I have no respect for the words spiritual or god…none.

They are two of the most vacuous words to have ever been uttered and so many of the people who use them, I have found upon much reflection,  do not deserve my respect. This is not necessarily true of all.

A person’s goodness has absolutely nothing to do with these words in any way shape or form. Goodness is purely the result of moral behaviour that is the product of nothing other than natural, perhaps even biologically innate, things or forces.

Respect for good people also comes irrespective of these vacuous words. It comes solely from their natural goodness and nothing else. If someone deserves my respect, that respect would have absolutely nothing to do with the vacuous words, spiritual or god, and/or  any other word that may be in any way connected to or associated with them.

If anyone utters the words spiritual or god in my presence, depending on the place and perhaps concern for others  around I may already respect – but then, maybe not even then – they will be asked to cease using them, as, beyond the indisputable  fact that they are completely empty of any meaning, I find the use of them  to be nothing other than presumptuously insulting.

I have been completely exhausted of any respect for these words and it cannot ever be redeemed.


“Just as the mechanical philosophy appeared to be triumphant, it was demolished by Newton, who reintroduced a kind of “occult” cause and quality, much to the dismay of leading scientists of the day, and Newton himself.The Cartesian theory of mind (such as it was) was unaffected by his discoveries, but the theory of body was demonstrated to be untenable. To put it differently, Newton eliminated the problem of “the ghost in the machine” by exorcising the machine; the ghost was unaffected.” (Chomsky, 1994 : Naturalism and Dualism in the Study of Language and Mind. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 2(2), 181-209 – p189)

“We can continue to distinguish ‘physical’ or ‘material’ from ‘mental’, but recognizing that the usage is only a descriptive convenience, with no metaphysical import” (Chomsky and His Critics, p13)

1 thought on “EMPTINESS”

  1. “…Chomsky notes that other aspects of language use, what he terms “causation of behavior”; i.e., how and why humans “make choices and behave as they do,” and the “creative aspect of language use” (Chomsky, 1975b:138) are as mysterious to us today as they were to the Cartesians, who also studied them. He has suggested that some of these topics might be outside the range of our cognitive capacities: “There is, surely, no evolutionary pressure that leads humans to have minds capable of discovering significant explanatory theories in specific fields of inquiry. Thinking of humans as biological organisms in the natural world, it is only a lucky accident if their cognitive capacity happens to be well matched to scientific truth in some area” (Chomsky, 1975b:25).”

    “Some have argued that this is not blind luck but rather a product of Darwinian evolution. The outstanding American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, who presented an account of science construction in terms similar to those just outlined, lined, argued in this vein. His point was that through ordinary processes of natural selection our mental capacities evolved so as to be able to deal with the problems that arise in the world of experience. (Chomsky, 1988a:158)”

    “Chomsky rejects this argument on the basis that “the experience that shaped the course of evolution offers no hint of the problems to be faced in the sciences” and could not have been a factor in evolution: “But this argument [Peirce’s] is not compelling. It is possible to imagine that chimpanzees have an innate fear of snakes because those who lacked this genetically determined property did not survive to reproduce, but one can hardly argue that humans have the capacity to discover quantum theory for similar reasons” (p. 158).”

    “So it is a lucky accident if there is a (partial) “convergence of our ideas and the truth about the world”: “Notice that it is just blind luck if the human science-forming capacity, a particular component of the human biological endowment, happens to yield a result that conforms more or less to the truth about the world” (pp. 157-58).”

    (From Biolinguistics: Exploring the Biology of Language – Lyle Jenkins, 2000)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *