What is Spiritual Idealism?
What is spiritual about spiritual idealism? In what way is spiritual idealism a form of idealism?
Some self-described “spiritual” people and idealists I’ve debated with have argued that the term “spiritual idealism” is a disingenuous neologism. However, if you Google the words “spiritual idealism”, you’ll find over 18 pages (with around ten entries on each page) of links to books, videos, papers and articles which refer directly to it. In any case, even if this term were an invention, then there’d still be very-good reasons to use it anyway.
Firstly, there are idealists who see themselves as what they call “spiritual”. And there are people who see themselves as spiritual who’re also idealists. More relevantly, there are people who fuse their spiritual and idealist beliefs together. Indeed, in recent years, this fusion has become very popular — at least in fairly limited circles.
Of course there are forms of idealism — dating back to the 18th century and before — that are in no way (at least obviously) spiritual. (This may depend on definitions.)
In most cases, the spiritual values and beliefs drive the idealist philosophies. That is, those who are spiritual (or who see themselves as spiritual) are attracted to the idealism because they deem it to have strong spiritual elements.
What is spiritual, then, about spiritual idealism?
One of the main ways in which spiritual idealism is spiritual boils down to how its advocates tie it to the various “ancient” — but also more recent — religious and philosophical traditions which have emphasised Cosmic Consciousness, Oneness, spiritual “holism”, “spiritual autonomy”, “anti-materialism” (or “anti-physicalism”), the critique of science, etc. (Some, though very few, spiritual idealists see their position as being completely in tune with science. However, even they argue that science has been “corrupted by materialism”.)
More strongly, the central spiritual element of spiritual idealism is the idea that (to generalise and be slightly rhetorical) consciousness is everything, whether that is one’s own personal consciousness, Bernardo Kastrup’s transpersonal mind, Donald Hoffman’s collective of conscious agents, etc.
(There is a fair amount of consciousness-first spiritual philosophies to choose from. However, many examples are almost identical to one another. That’s even the case when the advocates stress the differences. Indeed some examples are (quasi) scientific variations on this ancient theme.)
In a simple sense, then, believing that consciousness is everything makes the spiritual individual his or her own god. Spiritual idealists, however, would prefer to say that it makes individuals “at one with the Cosmos” (or variations thereon). Yet it’s still the case that such “spiritual autonomy” guarantees that the individual can be his or her own god, even if he or she claims to make “contact with Cosmic Consciousness”. This claim (i.e., about fusing with the Cosmos), however, often doesn’t really amount to much and is simply an emotional poeticism. That’s primarily because virtually all spiritual idealists retain not just a single part of their ego, but all of it. Indeed the very embrace of spiritual idealism often leads its advocates in very egocentric — even narcissistic — directions.
Basically, then, claiming to be (for example) at one with the Cosmos is one way of seeing oneself as being morally and intellectually superior to those mere mortals who are either “traditionally religious” or not religious or spiritual at all. And this spiritual egotism (sometimes narcissism) is blatantly obvious in the case of at least some well-known spiritual idealists.
[See these many links to videos, articles, papers and essays on what psychologists and others call “spiritual narcissism”.]
Relevantly, it doesn’t really matter if atheists, materialists, realists, or those with other philosophical views (i.e., outside of ethics) are also egotists (or narcissists) because it’s not part of their philosophical position that they aren’t any of these things. Who they are as people is largely irrelevant to their metaphysical positions. In the case of most spiritual idealists, on the other hand, who they are as a person is important to themselves and to others. Or, more correctly, how they are seen by others is almost everything to them.
So much for “ego dissolution”.
The spiritual idealists Bernardo Kastrup and Deepak Chopra would probably argue that I have “misunderstood” (a word Kastrup often uses against virtually all his critics) ego-dissolution and that it isn’t actually the termination of the (or his) ego at all. So, if he were to say that, then I would agree. His own clear example would show that to be the case.
(See Bernado Kastrup’s ‘There is method to the condescension’. Kastrup’s basic position is that since he believes that all his critics use condescension, and all those who advance positions he doesn’t like also do so, then he’s fully entitled to do exactly the same thing. The logic is flawless.)
The egotism — and often narcissism of (Western) gurus, “spiritual leaders”, spiritual philosophers, cult leaders, etc. has been extensively commented on by psychologists, sociologists, political commentators, historians, documentary filmmakers, etc. (Perhaps all these commentators have been corrupted by our Western “physicalist paradigm”.) Many laypersons are also aware of the self-importance of such self-described “spiritual” types. Indeed such awareness is now almost commonplace and has become the subject of, for example, many comedy sketches and routines.
My philosophy blog and flickr account:
