- Paperback: 176 pages
- Publisher: Oxford University Press (December 4, 2006)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0195312139
- ISBN-13: 978-0195312133
- Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 0.6 x 6.1 inches
- Shipping Weight: 12.3 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
- Average Customer Review: 14 customer reviews
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #611,741 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
Spirituality for the Skeptic: The Thoughtful Love of Life Paperback – December 4, 2006
The Amazon Book Review
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
"Professor Solomon offers an approach to spirituality (and I think religion, and broader still the philosophy of religion) that many will find extremely attractive and timely.... Solomon treats this subject in a delicate fashion, one that will be the envy of experienced theologians and philosophers of religion."--G. Elijah Dann
About the Author
Robert C. Solomon is the Quincy Lee Centennial Professor of Business and Philosophy and Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University of Texas, Austin. His books include A Short History of Philosophy, A Passion for Wisdom, and The Joy of Philosophy, all published by Oxford.
Try the Kindle edition and experience these great reading features:
Showing 1-8 of 14 reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Ultimately, Solomon wants to argue that spirituality is about the "enlargement of the self" (p. 123), an expansion of our horizons that recognizes that it's life itself, not something transcendent to life, that bestows meaning. As we recognize, with gratitude but also a sense of the tragic, that a "thoughtful love of life" is worth committing to, our empathic connectedness with the world expands. Our selves enlarge.
Solomon's case for a spirituality for the skeptical has little patience with dogmatic religiosity, but equally little patience with reductive materialists who pooh-pooh the possibility or value of self-enlarging experiences. In making his case, he invokes arguments and examples from an extraordinarily rich range of sources, western as well as Asian.
To my mind, the best chapters in the book are the ones dealing with tragedy (chapter 5) and death (chapter 7). Readers familiar with Solomon's work will find little new in Spirituality for the Skeptic. But the grace with which the book is written, the humility with which Solomon approaches his topic, and the insights which punctuate his arguments, make it well worth reading.
I have since found another organization, and am a happy (secular) practitioner. This little book is still on my shelf because I think that it bears re-reading from time to time.
Why not 5 stars? I reserve 5 stars for truly extraordinary philosophical books (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, etc.)
The goal of the book is to sketch a broader view of "spirituality," one that is not intrinsically religious or mystical, and to include secular skeptics (or, as we more often call ourselves, secular humanists) in it. There are several problems with this project, not the least of which is that the term "spiritual" is so intertwined with religion and mysticism that it is simply hopeless to try to rescue it.
Solomon acknowledges in the preface to the book that he finds "most of what passe[s] as spirituality something of a sham, fueled by pretension and dominated by hypocrisy." Here here, brother. Nonetheless he enlists some of the big guns of philosophy, particularly Hegel and Nietzsche, to make the point that there are more genuine and productive ways to conceive of spirituality. Solomon wishes to "naturalize" spirituality starting from the standpoint that, in his words, "if spirituality means anything it means thoughtfulness" (p. 5). By this he seems to suggest that to be spiritual is to think about and appreciate the world as it is (as opposed to as how one wishes it to be). Spirituality in this sense is not just scientific or even philosophical inquiry -- though the two are necessary components of it -- but includes an aesthetic sense as well. So far so good, but why use the word "spiritual," which immediately conjures up thoughts of, well, spirits? This is where I begin to lose Solomon (and it happens pretty early in the book).
For instance, the author says that forgiveness plays a role in spirituality. But he doesn't apply forgiveness, as one might expect, just to what others do to you or to the world, i.e., to the agents of intentional actions. Solomon actually extends the concept of forgiveness to life itself, as in: "This is also true when the betrayer [of your trust] is not a person but life itself, when our hopes and expectations have been thwarted. ... It means, through our actions and feelings as well as through our thoughts, forgiving the world" (p. 56). Come again? Even Solomon immediately realizes that this, as he himself puts it, smells of "implicit animism," but that possibility doesn't bother him because "even the most hard-headed materialists tend, in their personal dealings with the world, to be animists" (p. 56).
Oh no they don't! First of all, I resent the "hard-headed" modifier to the term materialist, not so subtly suggesting that there is something wrong with materialism (in the sense of a naturalistic philosophy, not in that of Madonna's "Material Girl"). Second, this is precisely what is questionable about attempting to co-opt a word like "spiritual" for purposes that most clearly are not reflected in its historical and cultural use. One ends up on a linguistic slippery slope that brings him perilously close to the sham, pretension and hypocrisy that Solomon decries at the beginning of the book.
Spiritual is in antithesis with material/natural, and it ought to be left that way; to talk about spirituality for the skeptic is simply not helpful. It plays straight into the hands of mystics and religionists who insist that there is something missing from a naturalistic worldview. There is nothing missing because there is nothing else to add. What we need instead is a new way to talk about how one can have an aesthetic and compassionate view of life, how one can be emotional in the positive sense of the word, and still understand the world through reason and empirical evidence. Indeed, an argument can be made that looking at the world the way it really is engenders true compassion and appreciation, freed of the distorting filters of mysticism and religion.
Still, we seem to need a new vocabulary to talk about the secular equivalent of spirituality, soul and the like. I think that there is a perfectly good sense in which, for instance, I am a "spiritual" person, or that listening to good music or reading a good book is good for my "soul," and so on. But to use those terms is a cop out that I'd rather not engage in. Therefore, dear readers, what would you suggest we use as alternative words for terms like "spiritual" and "soul"? This is more than an academic exercise, you know. When my wife and I found ourselves through e-dating, we had both put "spiritual but not religious" on our profiles, and as a result had to wade through a pile of emails from new age fruitcakes before finding each other...