In earlier ages, Matt Larsen notes, people spoke of the world as animated by spirits, angels, demons, and gods:
These were not only articles of belief but also ways of explaining lived experience. To say someone was gripped by a “spirit of rage” or that a village had fallen under an “evil spirit” was not necessarily to describe a literal creature lurking in the shadows. It was to recognize that certain moods, desires, and collective energies can take hold of people with a force that feels external, powerful, and beyond their control.
Modern culture often makes light of these concepts. We are taught to think of spirits as superstition, anthropomorphic gods as primitive projections, and demons as nothing more than fairy tales. Yet in stripping away the old language, we may also lose track of the deeper truths those metaphors carried.
[…]
Even if we no longer picture spirits as winged beings or malicious shades, we still intuitively understand the idea of “team spirit” or a “spirit of rebellion.” These are forces that animate individuals and groups, shifting their behavior, inspiring courage, or driving them to defiance. In modern psychological terms, we might speak of emotional contagion, group dynamics, or personality traits. But such language lacks the vitality of saying that someone is “possessed by pride” or that a crowd is filled with the “spirit of joy.”
Older ways of speaking recognized that ideas, moods, and motivations often act on us like external powers. They invade us, take hold of us, and drive us toward actions we may not have chosen in cold reason. To frame these forces as “spirits” was not naïve but perceptive. It was a way of acknowledging that human beings are never only rational, that unseen forces, whether internal passions or cultural moods, move us like tides.
Modern psychology has replaced the language of spirits with the language of cognition, drives, and archetypes. But in doing so, it has lost something of the vividness and immediacy of the older metaphors. To say that someone is in the grip of an “evil spirit” captures the lived experience of being overcome by destructive emotion far more directly than to diagnose them with “maladaptive behavioral tendencies.”
Hidden at the root of this is the matter-first/mind-first dichotomy. “Modern psychology” et al. treat matter as primary and mind as secondary and strictly derivative. All other ways of thinking throughout all of human history treat mind as primary and matter as secondary. The existence and imminent presence of ghosts, spirits, shades, demons et al. make little to no sense from a matter-first point of view; their existence and imminent presence make perfect sense from a mind-first point of view. This thread can be seen running through—in no particular order, and non-exclusively—Descartes, Nietzsche, Jung, Langan, Carlson, scientific materialism, quantum physics, string theory, and Silicon Valley AI research.
…but failed to achieve much beyond replacing language. Such as for example drag the whole thing from the bog of unfalsifiable babble and noticeably more onto terra firma.
Consequently, as a pseudoscience it has exactly the same usefulness to anyone as primitive cargo cult performances do:
A. lend an ear and drone generic calming BS to the private clients, and
B. thimble-rig up some oracular validation for those in power and out of confidence.
That’s a matter of taste. The author may be just walking in circles away from the boring scenery.
Evil spirits: “What’s gotten into you, man?”
“Yet in stripping away the old language, we may also lose track of the deeper truths those metaphors carried.”
I don’t think ancient reports of spirits were metaphors. I think ancient people were less distracted by mundane affairs and more attentive to literal spirits.
I hold an unpopular belief: I think that the conscious personalities of humans survive past the death of the physical body. In short, I believe that the soul is real enough to have an impact on the physical world — usually before the mundane body dies, but sometimes afterward. I even believe that it is possible for living humans in the mundane world to communicate with the human minds/souls in the afterlife.
I do not think minds are secreted by brains. I think that mundane physical things are manifested by the larger, more spiritual planes.