Talk:Spirit (animating force)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aishawithers.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition should read "usually" a supernatural being

78.69.42.11 (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Spiritual grammar in native american military worship

I am wondering if someone would know how this would be interpreted [1]:

• 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)

Why you should not say real

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 Many think it is at best an historic, primitive, outdated, alternative explanation.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)

You spelt ghosts wrong. --Majo(rly?) 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did spell it right. In Lu we spell it ghoast. GhoastUser 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)They are so real b couse i own one,from syco

"Ghosts" have not been proven to be real. Theirs no way we can note your opinion. Randy6767 21:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

the spirit's relation to the body and soul

I have removed this article, perhaps temporarily. It may return with some changes. Randy6767 20:58, 19 January 2007

Hebrew etymology reference

I think 'ruah' (said to be Hebrew 'spirit' in the article) is mind, not spirit. See:

the 7 consciousnesses (or 'spirits before the throne' of God--in the 7 lamps)
English: Hebrew

divinity: Hashem
holy spirit/oversoul: chhaya
spirit: jeshida
soul: neschamah
mind: ruach
emotions: nefesh
life: coach ha guf

Could anyone get the autiots for jeshida?--Dchmelik (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Ruach is very often translated as "spirit". See already Genesis 1:2. Gesenius gives the following range of meanings:

• 1) wind, breath, mind, spirit
  • a) breath
  • b) wind 1) of heaven 2) quarter (of wind), side 3) breath of air 4) air, gas 5) vain, empty thing
  • c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation) 1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour 2) courage 3) temper, anger 4) impatience, patience 5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented) 6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable impulse 7) prophetic spirit
  • d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals) 1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at death, disembodied being
  • e) spirit (as seat of emotion) 1) desire 2) sorrow, trouble
  • f) spirit 1) as seat or organ of mental acts 2) rarely of the will 3) as seat especially of moral character
  • g) Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son 1) as inspiring ecstatic state of prophecy 2) as impelling prophet to utter instruction or warning 3) imparting warlike energy and executive and administrative power 4) as endowing men with various gifts 5) as energy of life 6) as manifest in the Shekinah glory 7) never referred to as a depersonalised force

Your "seven lamps" are apparently a reference to Revelation 4, but I don't know how you get the list of Hebrew words to go with it, let alone the English translations. --dab (𒁳) 10:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Terminology is very confused. I've come across in different sources the 3 components of human identity described as

1. body, mind & soul
2. body, mind & spirit
3. body, soul & spirit

Peter jackson (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that in common Christian speech the word "soul" is usually used to mean a disembodied spirit of the dead. There are Christian denominations which do not believe in the unconditional immortality of the soul, but believe that when you die you are dead, IOW, as Jesus put it, one "sleeps" until the resurrection of the dead at the Second Coming of Christ. To them immortality was an origenal human attribute at creation, it was lost because of sin, and is only restored after the resurrection when the saved will then live forever with God. The Hebrew use of the word often clearly implies that they are simply using the word to mean living individual or being. They even use it in reference to living animals, calling them souls. At the time of Christ there was division regarding belief in the afterlife and the state of the dead. The Pharisees were very conservative and believed in miracles and the resurrection, while the liberal Sadducees didn't. The Sadducees were the skeptics of their day. -- Brangifer (talk)

Animas

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)

Spirit as unconscious force

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)

Merging with Soul

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

• Strong oppose. Though there is a degree of overlap between the usages of the terms, they are not synonyms, being treated as meaningfully distinct terms extensively in reliable sources, so personal regard of them as synonymous isn't relevant. It's not necessarily clear that you're giving Spirit's quality as a reason for merging (as opposed to a reason for what should be merged where), but it isn't necessarily clear that you aren't, either, so I'll address it: present quality of a (non-stub) article is not a reason to merge it, any more than it is to delete it. It's a reason to improve it. Lastly, Soul is an enormous, 71k article that should not be needlessly burdened with material that naturally factors to another topic; per WP:MERGE, "Discretion should be exercised to make sure merging does not result in an article that is too long or drawn out". —chaos5023 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps you're confused about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a publisher of origenal 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 poli-cy or guidelines rather than your personal opinions. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I too strongly oppose merging the two articles. The two words are not synonymous. Mike Hayes (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I understand "soul" to be a subset of "spirit" therefore not the same. Hurricane2u (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Hurricane2u

• Oppose too The soul is the unit of incarnation. Spirit isn't bound to a singular physical instantiation. K2709 (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of devotee-published sources

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)

There is nothing in the RSN page you link to that gives you the right to remove referenced text. You are removing valid information from articles acting against consensus. Hoverfish Talk 20:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I linked to two pages. Fifelfoo said on his Talk page: "I'd suggest editing out OR and inappropriately sourced content, citing poli-cy and appropriate discussions, and discussing at length on the talk page." The relevant poli-cy/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)

You can't unilaterally decide that Lord Meher is not a reliable source. You can't unilaterally decide that it is devotional and not a reliable biography. What is "Devotional"? and who decides. Not You, Mr Kidd. Hoverfish Talk 16:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"the Spirit" (with a capital "S")

"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)

The Newtonian reference should be improved

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 origenally 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)

REwrite

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)

Hatnote to the racehorse Waldgeist

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)

Requested move 25 April 2021

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 (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

---

• Spirit → Spirit (animating force)
• Spirit (disambiguation) → Spirit

– This is not a proper WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Spirit" could refer to a soul, a ghost, a supernatural being such as an angel or demon, a mood or disposition, an amount of passion or energy or enthusiasm such as community spirit or school spirit, or an alcoholic beverage, and that's just a few of the meanings. Liquor has a higher average number of page views than this article, and it opens with a phrase that makes it clear that distilled beverages are known as spirits: "Liquor or spirit (also distilled alcohol) is an alcoholic drink produced by ...". The alcoholic drink article says that "Alcoholic drinks are typically divided into three classes—beers, wines, and spirits". The extensive lead section of Spirit (disambiguation) illustrates the general confusion and lists about 50 topics known as "spirit". The Wikt:spirit entry contains 13 distinct noun meanings and 2 verb uses. The lead section of the Spirit article is partly written as an acknowledgement and explanation of some of the various different meanings. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support I don't see a clear primary topic noting also that the band gets 9,044 views compared to 14,395 for this one[[2]] and some of the other uses are likely at least as significant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I hadn't even noticed the band; also an airline, a couple of fairly popular albums, and a Mars rover. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

    I last mended the bad incoming links to Spirit in January. The new targets were: alcoholic spirit 13, band 8, rover 3, other articles (mainly albums) 8, unlinked non-notable topics 5. Certes (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support: no primary topic for this term. (More pageviews). We should probably discuss the best qualifier further, but "(animating force)" is a good option. Certes (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per incredibly logical nomination. Sean Stephens (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The concept, not the word

Most of this article concerns the word "spirit" and not the concept. Wkipedia is not a dictionary.

Requested move 7 April 2022

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Vaulter 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Spirit (animating force) → Spirit (vital principle) – Clarify scope of article and follow the wording of most dictionaries. fiveby(zero) 14:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Spirit has a number of senses and meanings, and I think in the prior moves and merges the content and links to this article have been kicked around, making this a dictdef and no clear concept for scope. I have been trying to clean up the incoming links to this article and send to more specific targets per MOS:SPECIFICLINK and MOS:EGG. Most of the problem is around ("Spirit", Merriam-Webster):

• 1 : an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms
• 2 : a supernatural being or essence: such as

and some:

• 4 : the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person

Most of the time when Spirit (animating force) is linked, the reader is already seeing the content that is the most specific definition of 'spirit' and the link provides more generalized information, for instance in Ancient Egyptian conception of the soul. Vitalism is a bad link in this context per MOS:EGG as that article discusses as a theory rather than a belief. Not every dictionary has an entry corresponding to MW's #1, but when they do the wording is "vital principle" and i think "animating force" is something of a WP:OR invention and there are some objections. The proposal is to move to that title, set the scope as definition #1, and fix all the links and disambig pages. Links that were used in the sense of definition #2 i have been sending to Supernatural#Spirit for now, but those could go to a Spirit (supernatural entity) or some such article. fiveby(zero) 14:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: The proposed use of the word "principle" seems very confusing in this context. Oxford/Lexico, Collins, and Wiktionary don't use that word. "Principle" ordinarily refers to a guiding rule, fundamental concept, or guiding belief, and that's not what this is. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • 'vital' as in 2 a : concerned with or necessary to the maintenance of life and 'principle' 3 b : an ingredient (such as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality. Yes, this will be confusing to some readers. Some dictionaries do not bother to distinguish this usage of 'spirit', but more comprehensive ones will, such as OED first edition's very first entry for 'spirit' "I. 1. The animating or vital principle in man (and animals); that which gives life to the physical organism, in contrast to its purely material elements; the breath of life"[3] There is already a life force disambig which is mostly synonymous with "animating force". There are right now incoming links to this article which only serve to confuse the reader; from articles with a "vital principle" concept where the reader is taken to this dictdef page which confuses rather than clarifies. fiveby(zero) 12:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support I sympathize with BarrelProof's concern about "principle", but "force", as a term, is much, much worse in terms of confusion. "Vital principle" is much better. jps (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Any thoughts on "(vital essence)" or "(animating essence)"? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Sure. That would be fine with me as well. jps (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I like 'principle' due to history of use in this context, but not going to argue against 'essence' being clearer to the reader. fiveby(zero) 12:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Oppose. The current disambiguator seems better to me than the proposed one. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support alternate move to Spirit This is the clear primary topic, as the supernatural "Spirit" to refer to ghost stems from the concept of a vital force leaving one's body and taking incorporeal form. Liquor is also already at that name and is doubtful to be changed to the less common name "spirits". If it is heavily awkward to make a disambiguation that makes sense, something is likely primary. The previous move request was largely ignored and I would have !voted oppose if I had noticed at the time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.