Later, phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty rejected Cartesian dualism but retained a place for spirit as the “invisible” dimension of the visible world—the meaning that emerges from, but is not reducible to, neurons and molecules. Here, spirit becomes the phenomenon of significance itself.
From the Hebrew ruach (breath/wind) to the Latin spiritus , the etymological roots of “spirit” point to movement and vitality. Historically, spirit was the presumed substance of gods, ghosts, and the soul. In secular modernity, however, the term has not vanished but transformed. People speak of “team spirit,” “the human spirit,” or being “in high spirits.” This paper asks: Is spirit merely a poetic ghost of religious language, or does it denote a real, albeit non-physical, dimension of existence? The thesis is that spirit functions as a necessary bridge concept—between body and mind, self and other, immanence and transcendence. spirit
Contemporary positive psychology has reclaimed “spirituality” as a measurable variable correlated with well-being, resilience, and lower rates of depression. Researchers define it operationally as “the search for the sacred” or “a sense of connection to something larger than oneself.” In this frame, spirit does not require a deity—it requires transcendence of the ego . Historically, spirit was the presumed substance of gods,
In Eastern traditions, the equivalent concept differs. In Hinduism, Atman (the inner self) is ultimately identical with Brahman (universal spirit). Buddhism, while non-theistic, speaks of citta (mind-heart) and the possibility of liberated energy. These traditions shift spirit from a substance to a process —enlightenment is the realization of spirit’s true nature. The thesis is that spirit functions as a
Materialists (e.g., Daniel Dennett) argue that “spirit” is a user-illusion generated by neural complexity. Talk of spirit, they claim, explains nothing and obscures real causal mechanisms (dopamine, oxytocin, collective behavior algorithms).