Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is a discussion forum topic for the Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.


As those who read my book already know, I don't believe in 'shoulds' and 'oughts'.

Accordingly, I don't believe anything happens that '"shouldn't" happen. I don't ever look at some aspect of unchangeable reality, and resentfully think, "It shouldn't be the way it unchangably is!"

In other words, I believe the would-be concept of 'should-ness' and 'should-not-ness' do not exist.

Thus, I don't believe there is anything you 'should' do. Likewise, I don't believe there is anything you 'should' not do.

For example, I neither believe you 'should' drink coffee tomorrow, nor do I believe you 'should' not drink coffee tomorrow.

The same is true of myself: I don't believe I 'should' drink coffee tomorrow; and I don't believe I 'should' not drink coffee tomorrow.

I have freedom of spirit (a.k.a. self-discipline) because I don't believe I'm bound or enslaved by any kind of 'shoulds' or 'oughts'--things I believe are imaginary phantoms. They are just superstitions, closely linked to judgementalism, especially moralizing self-righteous judgementalism. But an enslaving devil, nightmare, or phantom doesn't need to be real to enslave and torture you just the same. The inventive imagining mind can be a torturous master.

Instead, I believe in choice. When it comes to my choices, I always get exactly what I want, meaning what I choose.

Thus, you will never hear me (or anyone else who follows the teaching of my book) say something like "I shouldn't be eating this" while putting it in my mouth, whatever it is. No, we have spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline).

Likewise, as someone who practices the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting that which I cannot change, I absolutely don't look at things I cannot change and engage in resentful judgementalism by tossing around judgemental words like 'should' and 'ought', such as by saying things like, "That thing that happened in the past shouldn't have happened! I wish I could change the past. The past should be different than it is!", or "That thing I cannot change should not be the way it is!", or "The weather shouldn't be the way it is! It should be different!"

Most people who haven't read my book do believe in 'shoulds'. And even some people who have read my book still believe in them, thereby refusing to follow some of the 11 suggestions at the end of the book (namely Suggestion #4).

(Interestingly, most people who read my book agree with it all once they've read it, even though most don't agree with its conclusions before reading. In other words, my book is one of those special kinds of books that actually changes minds and changes lives and gives most readers a totally new perspective on life.)

For those of you who do still believe should-not-have-ness exists, I have some questions below I would love for you to answer. These aren't rhetorical questions. I am genuinely curious to know your answers. I love learning about different viewpoints and perspectives.


1. Can you give me some specific examples of something that happened that "shouldn't" have happened?

2. Can you give me some specific examples of a person or thing that "shouldn't" be the way it is at the time that it is that way?

3. Can you give me an example of something that "should" be happening right now (relative to you in your present in spacetime) but isn't?

4. In regard to those things or events that allegedly "shouldn't" be the way they were/are, are those things that are within your control (i.e. a matter of your choice)?

5. Are these things that you can change, or are they things that you cannot change?

6. Do you (like me) firmly practice the principle of fully, totally, and unconditionally accepting that which you cannot control (a.k.a. that which you cannot change)?


7. Is it possible that when you say something "shouldn't" be the way it is that you are speaking gibberish (i.e. saying something that doesn't actually mean anything, at least not anything coherent)?

8. As you use the words, what would it mean to say some unchangeable aspect of reality (e.g. the past) shouldn't be the way it unchangeably is?

9. For example, as you use the words, what does it mean to say, "2 + 2 should not equal 4"?

10. What does it mean to say "That hurricane that happened yesterday shouldn't have happened"?



I look forward to your answers!


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

no-shoulds.jpg (153.36 KiB) Viewed 60299 times

In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program, both for the free option and the paid option.

[Leonie Vermaak]

I am on #6 with you. I firmly believe everything happens for a reason. We might not always agree with what happened or happens, but whether a person think it shouldn't have happened the fact still remains, it DID happen. My favorite saying to accepting things we can't change is: 'It is what it is.'

[Kajori Sheryl Paul]

After reading "In It Together ", I am convinced that everything that happens, happens for a reason. There is nothing that should not or ought not be.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I am on #6 with you. I firmly believe everything happens for a reason. We might not always agree with what happened or happens, but whether a person think it shouldn't have happened the fact still remains, it DID happen. My favorite saying to accepting things we can't change is: 'It is what it is.'

Hi, Leonie Vermaak,

Thank you for your reply!

What does it mean to "agree with what happens" or "disagree with what happens"?

I can agree that something happened. For instance, if there was a hurricane yesterday, I can agree that the hurricane happened. (Or, I can disagree, meaning claim it didn't happen.) But I don't know what it would mean to say, "I agree with the hurricane happening yesterday," or "I disagree with the hurricane happening yesterday." In other words, I don't know what it would mean for me to say, "I agree that the hurricane happened yesterday, but I disagree with having happened."

Can you explain a bit more what you mean by those phrases?

I suspect it may be something I covered in my topic, Concepts of preference only make sense when it comes to your choices (i.e. what's in your control).

The other side of that same point in that topic is that concepts of truth (and falsehood) and agreement (and disagreement) only make sense in regard to objective propositions (i.e. meaningful statements that have an objective truth value).

The human mind is prone to something often called "overthinking", which produces a lot of anxiety, superstitions, and confusion. The human mind is prone to asking questions that don't make sense and giving incoherent answers to questions that don't make sense. It doesn't tend to say, "I don't know", and then be quiet with a smile, even if that is the most accurate answer and most reasonable response. When asked what it thinks about something, it doesn't tend to say, "I don't think about that," and then be quiet with a smile, even if that would be the most honest, accurate, and reasonable response. Rather than be quiet and peaceful, the brain tends to incessantly judge things by applying rating concepts that don't make sense to things they don't to which they don't apply (e.g. applying truth concepts as true/false/agree/disagree to non-propositions, or applying preference concept to non-choices).

All human minds do that to some extent, but the path of inner peace my book teaches isn't primarily about reducing let alone eliminating the judgemental nonsense the brain tends to incessantly thinks, but simply realizing you don't need to believe it or be attached to it. If the mind lies or says some judgemental gibberish, which generally all humans do a lot, you can just notice it with a spiritual smile without agreeing or believing it. In other words, that form of inner peace is just a matter of realizing you aren't the thinker of those nonsense thoughts, or any thoughts, but rather the listener.

I can agree that an event happened, but it's incoherent (as I use the terms) to say I agree with the event itself that happened.

I can agree that you have (or someone has) a certain subjective opinion, but (strictly speaking) I cannot agree with that subjective opinion; I can only happen to share or not share it at certain time. For example, if you think peanut butter tastes bad, and I think better tastes good, we are not actually disagreeing.

In other words, I can only agree with a proposition, i.e. meaning statements that have an objective truth value.




With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a.

[Mounce574]

To Me, if something "should have" or "should not have" then it didn't happen or it happen. Should doesn't change anything and thinking it does is wasting time on what you can make happen.

[Leonie Vermaak]

I am on #6 with you. I firmly believe everything happens for a reason. We might not always agree with what happened or happens, but whether a person think it shouldn't have happened the fact still remains, it DID happen. My favorite saying to accepting things we can't change is: 'It is what it is.'

Hi, Leonie Vermaak,

Thank you for your reply!

What does it mean to "agree with what happens" or "disagree with what happens"?

I can agree that something happened. For instance, if there was a hurricane yesterday, I can agree that the hurricane happened. (Or, I can disagree, meaning claim it didn't happen.) But I don't know what it would mean to say, "I agree with the hurricane happening yesterday," or "I disagree with the hurricane happening yesterday." In other words, I don't know what it would mean for me to say, "I agree that the hurricane happened yesterday, but I disagree with having happened."

Can you explain a bit more what you mean by those phrases?

I suspect it may be something I covered in my topic, Concepts of preference only make sense when it comes to your choices (i.e. what's in your control).

The other side of that same point in that topic is that concepts of truth (and falsehood) and agreement (and disagreement) only make sense in regard to objective propositions (i.e. meaningful statements that have an objective truth value).

The human mind is prone to something often called "overthinking", which produces a lot of anxiety, superstitions, and confusion. The human mind is prone to asking questions that don't make sense and giving incoherent answers to questions that don't make sense. It doesn't tend to say, "I don't know", and then be quiet with a smile, even if that is the most accurate answer and most reasonable response. When asked what it thinks about something, it doesn't tend to say, "I don't think about that," and then be quiet with a smile, even if that would be the most honest, accurate, and reasonable response. Rather than be quiet and peaceful, the brain tends to incessantly judge things by applying rating concepts that don't make sense to things they don't to which they don't apply (e.g. applying truth concepts as true/false/agree/disagree to non-propositions, or applying preference concept to non-choices).

All human minds do that to some extent, but the path of inner peace my book teaches isn't primarily about reducing let alone eliminating the judgemental nonsense the brain tends to incessantly thinks, but simply realizing you don't need to believe it or be attached to it. If the mind lies or says some judgemental gibberish, which generally all humans do a lot, you can just notice it with a spiritual smile without agreeing or believing it. In other words, that form of inner peace is just a matter of realizing you aren't the thinker of those nonsense thoughts, or any thoughts, but rather the listener.

I can agree that an event happened, but it's incoherent (as I use the terms) to say I agree with the event itself that happened.

I can agree that you have (or someone has) a certain subjective opinion, but (strictly speaking) I cannot agree with that subjective opinion; I can only happen to share or not share it at certain time. For example, if you think peanut butter tastes bad, and I think better tastes good, we are not actually disagreeing.

In other words, I can only agree with a proposition, i.e. meaning statements that have an objective truth value.




With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a.

Hi there.
I read my answer again and realized that I was vague. So, I hope I'll answer this question better now, structure what I want to say better . Say the hurricane happened, I would agree with the fact that it did, but it's not to say that I have to like the fact that it happened. So basically, what I meant to say was that a person might agree with something that happened (like a hurricane) but it's not to say that a person will like the fact that it did happen. Althought we would like to control everything that happens in our lives we can't. Whether we like or don't like what happens in life, we have to accept it, as we can't change it.

I truly hope that I managed to express myself better with this answer.

Thanks so much for giving me a chance to explain myself.

You are a wonderful mentor and I do admire your work.

Love
Leonie.

[Victory Ositaorah]

This is a discussion forum topic for the Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.


As those who read my book already know, I don't believe in 'shoulds' and 'oughts'.

Accordingly, I don't believe anything happens that '"shouldn't" happen. I don't ever look at some aspect of unchangeable reality, and resentfully think, "It shouldn't be the way it unchangably is!"

In other words, I believe the would-be concept of 'should-ness' and 'should-not-ness' do not exist.

Thus, I don't believe there is anything you 'should' do. Likewise, I don't believe there is anything you 'should' not do.

For example, I neither believe you 'should' drink coffee tomorrow, nor do I believe you 'should' not drink coffee tomorrow.

The same is true of myself: I don't believe I 'should' drink coffee tomorrow; and I don't believe I 'should' not drink coffee tomorrow.

I have freedom of spirit (a.k.a. self-discipline) because I don't believe I'm bound or enslaved by any kind of 'shoulds' or 'oughts'--things I believe are imaginary phantoms. They are just superstitions, closely linked to judgementalism, especially moralizing self-righteous judgementalism. But an enslaving devil, nightmare, or phantom doesn't need to be real to enslave and torture you just the same. The inventive imagining mind can be a torturous master.

Instead, I believe in choice. When it comes to my choices, I always get exactly what I want, meaning what I choose.

Thus, you will never hear me (or anyone else who follows the teaching of my book) say something like "I shouldn't be eating this" while putting it in my mouth, whatever it is. No, we have spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline).

Likewise, as someone who practices the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting that which I cannot change, I absolutely don't look at things I cannot change and engage in resentful judgementalism by tossing around judgemental words like 'should' and 'ought', such as by saying things like, "That thing that happened in the past shouldn't have happened! I wish I could change the past. The past should be different than it is!", or "That thing I cannot change should not be the way it is!", or "The weather shouldn't be the way it is! It should be different!"

Most people who haven't read my book do believe in 'shoulds'. And even some people who have read my book still believe in them, thereby refusing to follow some of the 11 suggestions at the end of the book (namely Suggestion #4).

(Interestingly, most people who read my book agree with it all once they've read it, even though most don't agree with its conclusions before reading. In other words, my book is one of those special kinds of books that actually changes minds and changes lives and gives most readers a totally new perspective on life.)

For those of you who do still believe should-not-have-ness exists, I have some questions below I would love for you to answer. These aren't rhetorical questions. I am genuinely curious to know your answers. I love learning about different viewpoints and perspectives.


1. Can you give me some specific examples of something that happened that "shouldn't" have happened?

2. Can you give me some specific examples of a person or thing that "shouldn't" be the way it is?

3. Can you give me an example of something that "should" be happening right now (relative to you in your present in spacetime) but isn't?

4. In regard to those things or events that allegedly "shouldn't" be the way they were/are, are these things that are within your control (i.e. a matter of your choice)?

5. Are these things that you can change, or are they things that you cannot change?

6. Do you (like me) firmly practice the principle of fully, totally, and unconditionally accepting that which you cannot control (a.k.a. that which you cannot change)?


I look forward to your answers!


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott





no-shoulds.jpg



In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program, both for the free option and the paid option.

I don't believe should-not-have-ness exists, I believe all actions are predestined.

[Rob]

Hi Eckhart,

Regarding "shoulds" and "shouldn't," here's how I see it ...

The one should I accept as a "should" is this: I "should" learn the art of becoming all I came here to experience myself to be.

And the only way I can experience myself in all of my glory, is with the existence of opposites.

Trying to avoid the opposites-game, while living in a world of polarity, is to shout out, "This shouldn't be!"

Shouting, "This should or shouldn't be" is an act of insanity; it is refusal to look at reality. That's a sign of immaturity.

Ergo, When it comes to my evolution as a human being, in an environment of polarity, I never seek a state of peace, which cannot be disturbed.

Such an imperturbable state of peacefulness is useless... that is when it comes to my growth and enhancement as a member of the human community.

In fact, imperturbable peacefulness will be trouble for me. I will sit silently, no longer being productive; no longer making-a-difference-in-the-world.

The truth is - while I'm alive in human form, still the CEO of two businesses with 40 employees, plus being an author, and currently getting my PHD in philosophy from an esteemed college ... imperturbable peace would become a cause of stress for me

Okay, now let me change my first statement (above). I am going to let go of the word, "Should" by replacing it with the word, "want." The one want I accept as an important want... I want to learn the art of becoming all I came here to experience myself to be.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi Eckhart,

Regarding "shoulds" and "shouldn't," here's how I see it ...

The one should I accept as a "should" is this: I "should" learn the art of becoming all I came here to experience myself to be.

And the only way I can experience myself in all of my glory, is with the existence of opposites.

Trying to avoid the opposites-game, while living in a world of polarity, is to shout out, "This shouldn't be!"

Shouting, "This should or shouldn't be" is an act of insanity; it is refusal to look at reality. That's a sign of immaturity.

Ergo, When it comes to my evolution as a human being, in an environment of polarity, I never seek a state of peace, which cannot be disturbed.

Such an imperturbable state of peacefulness is useless... that is when it comes to my growth and enhancement as a member of the human community.

In fact, imperturbable peacefulness will be trouble for me. I will sit silently, no longer being productive; no longer making-a-difference-in-the-world.

The truth is - while I'm alive in human form, still the CEO of two businesses with 40 employees, plus being an author, and currently getting my PHD in philosophy from an esteemed college ... imperturbable peace would become a cause of stress for me

Okay, now let me change my first statement (above). I am going to let go of the word, "Should" by replacing it with the word, "want." The one want I accept as an important want... I want to learn the art of becoming all I came here to experience myself to be.

Hi, Rob,

Thanks for your comments. Can you also post your answer to each one of the six questions separately, preferably by number so I can match each answer to each question?


Thank you,
Eckhart Aurelius

[Shirley Labzentis]

This is probably going to be a very unpopular post, but here it is.

In answer to #1 - The specific thing that should not have happened is that Donald Trump should not have been elected President of the United States. There I said it!

[Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango]

Hi, I am replying to No.6
Absolutely, I do my best to practice that principle. It's often challenging, but I've learned that accepting what I can't control brings peace of mind and allows me to direct my energy towards what I can influence. It's about acknowledging life's uncertainties and choosing not to let them consume me. Embracing this mindset has helped me navigate through difficult situations and focus on positive actions, rather than dwelling on things beyond my control.

[Amy Jackson]

Here are my answers to the 6 questions:

1. Something that happened... - someone dying in his prime.

2. Person that shouldn't be as is... - a child born disabled.

3. Something happening right now... - Investing my millions of dollars

4. Are they within my control? Only no.3.

5. Can I change them? Only no.3. I can't change the rest.

6. I won't say FIRMLY practice it, but I've learnt that there's no need giving myself headache over things I can't do anything about.

So what do my answers make me?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is probably going to be a very unpopular post, but here it is.

In answer to #1 - The specific thing that should not have happened is that Donald Trump should not have been elected President of the United States. There I said it!

Hi, Shirley Labzentis,

If you don't mind, can you answer all six questions rather than just one?


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, I am replying to No.6
Absolutely, I do my best to practice that principle. It's often challenging, but I've learned that accepting what I can't control brings peace of mind and allows me to direct my energy towards what I can influence. It's about acknowledging life's uncertainties and choosing not to let them consume me. Embracing this mindset has helped me navigate through difficult situations and focus on positive actions, rather than dwelling on things beyond my control.

Hi, Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango,

If you don't mind, can you answer all six questions rather than just one?


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.

3. Can you give me an example of something that "should" be happening right now (relative to you in your present in spacetime) but isn't?

3. Something happening right now... - Investing my millions of dollars

I suspect if you had let go of shoulds a long time ago, and instead followed the incredibly empowering and enriching teachings of my book, such as but limited to firmly practicing the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting what you cannot control, then you would have already achieved your wildest goals, such as making a million dollars if that's truly your #1 external goal. Here is a great topic about how following the teachings of my book (instead of wastefully believing in shoulds and should-not-have-ness) leads to incredible external sucess and god-like seemingly supernatural power and grace:

Just love everything and thereby become supernaturally powerful. | #Übermensch #Superhuman #JustLoveEverything


These topics are also related to the same:

- My Three Principles for Happiness and Success (in that order!) | Be Happy and Achieve Incredible Success Guaranteed

- Success is a choice.

- Whether you are looking for a savior or someone to save, or both, look into a mirror.

- Beware: The phrase "work hard" can be just as dishonest and dangerous as the word "try". Be very careful with it! [Failure is an illusion, and success is a choice.]

4. In regard to those things or events that allegedly "shouldn't" be the way they were/are, are these things that are within your control (i.e. a matter of your choice)?

4. Are they within my control? Only no.3.

***

5. Are these things that you can change, or are they things that you cannot change?

5. Can I change them? Only no.3. I can't change the rest.

So, to be clear, you have resentment, hate, and/or unacceptable towards thing you cannot control; Correct?

If you let go of that, you will be much more successful at your stated goals.

The key word there is stated. There is a big difference between a stated goal and a real goal/choice. When those two things don't happen to be the exact same thing (which is the case with most humans), then that creates an illusion of failure. One allegedly "fails" at the stated goal to which they allegedly "try" to achieve while, in reality, succeeding at their real goals/choices.

When it comes to your choices, you always get exactly what you want, meaning what you choose. When it comes to everything else (i.e. that which you do not control), it is covered by the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting what you do not control, which can be remembered with simple mantras such as reality is right by definition, the universe doesn't miscalculate, and whatever it is, it is what it is.

In other words, as I've said many times before, trying is lying, failure is an illusion, and success is a choice. The adulter isn't a spouse trying to be faithful who fails, but rather someone who succeeds at cheating. That way of looking at things bring it full circle because it is actually a very accepting and loving and inner-peace-consistent (a.k.a. true happiness-manifesting) way of looking at things: Everyone and everything is a success. They aren't failing to be something or failing to be anything; they are what they are and they are succeeding at being themselves. Bees don't fail to be trees, and trees don't fail to be bees. They are succeeding at being what they are and doing what they do, especially when it comes to concept like spirituality (i.e. consciousness and the real you) and choice. Nothing is "failing" to be what it "should" be at that moment that it is what it is, but rather it is succeeding at being what it is in the moment that it is what it is.

In analogy, the drinking alcoholic doesn't fail to be sober, even if his stated goal is to be sober, but rather he is successful at drinking.

You can say your goal is to make a million dollars or such, but if you willfully choose to spend even one tiny bit of your incredibly valuable and very limited time or energy on resentment, unforgiveness, hate, or other forms of unacceptance or shoulding, then your stated goal is not your real goal, and instead you are and will be succeeding at your real goal (a.k.a. choice), which is to spend your valuable, very limited time and energy on shoulding, resentment, and/or unacceptance. If your real goal was something else, you wouldn't counter-productively waste your very valuable and limited time and energy on resentment and shoulding.

As the previously linked topic says, just love everything and thereby become supernaturally powerful, or choose to instead waste some of your incredibly valuable time or energy on resenting (a.k.a. shoulding on) things outside of your control instead of choosing to firmly and stubbornly practice the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting that which you cannot control, with an acceptance so full and unconditional it warrants the word love.

The choice is yours, and either choice is fine.

Would you rather be resentful or insanely powerful and wealthy (or whatever goal you could choose besides spending your energy being resentful)? If you choose resentful, that's totally fine to me. I won't resent you for it. I don't even resent resenters. To each their own. Bees like to drink blood, and I don't. It's just beautiful diversity, which is a necessarily ingredient for the world exist. In a manner of speaking, killer hurricanes like to kill, and world-destorying asteroiods like to destroy worlds. To each its own.

What will you choose? There's no wrong answer, because whichever you choose you will get it. Whether you choose miserable expensive resentment or choose incredibly god-like power and grace and the external success that comes with that, you will get what you choose, and so I shall continue to say of you and everyone and everything, good for you; you are what you are; you get what you choose; and that's beautiful and heavenly.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

Mother Nature and all of creation is so deeply and infinitely beautiful, even though most humans are very spoiled children deeply lacking in self-responsibility and self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom).
the-wastefulness-of-shoulding-and-resentment.png (723.2 KiB) Viewed 52938 times

---
In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.