Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life force

Cross between a personal essay, conjecture and a nearly incomprehensible dicdef. - Lucky 6.9 16:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It sounds like it's striving for something like Akasha--something like soul...but different. There are several articles that link to spirit's disambiguation page that I wasn't able to re-direct because the concept they refer to doesn't seem to exist. See my talk page (Anthroposophy edit). I don't have enough knowledge of spirituality to develop the idea, but I think the concept is very valid, although the execution at the moment is not good. Joyous 17:28, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete in this form or CleanUp: There is a movie by that name. There are books by that name, I'll guess. It's a common noun. This dictdef is, essentially, essence or soul, and those entries already exist. The concept of soul/essence goes, in the West alone, from Heraklitus to Kierkegaard, and a nice, tidy, encyclopedia entry that could cover all that ground without POV would be a task for titans, sages, and fearless fools. Geogre 17:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Awesome. I love this kind of writing. Did you make up the bit about titans, sages, & fools? Rock on, dude -- Wile E. Heresiarch 22:18, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, there is no tie to any primary reference justifying use of this particular phrase for this concept--a valid concept, as Joyous points out--and there currently just isn't enough to even show this phrase merits a redirect to spirit or soul, because of the other uses Geogre notes. Maybe after further development of the spirit article, we might find a redirect or even a small article is justified. For now, delete. --Gary D 20:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to soul. -Sean Curtin 20:45, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Rewrite and then redirect to soul or spirit's disambiguation page, otherwise delete. Fire Star 20:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dear Lucky: It's not incomprehensible to me. Mind you, I have an interest in "New Age-y" stuff. Surely there's some room in Wikipedia for an alternative cognitive or

literary style, such as this represents. Refreshing. And it sure isn't taking up much memory space! The term is related to the oriental ki, the Indian prana, Wilhelm Reich's orgone, and similar ideas. I could add something to that effect, but I don't want to go off willy-nilly and mess up the conceptual purity of what this writer is putting over. I sense here a bit of a conflict between the "right brain" and "left brain", or scientific vs. mystical, styles of thought. Have mercy, left-brainers! Give this poor, well-meaning person some slack. -- I'm not a registered user. Don't know if I get a vote, but if I do I think you know where I stand.

P.S. In reply to Gary D , While the article gives no reference, the term "Life Force" in that exact literal form does appear quite frequently in the writings of some philosophers, spiritual teachers, alternative medicine people, and the like. Also, it's not necessarily an exact synonym for "spirit". Life force is often used to mean something like "the thing that causes inanimate matter to become alive." Spirit is a little more closely asasociated with consciousness. Thanks for listening. -- fos, 23 June.

Delete -- I don't think it's synonymous enough even to be a redirect Dukeofomnium 13:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've already voted, but another reason for my vote is that the origin of the concept of the Life Force, in those words and as a concept, is George Bernard Shaw. He wrote about it quite a bit. Therefore, if there is an article by this name, it should be about GB Shaw's philosophy, and not the more nebulous concept. Geogre 02:12, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I believe "life force" has sometimes been used as a specific term by philosophers. Keep if life force is revised to review the historical use of the term, redirect to vitalism otherwise. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:26, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)