Philosophy Discussion Forums

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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 is 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?

Priyankan Nayak wrote: ↑March 27th, 2024, 12:48 am 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.

I think I see the main issue: I think you are confusing metaphors, similes, and/or comparisons with analogies.

Analogies take the form A:B::C:D, meaning they require four elements. Likewise, even though A and C are analogues it doesn't mean that A and C are "comparable" or "similar" or that they would even be good similes/metaphors for each other. What's being compares is the relationship between A and B to the relationship between C and D.

Something like "Life is like a box of chocolates" is not an analogy as written. That's because it does not have four elements (A, B, C, D), only two.

In my analogy, "an ant is to a rat what the Moon is to the Earth", A = Ant, B = Rat, C = Moon, and D = Earth.

Regardless, since you agree that my analogy, "an ant is to a rat what the Moon is to the Earth" is valid, with the ant being the analogue of the moon, despite the fact that ants (A) and the moon (C) are not similar nor comparable in and of themselves, means that for the same reason political freedom and spiritual freedom can be analogues even if they are not similar or comparable.

Saying something is an analogue of something else doesn't mean the two things are similar or comparable.


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

Yes, I am satisfied with all aspects of the book.
I appreciate the book in its entirety and understand that it emphasizes the acknowledgment and awareness of "all of me ( which, in doing so, is acknowledging all of you too): in this entirety of divine existence at play, the choice of unleashing my true consciousness through the love and acceptance of everything is my choice, and I do see that the key is in my hand. I choose to unlock the pathway. I choose to light my fire within so they through the dark illusions of my shadow. I choose to paint on my canvas with the diverse colors of universal love. I choose to focus on what is within my control and let go of those things that are not. I choose to move forward with gratitude and grace

I am sure the first time I read this book, I may have misunderstood some of the sentences. However, now that I have read it four times, I am sure I understand everything in your book. My understandings are insufficient to make me an expert on the topics, but I am comfortable with how I understand everything you wrote in your book. I continue to use it as an inspiration.

I understand every sentence in the book. The only sentence I didn't understand was later explained in the book. It's a really great book I must say. Great one..

I understand most sentences in the book. The ones that I didn't understand was later explained in the ending. Thanks.

Yes I did. I have already read an article about the word "in it together: so when I saw the name it was simple to grasp.

Hi Scott,
On page ten of your book, you talk about the Knee jerk Urge and say that defending the status quo is foolish and selfish. I don't really understand what the Knee Jerk Urge means. So could you please explain more on it.

Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango wrote: ↑May 16th, 2024, 6:05 am Hi Scott,
On page ten of your book, you talk about the Knee jerk Urge and say that defending the status quo is foolish and selfish. I don't really understand what the Knee Jerk Urge means. So could you please explain more on it.

Hi, Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango,

I believe this is the psentence about which you are asking:


[quote="In It Together (Page 10)")Even in consideration of innocent children starving to death, likely at some level you as a human feel that foolish, selfish human instinct: the knee-jerk urge to rationalize or excuse the starvation and death, to somehow conceptually defend the horrible status quo, much like a drug addict creating excuses to use drugs once more, or a blood-addicted vampire creating excuses to murderously pierce another neck and drink.[/quote]


I think the dictionary will be helpful here.

If I just go to Google and type in "define:knee-jerk", it gives the following definition (from Oxford Languages dictionary):

"(of a response) automatic and unthinking."


Basically, the adjective 'knee-jerk' just means reflexive, meaning it is a reflex, like when the doctor uses that little hammer to hit your knee and then your lower leg and foot pop up in reflex.


Please do let me know if you still don't understanding what is meant by the word and/or sentence, and I will gladly explain further.

Otherwise, please do let me know if you come across any other sentences that are not completely clear. That will help me not only clarify it for you, but also help me to make slight edits for the next edition of the book to make the sentences even clearer for future readers.

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

Hi Scott, yes now I do understand thank you for your explanation. I really appreciate. Incase there is anything else I don't understand, I will be sure to ask immediately.

Hi Scott,
Something on page 33 got me confused. I know I might get the answer but it's better to get a clarification first. You state that we treat our selves with cruelty and that's why we are cruel to starving children. However, I don't seem to understand this because humans love them selves and want the best in there lives. This in my view means that they will do what's best for them with utmost love and not cruelty. So you mentioning that humans are cruel to themselves seems like a contradiction. Sorry if I haven't asked this question well, but I hope you get the point.

Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango wrote: ↑May 19th, 2024, 3:17 pm Hi Scott,
Something on page 33 got me confused. I know I might get the answer but it's better to get a clarification first. You state that we treat our selves with cruelty and that's why we are cruel to starving children. However, I don't seem to understand this because humans love them selves and want the best in there lives. This in my view means that they will do what's best for them with utmost love and not cruelty. So you mentioning that humans are cruel to themselves seems like a contradiction. Sorry if I haven't asked this question well, but I hope you get the point.

Hi, Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango,

When posting in this topic, please provide a verbatim quote of the sentence you do not not understand.

Please do also make sure that you do already understand and agree with all the preceding sentences, since later sentences build on the premises explained in earlier ones.


Thank you,
Scott

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑May 20th, 2024, 2:40 pm

Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango wrote: ↑May 19th, 2024, 3:17 pm Hi Scott,
Something on page 33 got me confused. I know I might get the answer but it's better to get a clarification first. You state that we treat our selves with cruelty and that's why we are cruel to starving children. However, I don't seem to understand this because humans love them selves and want the best in there lives. This in my view means that they will do what's best for them with utmost love and not cruelty. So you mentioning that humans are cruel to themselves seems like a contradiction. Sorry if I haven't asked this question well, but I hope you get the point.

Hi, Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango,

When posting in this topic, please provide a verbatim quote of the sentence you do not not understand.

Please do also make sure that you do already understand and agree with all the preceding sentences, since later sentences build on the premises explained in earlier ones.


Thank you,
Scott

Hi Scott,
The Verbatim sentence is this, "We may behave cruelly and behave in seemingly unsympathetic ways toward starving children and others who suffer, but it isn't because we selfishly treat them worse than we treat ourselves. The sad opposite is the case: We treat them so cruelly because we treat them like we treat ourselves, which is cruelly."
I do agree with you but I don't understand why we humans treat our selves with cruelty.

Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango wrote: ↑May 20th, 2024, 3:04 pm
Hi Scott,
The Verbatim sentence is this, "We may behave cruelly and behave in seemingly unsympathetic ways toward starving children and others who suffer, but it isn't because we selfishly treat them worse than we treat ourselves. The sad opposite is the case: We treat them so cruelly because we treat them like we treat ourselves, which is cruelly."
I do agree with you but I don't understand why we humans treat our selves with cruelty.

Hi, Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango,

How can you agree with with the sentence if you don't understand what the sentence means?

There's a difference between (1) not understanding the sentence versus (2) understanding the sentence, agreeing that it is true, but not understanding why it is true.

If #2 is the case, then you will want to just keep reading to learn more about why humans tend to be so seemingly self-destructive and self-abusive and why humans so often seem to harm themselves and be mean to themselves and have such mean and verbally abusive self-critical inner monologues.


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

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑May 20th, 2024, 5:35 pm

Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango wrote: ↑May 20th, 2024, 3:04 pm
Hi Scott,
The Verbatim sentence is this, "We may behave cruelly and behave in seemingly unsympathetic ways toward starving children and others who suffer, but it isn't because we selfishly treat them worse than we treat ourselves. The sad opposite is the case: We treat them so cruelly because we treat them like we treat ourselves, which is cruelly."
I do agree with you but I don't understand why we humans treat our selves with cruelty.

Hi, Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango,

How can you agree with with the sentence if you don't understand what the sentence means?

There's a difference between (1) not understanding the sentence versus (2) understanding the sentence, agreeing that it is true, but not understanding why it is true.

If #2 is the case, then you will want to just keep reading to learn more about why humans tend to be so seemingly self-destructive and self-abusive and why humans so often seem to harm themselves and be mean to themselves and have such mean and verbally abusive self-critical inner monologues.


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

Alright, thank you.

Hey Scott

On page 221 the passage goes like "Your human body and would-be zombie brain may be a temple, but they wouldn't be without you."

What do you mean by "would be zombie brain" and in terms of what reference are you saying?