{"title":"What is spirituality? The challenges of a philosophical definition","authors":"Doris Reisinger","doi":"10.1007/s11841-024-01034-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In recent years, there have been a number of philosophical publications focusing on spirituality. But even in pertinent philosophical texts it is rare to find attempts at shaping a workable definition of spirituality, despite the obvious need for a clear definition for the philosophical debate on spirituality. This paper addresses the major issues in shaping a satisfactory definition of spirituality: an understanding of spirituality as transcendence of critical reasoning, the broadness of the concept, the implications of various scholarly backgrounds and the challenge of avoiding a circular definition. It suggests a rough clustering of common approaches into ontological, ethical, and functional definitions and discusses their weaknesses. It is argued that an inclusive, metaphysically parsimonious, and stipulative definition is the best way to address typical difficulties and avoid weaknesses of common definitions. Finally, it proposes a definition based on meaning, a term that often appears in the discussion of spirituality. It is suggested that understanding meaning in the ordinary sense of the word might be a good starting point to arrive at a satisfactory definition of spirituality.</p>","PeriodicalId":44736,"journal":{"name":"Sophia","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sophia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-024-01034-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In recent years, there have been a number of philosophical publications focusing on spirituality. But even in pertinent philosophical texts it is rare to find attempts at shaping a workable definition of spirituality, despite the obvious need for a clear definition for the philosophical debate on spirituality. This paper addresses the major issues in shaping a satisfactory definition of spirituality: an understanding of spirituality as transcendence of critical reasoning, the broadness of the concept, the implications of various scholarly backgrounds and the challenge of avoiding a circular definition. It suggests a rough clustering of common approaches into ontological, ethical, and functional definitions and discusses their weaknesses. It is argued that an inclusive, metaphysically parsimonious, and stipulative definition is the best way to address typical difficulties and avoid weaknesses of common definitions. Finally, it proposes a definition based on meaning, a term that often appears in the discussion of spirituality. It is suggested that understanding meaning in the ordinary sense of the word might be a good starting point to arrive at a satisfactory definition of spirituality.
期刊介绍:
Sophia is now published by Springer. The back files, all the way to Volume 1:1, are available via SpringerLink! Covers both analytic and continental philosophy of religionConsiders both western and non-western perspectives, including Asian and indigenousIncludes specialist contributions, e.g. on feminist and postcolonial philosophy of religionSince its inception in 1962, Sophia has been devoted to providing a forum for discussions in philosophy and religion, focusing on the interstices between metaphysics and theological thinking. The discussions take cognizance of the wider ambience of the sciences (''natural'' philosophy and human/social sciences), ethical and moral concerns in the public sphere, critical feminist theology and cross-cultural perspectives. Sophia''s cross-cultural and cross-frontier approach is reflected not only in the international composition of its editorial board, but also in its consideration of analytic, continental, Asian and indigenous responses to issues and developments in the field of philosophy of religion.