This question is was contrived from a quote by Leo Tolstoy. The quote goes as follows: "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience."
Do you agree with Tolstoy ? Why ? Why not ?
2006-07-01 10:40:47 · 15 answers · asked by Joe_Pardy 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I stand corrected.
This quote is from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881 - 1955).
Thanks, "rei_t_ex"
2006-07-01 13:13:42 · update #1
The way I see it everything is energy so both matter and spirit are forms of energy with matter being a denser expression of the energy and spirit being the same energy in a less dense form. As for the statement, of course we are humans and having spiritual experiences while at the same time we are spiritual beings experiencing the physical, emotional human life for the time being. It's similar to the statement, 'as above, so below.'
2006-07-01 10:57:34 · answer #1 · answered by CosmicKiss 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the quote is from the French philosopher and priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, not Tolstoy... But that is an aside.
More directly to your question, I think that a clear definition of "spiritual being" and "spiritual experience" is first in order, as well as a clear distinction between the physical and the spiritual. After all, on what objective basis can one judge that what we perceive as a spiritual experience actually is spiritual and not a physical one that we simply misconstrue to be spiritual?
That having been said, and assuming a priori that the spiritual does indeed exist, I would think the former option (us being physical beings) is far more likely than our being 'spiritual' beings.
Why? Well, 'spiritual being' seems to imply (and lacking a clear definition from you, I can only go by my own interpretations) that goes on after the 'physical' part of our existence is over. Since, however, more human beings are being constantly born, this yields two options. First, is that the old human souls/spirits/whatever (I will just use 'souls' as shorthand for this from now on) persist and that new souls for newborns pop up out of nothing. While possible, it is implausible since it violates basic conservation principles (conservation of charge, energy, momentum, probability) which have heretofore been observed to be inviolable - the only things that are not conserved are the things that can be converted and escape as other forms. I suppose that one can then argue that our souls can be converted to and from something else, but would that not make them physical? I suppose one can also just deny off-hand that souls need to behave in any logically sensible manner, but with this denial completely lacking any evidence or logic to support it, it would be irrational, and I am thus disinclined to give it further consideration.
The second option is that old souls become new souls - reincarnation for most intents and purposes. But since we have no (at least not objectively) memories of any former lives, can we really say that it is our soul living on? If all memories are wiped out, what part of 'us' is it that persists? Indeed, under such a scenario, I would argue that we as a being cease to exist as soon as our soul is thus 'recycled.'
The only other possibility that I see is that we have no 'souls' beyond the electro-chemical impulses running up and down our nerve cells - that we are purely physical. Having argued the implausibility of the other options above, this is what I hold to be most likely. So if we do have spiritual experiences, we have them as innately physical beings, IMHO.
2006-07-01 12:10:10 · answer #2 · answered by rei_t_ex 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Upon death all questions of life are to be answered. I hold this idea near and dear to my heart for I have many questions. I tend to agree with Tolstoy. I feel the spiritual side of humanity is more complex and precious than the human form.
2006-07-01 12:16:04 · answer #3 · answered by Teacher 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am agree! We are spiritual beings having a human experience. The real self lies inside of everyone.
2006-07-01 11:07:44 · answer #4 · answered by Petunia 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with Leo Tolstoy.
2006-07-01 10:44:36 · answer #5 · answered by junior_sprites108 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree. Most of the people who are truly successful with the spiritual realm will tell you that you must be fully grounded in reality. Empirical eveidence suggests that they are correct about that. If your imagination with spiritual matters clouds out what the real world of matter and energy tells you, you'll go insane.
2006-07-01 10:49:50 · answer #6 · answered by robertspraguejr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it could be human having spiritual experience and the other way around and it must be all the same. then the soul should have its own experience.
2006-07-01 10:48:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes I do. because I believe that our souls come from heaven and then we are sent to a body to experience a life on earth as to prove our worth to god. so, to your Q., we are spiritual-having a human experience.
2006-07-01 10:51:15 · answer #8 · answered by NS42day 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess I agree. I think we are spirits in a human body. I think it makes more sence than the other way around...
2006-07-01 10:46:49 · answer #9 · answered by Fealya~ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we are human beings that have spiritual expiriences. we are living in the physic realm so we are human, not spiritual beings, period.
(angels, God, etc r spiritual being and we usually can't c them)
2006-07-01 10:45:14 · answer #10 · answered by James Blond 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋