one-ness, Religion is the division that created rules that help us to act according to this truth (truth as commitment).
Oneness is the basic truth (truth as fact) that is at the basis of everything else (=spirituality). All other truth about ‘what we are’ and ‘what reality is’, is science. Philosophy used to include everything, also spirituality, but like mathematics, it is not the same as philosophy. I think philosophy without spirituality is not about goodness.
I just read a line: some philosophers think life is basically spiritual, they are called (in the 17th century) idealists; others think everything finds its origin in the concrete, they are called materialists (physics). Even though in that time sometimes materialists believed in God, which could lead to the idea of determinism.
A story: an astronaut (not Christian) and a brain surgeon (Christian) where talking about spirituality. The astronaut said: I have been in the universe, but I never met God or angels. The brain surgeon said: I have operated many brains, but I never saw a thought.
Philosophy is generally in the mental state of consciousness. It is the mind taking efforts to know. It is the domain of abstractions. Spirituality is ranges of states of consciousness that exist above the mental ranges. There knowledge transcends domain of rationale and intellect. Here it is knowledge by identity. Knowledge here cannot be accessed by thinking but knowledge is revealed and is often received in silence.
This post brings me back to last Sunday, when I was sitting in my hometown Episcopal Church which I attended from infancy, and now when I’m visiting family, listening to the first reading of the day, a passage from Amos. In it, the Lord proclaims to Amos that he will abandon His people in Israel, turning “feasts into mourning” and “songs into lamentation”. It is in these moments that I always smile, because quite often in the cycle of readings from the Bible, there is one reading like this, and another, like the one read on the same day from the Gospel, the story of Martha and Mary (Martha of course toils away at chores to welcome Jesus and His guests while Mary sits at His feet listening to Him speak. Jesus proclaims Mary as having taken “the better part, which will not be taken away from her.”). It is always funny to me that the priest, without fail, no matter who it is on any given Sunday, will choose the “Mary and Martha” reading, the one we all know and are comfortable with, or at least reasonably so, upon which to preach his/her sermon. No one wants to touch the reading that leaves the congregation with a nearly audible “HUH?” hanging in the air after it.
I count myself very lucky to not be in the “Huh” side of the congregation any more. I am grateful that I can listen to readings like the one from Amos with a smile. I am grateful for the time when, in my deepest despair years ago, I heard God call my name out of despair in that very Church with a voice that erased all tears, and all pain. It was a voice from another world, a world I’ve been brought to in a series of increasingly frequent moments through meditation and music, and through meeting Andrew Cohen in person.
Perhaps in this case, the priest, who delivered a fine sermon on the importance of “Being” as opposed to just “Doing”, was the philosopher. He showed the many angles of the story to us, and how it applies to our lives. He perhaps even opened doors to hearts with questions and ponderings. It was with a gentle insistence that he kept coming back to the main point of his sermon: that we are loved by God for exactly who we are.
But how does a philosopher convince us that we are loved for exactly who we are when God Himself, as in Amos, seemingly condemns us to death? It is a difficult case to represent! This is why we need the person of Jesus Christ, who “upped the ante” by showing human kind that there is a way to live in and as the awareness of Eternal and Infinite Love. It was easy for me to understand the Amos reading as a story of a time when we were not ready to realize heaven on Earth. Therefore our version of God WAS terrifying, separate, and cruel at times. We could not yet count ourselves as part of God.
It takes spiritual experience to understand the Amos reading in the context of our world now, which has the power of Jesus and so many other enlightened Beings flowing through it. Try as hard as s/he might, no priest can bring the all-powerful experience of being engulfed by Love to a congregation–at least, if this were to happen, in a Church where philosophizing is ‘safe’ and ‘controllable’ and ‘understandable’, all things which Love is not, the priest would be counted crazy or ‘over-the-top’ by those not yet ready to experience the true, complete power of Love.
In the context of my life right now, where I acknowledge that I have much much more to learn, this is the difference between spirituality and philosophy: Spirituality is deep knowing, based on experience, of the Love that is Us which covers all pain, all humanity, and brings us in to direct connection with God, or Source, or who we truly are. Philosophy, like Religion, perhaps, tells and interprets stories which point us, just as they pointed me as a child, toward allowing the experience of this Love in our lives.
Philosophy tells the story of Love experienced. It’s a bit like singing an opera. The music tells the truth of who we are, that everything can be interpreted as beauty, even the darkest of our experiences. It is ironic and awe-inspiring that we must leave ‘reality’ to realize the most graceful interpretations of life. It is here where I say, what is more true? The freedom that music gives us to give a beautiful interpretation to life, or the experience of life itself? What is more important? My spiritual experience or the story a philosopher or priest tells to interpret it to people who are searching for truth and relief? Probably they are equally important…and maybe, as I strive to achieve in my life, there is a way to be and think and live where the story-telling and music-making, and the experience of Love itself, become One and the same. Indeed, that’s what I’ve learned from childhood, to seek, ‘to be like Jesus”.
I would likes to answer to Arul on this very interesting topic. Even in philosophy, knowledge is revealed. The intellect and the mind is one door to transcendence. It is working quite well, and maybe it is the most well understood door of transcendence in the present state of evolution of humanity.
My take on this very interesting blog, is that all the distinctions between philosophy and spirituality are the reflection of our lack of evolution. At the end I believe that both will merge into one human activity.
Jeff says : “Philosophy is the domain of wisdom, knowledge and understanding about reality.”
Well, I believe at a certain level , a simple but deep understanding about reality provokes a spiritual experience. I would go one step further : any real understanding, eureka, even not spectacular, is a pure spiritual experience very close to what we call revelation.
Jeff says about spirituality:“Spirituality resides in the realm of truth, spirit and moral judgment. Spirituality tells us how we should be in relationship to the way things are.”
yes, but if we are really searching ardently of the truth, philosophically, will this not unmistakably lead to know how to live our lives ? will we then need anyone to “tell us what to do ?”
I believe knowledge makes us free, by its own activity.
Then free people will be able to join forces and build together the culture of the future. A culture of passion for truth and beauty.
In my mind I cannot really separate Science and spirituality. There is kind of a continuum between them. The same with philosophy I feel.
Can I make the generalization that philosophy is usually thought of in terms of being very intellectual and spirituality is usually considered more involved with emotions and intutition? Spirituality is often denigrated by intellectuals for that reason. Often many intellectuals feel they’re just too cool and hip to be spiritual. True or not?
If we take the Divine as the point of contemplation. Philosophy is intellectual thinking and abstractions about the Divine. The actions based on this may not have much transformative power. Spirituality is allowing the Divine to take over our lives more and more. The Divine reveals through direct visions, intuitions and illuminations. But in our normal consciousness we are so caught up with our emotions, sensations and thoughts and our mind is so active that there is no room for the Divine. We need to learn to quieten down a bit so that we can connect more and more to the Divine. This is followed by action and in a way we become instruments of the Divine doing the Divine’s work on earth. Actions here are transformative as it is not just based on our thoughts and will but based on Higher will and Truth and tuned in to the essential nature of Everything.
There’s historically been a dual attitude in spirituality, of those who feel there should be focus on personal enlightenment that turns away from affairs of the world. Then there are those who espouse spirituality in action, engaging in mundane affairs of the world. EnlightenmentNext’s position acknowleges humanity has an interconnectivity and that the personal has a connection with all Creation holistically. We see in the 21st century that our connection to the web of life is inescapable and ignored at our own peril. We personally and collectively need to be holistically engaged to be truly spiritually engaged not only in consciousness but in our actions.
Dear Frank
My experience is exactly the same as yours. On the other side I can not see any conflict between philosophy (=love and intellectual serch for wisdom) and spirituality (=love and opening our hearts for the wisdom). The two approaches can marvellously be like sister (heart) and brother (brain) in the process of coming to the point of BEING part of the ONE on one side and then BECOMING part of the big thing on the other side – in being active in life, or, as the ZEN buddhist say, back on the market place.
Send you Frank, all our friends and to all the Kosmos all my love from MONTE VERITÀ in Ascona/Switzerland
Ralph-Remo
Hi Ralph, there in Switzerland!
Would you agree or not that philosophy so intent on analysis is rather cebebral and “cold”? Pls cite examples to the contrary, if you will. Philosophers’ heat may be in their rhetoric, I grant.
Spirituality I would say is concerned more about ethics and life when it does its job, not merely in scholarship and dogma. As we observe, the more emotional a faith can offer its followers, the more it may appeal to them. I’m not talking about the fire-and-brimstone delivery preachers sometimes adopt.
Aloha from Hawaii,
Frank Luke
I recently did an article with the same title, and then decided to find out what other people have to say about it.
Found this article to be very nice. Kind of says the same thing that I too think. I think if we regarded philosophy as a science in general, spirituality is essentially the science of happiness. While philosophy is born out of curiosity, spirituality is born out of suffering. That’s precisely the reason, as you said in the article above, it concerns itself with telling how to live.
For more detailed view of my thoughts on the subjects follow the link:
What is the difference between philosophy and spirituality?
In my opinion, spirituality starts where philosophy ends. What is Philosophy? Philosophy is analyzing of your own thoughts, feelings, world and events around you using your intellect. Using your intellect, you try to understand this entire existence. However, beyond a point, you cannot go using your intellect.
That is where the philosophy ends and this is exactly where spirituality starts. You assume that there is a greater depth in this existence or levels of consciousness and allow it to take over. You let go off your thoughts, feelings, and logical intellect and slowly the greater depth of this existence starts revealing itself and you start going beyond the physical realms of this existence and then you understand the vastness or the infiniteness of this existence. That is where spirituality can take you.
Hi there, Greetings from Australia. As I sun myself on beautiful Hamilton Island, triggered by reading a book titled ‘Philosophy for Life’ I have been reviewing a variety of information, particularly that dealing with differences/similarities between philosophy and spirituality.
It’s obvious all contributors have strong beliefs and their contributions are considered and measured. However, why do we speak in cryptic tongues? It’s like it’s a competition to see who can outdo the other in their use of the English language.
Philosophy has a place in life, as indeed spirituality does, however those that involve themselves in either seem to revel in convoluted language. Now that’s fine, if the objective is to create some exclusive club, however society needs help, misery reigns amongst the common man and the world is crying out for leadership in these areas so can pls start talking about these matters in simple tongues?
I have tried to take a lead writing a paper titled ‘A simple guide to a progressive life’…..you will find it in the papers section of my business website http://www.tegpartners.com.au Comments welcome.
For me, to live an enlightened life you need to commit to growth as a human being, be open to change ( and I mean real change……starting on the inside and then applying it externally) and then adopt your adaptation of spirituality meaning that sense of purpose that drives the purest of behaviour, activity and contribution to society.
Does anyone agree with me on this ‘simplicity of message’ issue ?
Cheers
Hi, this is a totally deneirfft Anon, so you can catch your breath again. I have not been able to reply to many of the recent comments over this past week, but have agonizingly been able to read them.Just a few comments:1 – “Jesus is democratic” (someone wrote this) – interesting. Although man’s free will deceivingly indicates that they have many options, Jesus is very clear that there is ONLY 1, and He is it, or the consequences are eternally damning. And Paul unapoligetically declares this in his ministry aswell.2 – Someone also brought an accusation against Craig for wielding his “sword to kill” due to the nature of many of these comments. I tell you, the apostle Paul (since he brought the gospel of grace to the gentiles) would not have been that soft on many of these comments – in fact, he clearly and quite publically calls the galatian church fools for considering any other way but what he was teaching.3 – This time-wasting “tennis game” of your-opinion-my-opinion has to end! If scripture is not brought into this disagreement and teachably chewed upon, then i too would delete many of these comments previously made – there’s nothing healthy coming out of them! So, good call craig on leaving that door open to Anon’s’ comments, but lets hope they become more productive from now.(Someone also accused you of being unteachable, but since i actually know you, you have made decisions in your life – dramatic one’s – due to your recent revelations on God’s grace, which you never had before…I wonder how many adjustments these Anon’s have actually made to their opinions????)The problem people have with grace, is that they only know enough to theoretically define it, but i strongly urge and encourage these Anons to read there bible through the lenses of God’s goodness (i.e. His grace) to see for themselves how God’s grace is infact the common denominator throughout scripture. And if you still disagree, bring the scriptures and lets grow together, or at least seperate with an agreement to disagree.
Pingback: What is the difference between Philosophy and Spirituality | | krptldn
Pingback: KRPTLDN | What is the difference between Philosophy and Spirituality ?
Pingback: Being Religious and Spiritual 4 Philosophical, religious and spiritual people | Stepping Toes
For me, Philosophy is about how I think my way through life and spirituality is about how I feel my way through life. Philosophy deals with the mind and the intellect. Spirituality seeks to transcend the mind to be conscious of the Divine Consciousness.
After reading this article, anyone can clear what is philosophy and what is spiritualism. Philosophy is about learned lessons which came when someone learn from real life and Spirituality is hard to define generally. Its about believe. Its depends on religion thought.
In my opinion spiritualism is a faith, one might can find ALLAH, if he preach so much and try hard to find. That person can define what it is. We all just can guess.
Pingback: Philosophy and Spirituality – Seeking Spiritual Enlightenment
Nice! I got a blog going about spiritual philosophy and self improvement!
Check it out: keithmintz
Mathematics/Sciences are the most powerful tools the human mind has developed with the help of abstraction/logic. Philosophy (dialectical) being the most accurate framework for logical thinking.
Spiritualism (inc. older metaphysics) – old transitional forms when we cannot explain why/how things relate.
Other species have developed better instincts to survive. Humans hardly need to survive (instinct), other than from themselves/exploitation (spiritual dependency/driver). Logic is the highest human achievement, so is philosophy.
Pingback: Witch Davina's - Modern Spiritualism - SpellsForAll
Pingback: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALITY – FREEDOM IS LIFE
The division is synthetic,created, I believe, out of fear that if one believes in philosophy they will necessarily not believe in whatever religion they follow. In truth, philosophy is supposed to be an effort to understand man by understanding how they develop the ideas (beilefs) they have, which of these are objectively true and which of these beliefs and ideas benefit the individual man and society in general. This is certainly true of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, three people who are the seed ground of philosophy itself.
In current philospy this is not the case. Husserl states clearly that spirituality, because it can not be rationally understood, is not open to study and therefore must be disregarded when we are discussing philosophy. Hume, when he looks at spirituality states(ad hoc) that all who claim to have had a spiritual encounter are simply unreliable and disregards even the possibility that it adds to our understanding of what it means to be human.
The fact that modern philosophers disregard spirituality as part of that which constitutes what a man is, where our beliefs come from or even how we know something to be a fact, have abandoned any possibility of exploring the human expereience in any meaningful way. Spirituality should be an equal partner with rationality in trying to define what it means to be human, despite the fact that it implies a certain objectivity, which is difficult to neatly tie into a rational argument that covers all the possibilities of human experience. The fact that modern philosophers ignore this part of what it means to be human, means they have in fact abandoned the idea of philosophy altogether.
I agree with this!!!