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

[Miracle Kingss]

I have read this book a number of times to fully grasp all the knowledge it contains. The only thing I still don't understand how the author came to the conclusion that there is no problem of evil.

[Seetha E]

I admit that during my first read, I was not sure if the inferences I was drawing were the same that the author expected/ thought... somewhere after the initial couple of chapters, I decided to complete the book with the understanding I gathered. Towards the end of the book, I can say I understood and agreed with the author. I have completed the 2nd read as well. It gave a better grasp this time around and I plan to pick it up again in a couple of months...

[Rupali Mishra]

I did read the book, and I liked reading it. There are many reasons for us as humans to think about other human beings near us. Especially the kids near us who need our help.

[Naushin Moledina]

I have read this book one time and there are quite some things that I don’t understand but I going through it the second time and I think I’ll figure out things that were not clear the first time.

[Edah Chemonges]

I didn't agree with the chapter "We Can't Help Starving Children Because We Can't Help Ourselves". I've quoted the chapter title because the concept in it does not quite sound right. I think we help because of selflessness and nothing else. After all, we could have used whatever we're giving to other people ourselves.

Can you please quote the very first sentence with which you disagree, not including chapter titles?

It's not extreme selfishness, let alone full-blown psychopathy, that is the cause of our failure to save starving children among needy others, but rather the opposite: it is our self-destructiveness.

I think this is more of a hypothetical scenario.

[Jennifer Coxon]

I really didn't understand the reference to dualism and monoism.

That is not a reference to some kind of philosophical metaphysical dualism. Rather, the truths in this book are agreeable to metaphysical dualists and monists alike. One could even argue that the differences between most forms of dualism and monism are merely semantics.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

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

Pg 139

I did not fully understand the following, perhaps given my Christian perspective:

'You need not believe in a god to do your best to see the world from a god's eyes, a god's eye view."

Please clarify.

Hi, Moisés Alcántara Ayre,

Thank you for your question!

By definition, anyone can do their best at anything.
 
By definition, you can't do better than your best at something, no matter what it is.
 
But, by definition, you can always do your best at something, no matter what it is.
 
 
With that said, let's break the sentence down into sub-sentences:
 
1. You need not believe in god, meaning you don't need to believe in god.
 
2. You can do your best at anything.
 
3. You can do your best to see the world from a god's eyes, meaning from a god's eye view.
 
 
Do you understand sentence #1 above? Do you understand sentence #2 above? Do you understand sentence #3?
 
Do you understand all three numbered sentences above? If not, which is the first of the three above that you don't understand?



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

By definition, anyone can do their best at anything..png (1.71 MiB) Viewed 51335 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.

[Juanita Phelps]

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

Pg 139

I did not fully understand the following, perhaps given my Christian perspective:

'You need not believe in a god to do your best to see the world from a god's eyes, a god's eye view."

Please clarify.

Hi, Moisés Alcántara Ayre,

Thank you for your question!

By definition, anyone can do their best at anything.
 
By definition, you can't do better than your best at something, no matter what it is.
 
But, by definition, you can always do your best at something, no matter what it is.
 
 
With that said, let's break the sentence down into sub-sentences:
 
1. You need not believe in god, meaning you don't need to believe in god.
 
2. You can do your best at anything.
 
3. You can do your best to see the world from a god's eyes, meaning from a god's eye view.
 
 
Do you understand sentence #1 above? Do you understand sentence #2 above? Do you understand sentence #3?
 
Do you understand all three numbered sentences above? If not, which is the first of the three above that you don't understand?



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




By definition, anyone can do their best at anything..png




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.

Scott,

I do understand 2 of the 3 questions.

1. I don't need to believe in a higher power that must enable me to do my best (or to control any of my unique, personal actions).

2. I can put forth the effort and energy to do my best, no matter the activity or task. My best may surpass your best, or it may not come anywhere near your best. But it can be my best.

3. The God's eye view baffles me. If I do my best to see the world from a god's eyes, meaning from a god's eye view, what am I looking for? How will I know when I see it?

With a grin,
Juanita Carol McCoy Phelps

[Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango]

There is a quote from the Bible which says I can do all things through God who strengthens me. I used to believe this sentence and ask God for his strength when ever I wanted to do anything. But that changed about a year ago. I started believing in my self and letting the universe take control. This means that I did my best and whether it was successful or not I let it be because I can not control the outcome of everything.

[Adaboo]

Did every cell in the body depend on a higher supreme other than your higher self? I believe in a higher supreme existence of a supreme power in every aspect of life, I do not say there's no God but he's in every intelligent matter of the cosmos. By the saying "We created man in our image." A reflection. You need to be a Guru to understand.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

It is a fantastic book. I am not sure about the meaning of philosophical zombie. How do they relate to us?

Here is an encyclopedia article that explains what Philosophical Zombies are:

onlinephilosophyclub.com/philopedia/philosophical-zombie

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

"True conscious love across space is recognizing that other humans across space are conscious, just like the human you see in the mirror."

Hi, DanaLohn,

Can you explain a bit what you don't understand exactly about that sentence?

For instance, if you had to take your best bet about what the above sentence means, what would that be?

Are there any single words in the sentence that you don't understand, or are you very familiar with the dictionary meaning of each word, but just the way they are put together and ordered is somehow causing the overall meaning to be unclear?


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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Zanne Crystle,

Thank you for your reply and questions!

Self-employment [a.k.a. being your own boss] involves control over business affairs.
Self-government [a.k.a. political freedom] involves control over political affairs.
Self-discipline [a.k.a. spiritual freedom] involves control over spiritual affairs.

I don't think I agree with that.

Instead, I would replace "involves control over" with the phrase "is the absence of slavery and coercion in".

Thus, you get these three sentences instead:

Self-employment [a.k.a. being your own boss] is the absence of being controlled by other people and things in business affairs.

Self-government [a.k.a. political freedom] is the absence of being controlled by other people and things in political affairs.

Self-discipline [a.k.a. spiritual freedom] is the absence of of being controlled by other people and things in spiritual affairs.


I would typically agree with those above three sentences.

I think they become more clear with examples:


Self-employment [a.k.a. being your own boss] is the absence of being controlled by other people and things in business affairs, i.e. not having a boss at work or otherwise in terms of one's career/finances/business. It's to not be financially subjugated.

Self-government [a.k.a. political freedom] is the absence of being controlled by other people and things in political affairs, i.e. not being violently ruled/dominated by anyone. It's to not to be subjugated or controlled via non-defensive violence or the threat thereof.

Self-discipline [a.k.a. spiritual freedom] is the absence of of being controlled by other people and things in spiritual affairs, i.e. not being subjugated by anyone or anything and not being a spiritual salve, e.g. not being a slave to fear, hunger, or temptation, etc. It's for what my book calls 'the real you' to not be subjugated, enslaved, or oppressed by anything at all. It's to always be 100% in control of your choices.

I got lost again when it compared the relationship between self-employment to self-government and self-discipline.

[...]

This analogy is not in the A:B::C::D format; it's more of an A:B::A:C format.

Self-employment: Self-government :: Self-employment: Self-discipline

No, that's not what I mean. Sorry it wasn't clear.

Instead, the analogy would take the following form:

A:B :: C:D :: E:F

which means: A is to B as both C is to D and as E is to F.


Here is an alternative example of a triple analogy taking the same form:

Eggs are to omelettes as hot water is to tea as ice cream is to milkshakes.


In the above:

A is eggs
B is omelettes

C is hot water
D is tea

E is ice cream
F is milkshakes


In the triple analogy from my book:

A is political freedom
B is self-government

C is spiritual freedom
D is self-discipline

E is financial and/or business freedom
F is self-employment


Let me know if you still have any questions about this.


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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I think I do understand the overall meaning of this, especially through the subsequent sentences. I struggled just a little because of the latter part of the sentence;

"The enslavements and false authorities from which this book seeks to see you liberated exist not merely in the form of other humans and not merely on the relatively small political stage of one tiny planet in a tiny sliver of time in an unfathomably vast universe." In page 12.

Somto Nwachukwu 1,

Can you specify which part of the sentence exactly when you mean the latter part?

Like the last two words, the last four words, the last ten words, or which set of words exactly?



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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I must say the title was somehow weird when I first saw the book but the plot is a perfect match for this book. The book exceeded my expectations. Everything in the book was clear and simple.

Plot? What about the plot exactly?

It's interesting you didn't mention the issue with the title in your review:

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/viewt ... 4&t=488515


Can you explain why you didn't mention the issue with the title there or anything about the "plot"?