Philosophy Discussion Forums

I must tell you the truth. I didn't at first. I had to use the contest of the sentence to understand some of it.

I will have to go back and check a few.

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2024, 3:56 pm

Priyankan Nayak wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2024, 11:16 am Hey Scott
Though I have no philosophical background, I am trying my best to understand every sentence that you have written in the book. I wasn't able to understand this paragraph on page 12-

"Rather, the political philosophy of political freedom, nonviolence, and self-government acts as an analogue for a much broader and grander spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom. For instance, the political freedom that is self-government acts as an analogue of the much broader spiritual freedom that is self-discipline, comparable to the way self-employment—being your own boss—can act as an analogue of both self-government and self-discipline. In this context, self-discipline is just another term for spiritual freedom. In this book, self-discipline and spiritual freedom are synonymous terms; they mean the exact same thing."

Priyankan Nayak,

Thank you four reply. Please can we take it one sentence at a time?

Let's start with the first one; do you understand that first sentence:

"The political philosophy of political freedom, nonviolence, and self-government acts as an analogue for a much broader and grander spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom."


?



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

No, I wasn't able to completely understand the whole sentence. I can only categorize political freedom under political philosophy and spiritual freedom under spiritual philosophy. You have written meaning of spiritual freedom but how that can be analogues to political freedom?

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2024, 3:56 pm
Let's start with the first one; do you understand that first sentence:

"The political philosophy of political freedom, nonviolence, and self-government acts as an analogue for a much broader and grander spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom."


?

Priyankan Nayak wrote: ↑March 8th, 2024, 12:56 am No, I wasn't able to completely understand the whole sentence. I can only categorize political freedom under political philosophy and spiritual freedom under spiritual philosophy. You have written meaning of spiritual freedom but how that can be analogues to political freedom?

Hi, Priyankan Nayak,

Thank you for your reply!

May I ask if you can explain to me in detail how you are interpreting/understanding the word "analogue" as I've used it in the sentence above?

Can you give me an example of a few analogies? I can then use your examples to understand what you consider to be an analogy versus a non-analogy, and what you consider to be a valid/correct/understandable analogy versus an invalid/incorrect/non-understandable one.

I think that if I can see how you would define the word 'analogy' and by extension the word 'analogue', and see some examples of a few analogies that you are think are valid analogies, I will be able to re-word and/ore explain the quoted sentence in a way that you will understand.


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

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑March 8th, 2024, 3:56 pm

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2024, 3:56 pm
Let's start with the first one; do you understand that first sentence:

"The political philosophy of political freedom, nonviolence, and self-government acts as an analogue for a much broader and grander spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom."


?

Priyankan Nayak wrote: ↑March 8th, 2024, 12:56 am No, I wasn't able to completely understand the whole sentence. I can only categorize political freedom under political philosophy and spiritual freedom under spiritual philosophy. You have written meaning of spiritual freedom but how that can be analogues to political freedom?

Hi, Priyankan Nayak,

Thank you for your reply!

May I ask if you can explain to me in detail how you are interpreting/understanding the word "analogue" as I've used it in the sentence above?

Can you give me an example of a few analogies? I can then use your examples to understand what you consider to be an analogy versus a non-analogy, and what you consider to be a valid/correct/understandable analogy versus an invalid/incorrect/non-understandable one.

I think that if I can see how you would define the word 'analogy' and by extension the word 'analogue', and see some examples of a few analogies that you are think are valid analogies, I will be able to re-word and/ore explain the quoted sentence in a way that you will understand.


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

Hey Scott,

I mean, the term 'analogy' refers to a comparison of two things that are not the same but have some similarities. Spiritual philosophy is concerned with spirituality (the existence of a reality that cannot be physically observed), and spiritual freedom is a privilege that allows people to express themselves and live their lives according to their beliefs. It is akin to or comparable to political philosophy, which investigates political concerns such as power, governance, justice, and freedom, including political freedom (the ability of citizens to engage in political processes).

Thank you.

Priyankan Nayak wrote: ↑March 8th, 2024, 10:46 pm

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑March 8th, 2024, 3:56 pm

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2024, 3:56 pm
Let's start with the first one; do you understand that first sentence:

"The political philosophy of political freedom, nonviolence, and self-government acts as an analogue for a much broader and grander spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom."


?

Priyankan Nayak wrote: ↑March 8th, 2024, 12:56 am No, I wasn't able to completely understand the whole sentence. I can only categorize political freedom under political philosophy and spiritual freedom under spiritual philosophy. You have written meaning of spiritual freedom but how that can be analogues to political freedom?

Hi, Priyankan Nayak,

Thank you for your reply!

May I ask if you can explain to me in detail how you are interpreting/understanding the word "analogue" as I've used it in the sentence above?

Can you give me an example of a few analogies? I can then use your examples to understand what you consider to be an analogy versus a non-analogy, and what you consider to be a valid/correct/understandable analogy versus an invalid/incorrect/non-understandable one.

I think that if I can see how you would define the word 'analogy' and by extension the word 'analogue', and see some examples of a few analogies that you are think are valid analogies, I will be able to re-word and/ore explain the quoted sentence in a way that you will understand.


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

Hey Scott,

I mean, the term 'analogy' refers to a comparison of two things that are not the same but have some similarities. Spiritual philosophy is concerned with spirituality (the existence of a reality that cannot be physically observed), and spiritual freedom is a privilege that allows people to express themselves and live their lives according to their beliefs. It is akin to or comparable to political philosophy, which investigates political concerns such as power, governance, justice, and freedom, including political freedom (the ability of citizens to engage in political processes).

Thank you.

Hi, Priyankan Nayak, can you give me a few examples of some analogies that you believe are valid analogies?

Here's an example of analogy I believe to be a decently valid analogy:

In terms of size, an ant it to a rat what the Moon is to the Earth.

What do you think of that one? Is that one valid? Is that one understandable? Are ants similar to the moon? Are rats similar to the Earth? These aren't rhetorical question. Knowing your answers to each and all of these questions will help me understand you and your words better and thereby communicate myself in a way that is more understandable and clear.

In any case, can you give me a few examples of some analogies you do think are valid?


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

I enjoyed and understood every bit of the book. I even appreciate author's writing skills which shone throughout the book, making the message clear and loud. Another thing that made sense was word building, which was clean of grammatical errors. Well, I enjoyed reading this book.

I haven't finished reading "In It Together," but I found it challenging to grasp every sentence. The explanations in the forums didn't help much as they used complex terms to define other complex terms.

Lunar gate wrote: ↑March 19th, 2024, 2:57 am I haven't finished reading "In It Together," but I found it challenging to grasp every sentence. The explanations in the forums didn't help much as they used complex terms to define other complex terms.

Hi, Lunar gate,

Please quote verbatim the very first sentence in the book that you don't fully grasp.


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

I understood everything that was written in the book. It was straight forward without any errors. I like how the author articulates his words and chapters.

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑March 9th, 2024, 4:11 pm

Priyankan Nayak wrote: ↑March 8th, 2024, 10:46 pm

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑March 8th, 2024, 3:56 pm

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2024, 3:56 pm
Let's start with the first one; do you understand that first sentence:

"The political philosophy of political freedom, nonviolence, and self-government acts as an analogue for a much broader and grander spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom."


?

Priyankan Nayak wrote: ↑March 8th, 2024, 12:56 am No, I wasn't able to completely understand the whole sentence. I can only categorize political freedom under political philosophy and spiritual freedom under spiritual philosophy. You have written meaning of spiritual freedom but how that can be analogues to political freedom?

Hi, Priyankan Nayak,

Thank you for your reply!

May I ask if you can explain to me in detail how you are interpreting/understanding the word "analogue" as I've used it in the sentence above?

Can you give me an example of a few analogies? I can then use your examples to understand what you consider to be an analogy versus a non-analogy, and what you consider to be a valid/correct/understandable analogy versus an invalid/incorrect/non-understandable one.

I think that if I can see how you would define the word 'analogy' and by extension the word 'analogue', and see some examples of a few analogies that you are think are valid analogies, I will be able to re-word and/ore explain the quoted sentence in a way that you will understand.


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

Hey Scott,

I mean, the term 'analogy' refers to a comparison of two things that are not the same but have some similarities. Spiritual philosophy is concerned with spirituality (the existence of a reality that cannot be physically observed), and spiritual freedom is a privilege that allows people to express themselves and live their lives according to their beliefs. It is akin to or comparable to political philosophy, which investigates political concerns such as power, governance, justice, and freedom, including political freedom (the ability of citizens to engage in political processes).

Thank you.

Hi, Priyankan Nayak, can you give me a few examples of some analogies that you believe are valid analogies?

Here's an example of analogy I believe to be a decently valid analogy:

In terms of size, an ant it to a rat what the Moon is to the Earth.

What do you think of that one? Is that one valid? Is that one understandable? Are ants similar to the moon? Are rats similar to the Earth? These aren't rhetorical question. Knowing your answers to each and all of these questions will help me understand you and your words better and thereby communicate myself in a way that is more understandable and clear.

In any case, can you give me a few examples of some analogies you do think are valid?


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

No ants might not be similar to Earth. The example is valid in the sense that they are compared in terms of size. An ant to the rat is compared as in the moon to the Earth. The reference is here to the size of the matter.

Examples of some analogies that I think are valid -
1)Finding that lost dog will be like finding a needle in a haystack.
2)Go is to Green as Red is to stop.
3)As light as a feather.
4) Life is like a box of chocolates.
We know life can never be like a box of
chocolates ( as in literary terms), but we can
make our life better,sweeter with happier
memories.

In the above examples two objects/things are compared. They are valid I think because we know two objects can never be the same, but in some aspects, they are compared for better understanding.

"In It Together" is a book that needs to be read numerous times to understand every sentence. I am reading it for the third time and I experience new learnings every time I read the book. No I did not understand every sentence the first time I read the book and it may take a few more readings before I can honestly say I understand every sentence in this incredible book. @Mrlefty0706

"In It Together" is a book that needs to be read numerous times to understand every sentence. I am reading it for the third time and I experience new learnings every time I read the book. No, I did not understand every sentence the first time I read the book and it may take a few more readings before I can honestly say I understand every sentence in this incredible book. @Mrlefty0706

Giving some time to statements I don't fully understand, make me understand them. So I can't really say there's a statement that I don't understand.

I had read the a couple of times and read hard to understand parts since I had to write a review. Want to add was poorly written by myself. I know I need to read again. All I remember was at shortly into reading I was extremely confused, further along I was extremely angry. That was the part about not feeding hungry children, cause I do philanthropy work. Then I was finishing reading and came by the best advice about people and how we can identify the particular someone that these thoughts homed in on. I could not put the book down. I wish I had elaborated in this direction with my review, stating I had these emotions, I had with the review and that would of took it in a understanding, emotionional state of mind.