Talk:Spirit (animating force)

message: 78.69.42.11 (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition should read "usually" a supernatural being

message: I am wondering if someone would know how this would be interpreted :
*All living things and objects have a spirit. 
*When taking the life of a plant or animal of the Earth, a person must pay respect to the spirit of that plant or animal.
I am uncertain if the native american viewpoint of spirit (which would also apply to non-living things such as rocks and water) is represented here, and how it could be interpreted. Tyciol 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spiritual grammar in native american military worship

message: On the distinction between fact and belief (as it goes to stating the spirit explains conciousness, but it applies in general):
Although one might hold the personal belief that the existence of an entity is fact, this does not imply that it is. Remember that however severely convinced one's belief in the existence of entity is, this still does NOT imply it's existence in reality. One's extreme conviction might surely be stated as fact, but history has well shown that people are often mistaken in what is fact or fiction. Therefore, when we speak of a theory, one at best may state that it has been confirmed to such a degree, that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. That is, when there is such a undeniable SHITLOAD of evidence to support it, that any sane person would do so. This, is certainly not the case with the statement that the spirit is the explanation for conciousness. Many think it is at best an historic, primitive, outdated, alternative explanation. I see how at the dawn of man one might jump to the hasty conclusion that there must be a spirit, but nowadays this goes against all neuropsychology. The amount of support for the theory of the spirit as an explanation for conciousness is not just disproportionate to that of modern neuropsychology. There scientific literature leaves little space (to, one might argue to practically no space) for the theory of the spirit as a possible explanation for conciousness, and with our everyday developing understanding of the nervous systems of living things, continues to do so less and less.
Therefore I concider it very misleading and inappropriate to state that the spirit explains the conciousness of living things, without stating that this is a held belief.
Give me one empirical observation that proves the existence of a spirit and we'll talk further (I said a real one, not some balony YT video that you declare as fact, something that has held up to critical inquiry. And yes I am aware of the danger of falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy with such statements, no conclusions have been made part of the premisse here.) FelixAkk
Ghoasts are real. So lets note it. GhoastUser 03:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You spelt ghosts wrong. --Majo(rly?) 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why you should not say real

message: Animas
The life force spirit found in all substance. A G(g)od. The binding force of all matter that is pro-active in all life forms.  Gnostics (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animas 

message: Could somebody please review the following article of mine to see if it qualifies in an 'external links' section, and please insert it there. http://www.two-paths.com/spiritfish.htm
Matswin (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spirit as unconscious force 

message: I proposed this article to be merged with Soul. As far as I am concerned, these two words are synonyms. This article is much poorer than Soul, so I think the former's material should be merged with the latter's. --Λeternus (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I almost wanted to discuss this topic rationally, before realizing I was actually trying to waste my energy/time arguing about non-existent/rational stuff. So good luck defending your position with your "reliable" sources. --Λeternus (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're confused about what Wikipedia is.  Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.  Wikipedia summarizes and provides references to what reliable sources say about a topic.  It matters not in the least whether the topic actually exists or is rational, no more with Soul and Spirit than with Optimus Prime.  If you persist in wanting this merge to happen, you should probably find an argument for it that is grounded in Wikipedia policy or guidelines rather than your personal opinions. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I too strongly oppose merging the two articles. The two words are not synonymous. Mike Hayes (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with Soul 

message: I have removed the reference to Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu. For discussion, see RS/N and this Talk page. Simon Kidd (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I linked to two pages. Fifelfoo said on his Talk page: "I'd suggest editing out OR and inappropriately sourced content, citing policy and appropriate discussions, and discussing at length on the talk page." The relevant policy/guideline says that an article "must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if [among other things, it] is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials". Kalchuri fails this test, since he is published by an organisation affiliated with the subject. Simon Kidd (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of devotee-published sources 

message: "In the Bible, "the Spirit" (with a capital "S"), specifically denotes the Holy Spirit."
It was written in Greek and Hebrew. In these languages there is no capital letters.
Please take note that this is only about translation of Bible into English not about Bible itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorPorton (talk • contribs) 00:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the Spirit" (with a capital "S") 

message: The first reference to Newton via "Burtt, Edwin A. (2003)" is actually not good, as it refers to a certain paper edition of a book that most people don't have, although it originally dates from 1925 and is fully accessible, e.g. on the Internet Archive. I would look it up there but I'm not sure which place in the text is referred here. So, if anyone has the exact edition at hand, please record the citation so it can be cited by an accessible source. --Oop (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Newtonian reference should be improved 

message: This article needs to be rewritten to be about the concept and not about the term "spirit". Editor2020 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  REwrite 

message: I've now added a hatnote to the article for a third time, after seeing it removed twice as a "spam" link. It isn't.  The term "Waldgeist", if typed into the search box, brings a reader here via redirect. A racehorse of that name, Waldgeist (horse), won a major race on Sunday, the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe. It's quite reasonable to put a hatnote on an article where a disambiguated article of a redirected title exists, so can the hatnote be left in please. --Bcp67 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote to the racehorse Waldgeist 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved   (t · c) buidhe 21:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, thanks. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 April 2021 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: No consensus.   -- Vaulter 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Spirit (animating force) →  – Clarify scope of article and follow the wording of most dictionaries. fiveby(zero) 14:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I think the example of [Life force]], linked above, is enough to show that "force" is commonly used in this way, even though a literally newtonian force is not involved. ApLundell (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no doubt that force is used in such a fashion, perhaps even commonly. However, as an encyclopedia, I think it is important that we maintain a level of specificity when possible in the use of terminology. The problem, as I see it, is that force is often assumed to be a physical one even when that is not the intention. A word like "principle" or "essence" instead admits no ambiguity and so I think it editorially preferable to avoid the possible or even likely confusion. jps (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

text: That would not be appropriate for multiple reasons. I disagree that it is a clear primary topic for "Spirit". For example, a deity, angel, demon, or the Holy Spirit is not something that has left a body. Liquor is also another major meaning of "spirit", and there is also a band, an airline and a rover with this name, among other topics. That renaming also does not seem procedurally appropriate under WP:RMCI#NOTOTHERPAGES, since that title has non-redirecting content and changing it was not proposed as part of this RM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 7 April 2022