I think the following link will be helpful

https://www.biographyonline.net/spiritual/articles/philosophy-religion-spirituality.html

Best Regards Zin Eddine Dadach

In broadest terms, philosophy is a matter of reasoned argumentation and spirituality is a matter of faith or attitude.

Ehud benor gave this characterization previously on RG:

« “spirituality” will be used to designate attitudes and dispositions that are prior to religion, that motivate its creation, and may survive its disintegration. »

— https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_difference_between_religiosity_and_spirituality

The related term, "spiritualism", can also refer to (i) the philosophical thesis that spirit, as opposed to matter, is the ontologically primary reality, or to (ii) the belief in spirits or ghosts, which can be associated either with religion or with (pseudo)science of the paranormal.

Great question for which I have no formal training or education, but still want to offer the following. I think perhaps answering the question "What is the fundamental similarity between philosophy and spirituality?" is a good way to start. My answer to the similarity would be that they both are epistemologies. That is they both provide a foundational method for seeking "truth." Philosophy is based on a cognitive and rational approach to seeking "truth" about human existence and experience. Spirituality is based on an affective and emotional approach to seeking "truth" about human existence and experience. IF, and I admit it is a big IF, the foregoing is worthwhile, THEN the question becomes "What, if any, "truths" are held in common and what "truths" are in conflict between philosophy and spirituality?"

"In the original Orphico-Pythagorean sense, philosophy meant wisdom (sophia) and love (eros) combined in a moral and intellectual purification in order to reach the “likeness to God” (homoiosis theo, [Plato, Theaet. 176b]). This likeness was to be attained by gnosis, knowledge. The same Greek word nous (“intellect,” understood in a macrocosmic and microcosmic sense) covers all that is meant both by “spirit” (spiritus, ruh) and “intellect” (intellectus, ‘aql) in the Medieval Christian and Islamic lexicon. Thus Platonic philosophy (and especially Neoplatonism) was a spiritual and contemplative way of life leading to enlightenment; a way which was properly and intrinsically intellectual; a way that was ultimately based on intellection or noetic vision (noesis), which transcends the realm of sense perception and discursive reasoning. Through an immediate grasp of first principles, the non-discursive intelligence lead to a union (henosis) with the divine Forms. “Knowledge of the gods,” says Iamblichus, “is virtue and wisdom and perfect happiness, and makes us like to the gods” (Protr. 3). Even for Aristotle, who seems to be a much more earthly-minded rationalist, the highest and eternally active Intellect, or God, as the ultimate metaphysical telos of any true philosopher, erotically attracts and harmoniously moves everything in the multi-dimensional cosmos." --Algis Uždavinys (The Golden Chain)

First of all, it should be noted that both ideas have a certain similarity. But philosophy refers more to the world of knowledge and reason and is directed to the study of certain areas (eg, ontology (study of being), philosophy of language, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, among other disciplines). And it responds to ideas such as rationality, deductive process, abstract reasoning, subjective truths ...)

However, spirituality is more linked to feeling, and may have a relationship (derived or originate from) of topics such as art, music, religion ... These subjects can "excite" the subject, and produce spiritual feelings in him ( emotional).

But spirituality - considered as a subjective process - nevertheless has something to do with philosophy, which, apart from subjectivity, aims to tend toward objectivity (generally acceptable propositions). Both have to do with the personal reflection of each individual.

On the other hand, philosophy answers questions such as: What is the world? What is the human being? What we are able to understand)

Spirituality responds on its own part to such questions. What emotion does it create in my determined artistic work? What is the scope of a certain emotional feeling of bliss, admiration, sadness ...? The spirit has been considered as the immaterial part of the human being; instead, philosophy tries to answer questions, or sometimes, comes to ask questions about certain issues of the life of man.

And, finally, in philosophy we seek to find something that will help us especially to understand issues that are not strictly scientific (for example, the difference between good and evil); spirituality, on the other hand, does not intend in essence to discern anything and is more linked to consciousness, intimacy and sensitivity.

Philosophy is mind - approach - adventure - surprise - general / spirituality is behavior - ethics - adventure - intuition - self

Philosophy along with other disciplines of knowledge may contribute a general revelation to the understanding of theological conceptions. Though a minor contribution it helps to illuminate the special revelation we have in the Bible, (Erickson, "Christian Theology", 2013, p. 14). Erickson also believe that Philosophy, within somewhat restricted scope, also performs the second function, weighing the truth-claims advanced by theology and giving part of the basis for accepting the message. Thus Philosophy may serve to justify in part the endeavor in which theology or spirituality is engaged.

To expand the question I have attached a copy of a little paper I have on my RG site. While it is in no way complete, it is at least a start on all of the different ways we use to support what we believe is "truth." Enjoy the journey.

Ramon Llull (XIII-XIV) created words for express the two things : "scientia" versus "amantia" or "philosophia scientiae" versus "philosophia amoris". The God's love were the essential point of his spirituality.

The first is pure thought, and cool, unbiased speculations. The second is not.

Hi

the question is not directly in my field!

I use divide them as follows

Phlosophy: concern the processes which describe the behavior of the natural sysms, that can be seen or tested.

Spirituality’s: concerns the problems that can not be tested or seen, and regards the processes from the other world.

good luck

Martin Klavana, I agree with your well documented contribution. I will made only a distinction: i think than the Pythagorism offered a way of intellectual and spiritual life (as person and as communitiy) more intense than Platonism. I think at a higher degree of personal implication personal in this way of science and spìrituality.

Spirituality has a world view that includes a relationship with personal faith, with or without a religious institution, and a sense of connection to a "holy other" of some kind. Philosophy, "the love of wisdom" may or may not have a spiritual component. Plato is considered a philosopher, but his beliefs had spiritual aspects.

Michael Uebel , We might be near agreement. I chose "speculation" because it implies reason, as far as possible in situations light on facts. It is purely cognitive, and not "intuitive" where that is colored by any form of desire, excitement, suffering, desperation, or fear. One can philosophize *about* the spiritual, one can record thoughts about the spiritual, but that is not itself spiritual in character. It is the structure of the music, without the experience of the sound.

"Even the divine Intellect (...) does not know the One by direct vision (i.e. intuitively) or intellectually, but is united with it, "drunk with its nectar" (Symp. 203b), for its nature, and what is in it, is better than all knowledge." --Proclus (Commentary on Plato's Parmenides)

Thanks for all your contributions. I would say: Spirituality is mainly based on experience, a personal experience of something divine - however one might call or describe it. It is practice, but may include the reflection on this practice as well.

Philosophy is a science mainly related to the question of how the human being and how the world does work. It normally contains the topics of anthropology, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology and hermeuntics.

Neti neti . . .

"But there has to be some name as the subject of a negative proposition, and so even the negations are not true of the One, but negations are truer than assertions; yet even they fall short of the simplicity of the One. Indeed all truth is in it, but it is itself better than all truth. So how would it be possible to say anything true about it? --Proclus (Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides)

Thar depends on what type of philosophy you consider. And also on how you define spirituality.

"Now, starting from the kinds of cognition in ourselves, we must also take their totalities and realize that all being known is denied of the One. For how could what is beyond all that exists be sensibly perceived? And how could it be the object of opinion, when it is not such as in one way to be, and in another way not? And how can what has no cause be an object of science?" --Proclus (Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides)

I have studied another aspect of the question: the relations between theology and religious action, theory and mission : you may see abstracts to "Utopie et histoire...." and "Utrum culpa sit in christianis". In the last item, I study a controverse at University of Paris (XIII century) between the master Henri de Gand and Ramon Llull. What is better to teach to students in Paris or to preach in missions, even in risk of martyrdom?

Although it does not really have to be a fundamental difference between them, here is a schetch.

Real philosophy leads to the reception of the spirit.

Spirituality is about what lies beyond the boundaries of human capacities.

But philosophy does not necessarily have to admit the existence of the spirit (I am referring to a spirit other than the essentially human one).

At the same time, however, friendship with (or of) wisdom, soon or later meets what lies beyond the letter, namely the spirit.

An objective fundamental difference, from the historical and linguistic perspective, would be that, while philosophy has been conceived of as something concrete and has been objectified very early (remember Aristotle, for instance, who in Metaphysics I, he admits that man both now and since the beginnings had started to philosophise), while spirituality is a much much later construction (after the 5th century, and certainly well in use in the Middle Ages).

Yet, this answer is as generic as the question is: there are so many dimensions, contexts, aspects and meanings that philosophy and spirituality can obtain. I just tried to think of the most inclusive one.

Philosophy is an activity of the mind, spirituality passes through the heart. In the West the two are separate, but that is not a necessary fact.

@ Zin Eddine Dadach

In the so-called western Philosophy

it was especially Maurice Blondel who, through his theory on the dialectical relationships between the will and the action, the willing will and the willed will, spelt out the approach to be adopted and sets the philosophical context for the paths to be taken. His objective was to “make, as a believer, the efforts of a philosopher”, in the conviction that “faith inspires philosophy, attracts and steers its itinerary, itinerarium mentis ad Deum. Philosophy is the sanctity of reason, i.e. a rational obsequium”. It is the regeneration of a philosophy not veering off into the supernatural, which is necessary but beyond one’s energies because gratuitous, but rather centred upon Christian truths as pierres d'attente or, better still, per speculum et in aenigmate. And so you have a deep connection between spirituality and philosophy, betwwen religion and philosophy.

Daniela, the heart does not "feel", it does not have "mental" activity. It is a muscular organ that pumps blood.

心 (xin1): heart, mind.

Miquel Ricart , the basis for feeling is contact. Isn't the heart in contact with blood, for example? Aren't the cardiomyocytes in contact with each other?

Everything in the phenomenal realm is an expression of the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent One . . . even a grain of sand has its own identity (and intellect, however limited).

It is a difference between Philosophy and Spirituality, knowledge and love. In Philosophy, God, as being known, is inclosed in mind that knows. In love or charity, the belover goes out of himself at measure of Beloved ("amor extaticus"). For this alterity, you may read my. "Autour de la notion d'amitié...".

Having read all of the postings on this question to date, the only conclusion I have come to is that the primary difference between "philosophy" and "spirituality" is their spelling ..:-)..

Miquel,

in Romanian about someone sad, who mourns, we say he has ”bad heart”. About nostalgic someone we say he has ”a blue heart”. We offer something dearly, ”wholeheartedly”. And when we love, we ”give our hearts”. I do not think all of these expressions refer to the blood pump.

Daniela Sorea "heart" in those idioms is a relic of ancient Greek medicine and metaphysics, from a time when it was believed that the heart was the seat of the senses, intellect, and emotions, and the brain was just a radiator for cooling the blood. All those idioms can be reexpressed without using the term "heart" (e.g. "wholeheartedly" =df "passionately or enthusuastically").

To Daniela Sorea

Discussion: Philosophy and Spirituality?

10-05-2019

Traditionally, sentimental functions have been granted to the heart. This is true. And the fact that cardiac failures can be fatal, which gives great importance to the heart in the life of being. I believe, sincerely, that the heart (as a human organ that is) must be considered from anatomical science. And it is not about granting science fields of philosophy, at all. By the way, it is coincidental that now I am writing about the philosophical consideration of human anatomy, of the corporeity of being as a whole. If you are interested in my ideas on the subject, soon I will finish my work and I will be able to send it to you in pdf, if I can know your mail. Maybe we have some connection point in the future. And I would very much like to hear your opinion about my writing when it is finished, which I imagine will reflect divergences between our way of thinking. For the moment, I'm glad to see that the philosophy-anatomy debate comes up often. It confirms that it is an important issue. Not bad, not bad at all

Karl Pfeifer , wholeheartedly means with complete sincerity and commitment, whereas passionately means with passion. Passion means suffering, whereas sincerity means purity. And that which is pure is free from suffering . . .

Ramon Llull consideres "spirituality" leike a science and creates for it the words of "amantia" versus scientia) and later "philosophia Amoris, with his book "Arbre Filosòfia Amoris"... There are other thinkers, like Plato, Leo Hebraeus, etc. for whom the love was a matter of the philosophy. Do you know anothers? Perhaps Levinas?

In moder catholic doctrine, "spirituality" embraces two things: ascetic and mystic. In medieval times, the distinction was between "moral" and "contemplatio". The word "mystic" or "theologia mystica" was identified rather wit the theological system, originally Greek, attribuated a Ps-Denys Aeropagite.

I used the "heart" from the beginning in a metonymic way, for feelings, emotions. I did not mean that the heart is the organ of spirituality in the way the brain is the organ of thought, I ask for forgiveness if I have not been quite clear.

But I think the linguistic expressions that associate the heart with the different emotions are not quite accidental. I think before they were expressions of old metaphysics, they expressed somatization of emotions. I also think that regarding medicine, not everything that is old is wrong.

Martin Klvana

Mac Dashboard Dictionary gives one sense of “passion” as “a thing arousing enthusiasm”.

Merriam-Webster Online gives a sense of “wholeheartedly” as “completely and sincerely devoted, determined, or enthusiastic” and indicates that “passion” in the sense of suffering is obsolete (although that sense is still evident in the phrase “the Passion of Christ”).

Of course when it comes to matters of the heart, figuratively speaking, unrequited passion can certainly cause suffering. 💔

In the Greek and Medieval philosophy, the "passions" were conceived as "accidentes animae", as a pycho-somatic facts, with a part of body and a part of soul, a place perhaps assimilable to "heart". They were divided between passions of affectivity (love, desire, etc.), named "concupiscibiles", and passions of fear-agressivity (anger, fear, boldnes, etc.). Thes data come from my PHD "L'e`tre et la joie..."

The word "passion" may be explained, because in the classic doctrine of passions or affections pyschosomatics, the body is active but the soul is passive. I am surprised by the historic permanence for the doctrine of passions, developped also by Descartes, Spinoza, Sartre, etc.

I think the following link will be helpful

https://www.biographyonline.net/spiritual/articles/philosophy-religion-spirituality.html

Best Regards Zin Eddine Dadach

Every triangle has three vertices at once, not in succession. And so it makes no sense to ask, which of the three vertices of a triangle comes first, second, and third.

Askesis (a way of life) includes remembrance of the gods ('philosophy'), watch of the heart ('religion'), and attention to the beauty of the soul ('spirituality').

Ramon Llull (XIII-XIV) created categories to express the convergence of science and God's love. His purpose was una "amantia" completing "scientia" or, in others words, one "philosophia amoris". It is curious to oberve that love is scarcelly a matter of the philosophy, ecept cases as Ramon Llull, Marcilo Ficino, Rougemont, Lewis...

We all can be categorised as philosophers, but we all may not be spiritual. Philosophy is the theoretical aspect and spirituality is the practical aspect. Philosophy may be sceptical and tautological, whereas spirituality is more scientific. Philosophy talks about means whereas spiritually talks about ends. Lack of knowledge about the outer world leads to philosophy, whereas lack of knowledge about the inner world leads to spirituality. Philosophy is more about collective wisdom, whereas spirituality is about individual wisdom.

Philosophy is theoretical whereas Spirituality is practical

Muhammad Hamza , when philosophy is the way of life, there is no distinguishing between theory and practice.

Martin Klvana I respect your thoughts