Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Kathy Pierce 7]

Reply- Hello, my name is Kathy, I would use the word encouragement that mean to focus on doing good.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Limpho Mojakisane,

Thank you for your questions!

How did you know you wanted to become an author? I don't know if I am asking this right..but what inspired your journey to write?

I wrote the introduction to the anthology Holding Fire: Short Stories of Self-Destruction.

After that, many friends, family, and others encouraged me to write a whole book of my own. So that was a significant catalyst.

Also, what advice would you give to someone who is thinking of venturing in the writing industry to also become a best selling author?

Before answering, may I ask, what makes you want to become a bestselling author?

Namely, is that meant to be a means to another different ultimate end, and if so, what is that other ultimate end?


Thank you,
Scott
a.k.a. Eckhart Aurelius

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

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


Hi, Stephen Christopher 1,

Thank you for your questions!
 

Hi Scott, in your book, you refer to 'enabling' as always being a bad thing. 

Do I?
 
Is it possible to quote verbatim the specific sentence(s) from my book to which you are referring?
 
To the best of my memory, I don't really refer to anything as 'bad' in my book. Not enabling, not anything.
 
Indeed, I explicitly state my firm belief that evil doesn't exist.

I'm wondering though, if 'empower' is a better word to use when giving someone the ability to improve their life or do good. Is this your preferred word...

If one is not doing what I would call being an enabler (e.g. giving a drug addict money to buy drugs), then what I instead call it would probably vary depending on the exact situation.
 
Empower would be a word I might use in some circumstances, but probably only when I'm sure that in that context the word 'empower' wouldn't simply be another euphemism for toxic enabling. (e.g. "I'm empowering my irresponsible 40-year-old drug addict son by letting him live rent-free in my house while he saves up money that he will almost certainly ultimately spend on drugs because he will never learn nor take self-responsibility because of the way I 'empower' him with my assistance.")
 
A phrase I would lean towards when I think it is something that is not what I would call enabling is this: Helping someone help themselves.
 
To that point, I would also recommend keeping in mind this fact: You can't help someone who is unwilling to help themselves.


Here is something I wrote on page 194 of the book:

As a practical rule of thumb, you cannot help someone who doesn’t want to help themselves, and what you might consider help might not even be help for them.
 
In analogy, you might like peanut butter and like to often have it as a healthy snack. To someone with a peanut allergy, it’s poison. Don’t force your beloved peanut butter on others. 
 
You can love your peanut butter while still loving those who don’t eat peanut butter. If it’s a mistake for them to not eat it, then it’s their mistake to make.

 
***

 am I best to only use 'enable' in its negative form?

That's up to you. Here is the definition of an enabler (and by extension enabling) that I use:
 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enabler


Typically, that is the only definition/context in which I use the equivocal word, just to avoid confusion.
 
You certainly wouldn't be wrong or incorrect to use the equivocal word in other more truly positive and non-toxic senses.
 
One important thing to keep in mind about the context in which I use the word enabler is not just about the way it tends to hurt the one who is enabled (e.g. the drug addict who is given money), but the way the relationship is actually very mutual. In that example, the giver of the money tends to also be hurt and toxically enabled by their own behavior as well, namely in that they use the enabled addict that they enable as an excuse for their own misery. That concept is something I explore in more detail in the following two topics:
 
- Whether you are looking for a savior or someone to save, or both, look into a mirror.
 
- There will always be more externals to chase. Those who seek to save the world as a means to save themselves do neither.


A rose by any other name smells just as sweet, and a pile of poo by any other name smells just as stinky. When you are doing something, what matters most is not whether you happen to call it "enabling", "empowering", or "allegedly truly helping someone help themselves". Rather, honestly ask yourself, why are you doing it? And honestly answer yourself, with brutal total honesty. That's what matters much more, in my opinion.
 
Are you treating the so-called helping/enabling/empowering of someone else the way a drug addict treats drugs? The way a greedy unhappy money-chaser treats getting money and wealth (e.g. "I'll be happy when I get rich")?
 
Or are you happy in your present—truly happy, with invincible inner peace—and treat it, whatever it is you are doing, the way a happy loving artist treats making their art? 
 
Some people's false idol is money, weight loss, or fame. Some think it's a house, a spouse, or having kids. Some think it's a divorce or an affair. Some people's false idol is saving someone else, or saving the whole world.
 
In the following sentence, different people fill in X with all sorts of different externals, but it's always a false idol and a symptom of addiction and misery: "I'll finally be truly happy once X, but until then I will not have inner peace and it's because of the lack of X."
 
In that way, the controlling behavior (i.e. attempting to make the X happen or be the case) is a symptom, not the cause. The futile endeavor to control others or control the external world is merely a way to make a scapegoat for one's own misery and lack of self-responsibility. Controlling what you can control is infinitely easy, so that's why those who have a need for a futile endeavor are attracted to the practice of attempting to control what they cannot control. It's also why they hate the idea of lovingly and unconditionally accepting what you cannot control with unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness. There is a slightly hidden but very deep and strong connection between unconditional love and self-responsibility, or, in other words, between radical acceptance and spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline).
 
True loving kindness is always primarily a self-kindness born out of a strong sense of self-responsibility, both for oneself and others. It does not come from seeking to infringe on the self-responsibility (i.e. freedom) of others. Instead, it comes from unconditional love and it lacks expectation. It doesn't even include the condition or expectation that it actually works to help make the other happy. Rather, it is an act based on this idea: I do this loving kindness now because it makes me happy to do it. If it makes you happy too, great, but if not, I'll still be happy regardless. I love you, but my happiness doesn't depend on you.
 
If your happiness depends on others or any externals, you'll never be happy—not truly, not in the sense of consistent invincible inner peace. You'll be a paradoxically voluntary slave to the endless chasing of the futile endeavor of controlling that which is not yours to control, and then you'll self-medicate your misery with comfort, becoming a prisoner to the miserable comfort zone and the most common and universal of human addictions: the addiction to comfort.
 
My advice is to live and let live. My advice is to be happy now. My advice is to be happy, don't worry, and let others worry about themselves.



Thank you,
Scott
a.k.a. Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

Enabling vs empowering.png (1.29 MiB) Viewed 635 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.

[Stephen Christopher 1]

Hi Scott,

Thank you for the reply. I guess it's where you say 'enabling is not love', location 713, that I got the feeling 'enable' is only negative.

Here's my scenario, my partner was working in his toxic family business, and he was paid very little and treated badly. I gave him the money to open a barber shop as that's his passion. The shop has done extremely well, and he's happy. He keeps thanking me for doing this for him, but I don't need his thanks. I love seeing him happy, and he's so much more relaxed away from the toxic situation.

So, I looked at this as my giving him the money enabled him to open the shop, but then I also empowered him as the shop is 100% his, his design, his dream, and all I did was finance it with no expectation of any return. I have no control over the shop, it's his alone, and he appreciates that he can stand on his own feet without family interfering.

Your response has me questioning if I have a deeper motive for helping him; I guess the benefit to me is that he's much happier, and we enjoy being together even more now.

Thanks
Stephen

[Surabhi Rani]

Very relatable! 'Self-responsibility' and 'radical acceptance' are the right terminologies used above. The advice that we should not worry, and let others worry about themselves is worth imbibing and assimilating for receptive readers.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

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


Hi, Stephen Christopher 1,

Hi Scott,
 
Thank you for the reply. I guess it's where you say 'enabling is not love', location 713, that I got the feeling 'enable' is only negative.

I see. Thank you for clarifying.
 
To create a helpful parallel, let me likewise say this, which I also believe: Coffee, bananas, and ice cream are not love.
 
Of course, they aren't negative either.
 
In fact, I very much enjoy coffee, bananas, and ice cream, at least assuming all three aren't mixed together.  

Here's my scenario, my partner was working in his toxic family business, and he was paid very little and treated badly. I gave him the money to open a barber shop as that's his passion. The shop has done extremely well, and he's happy. He keeps thanking me for doing this for him, but I don't need his thanks. I love seeing him happy, and he's so much more relaxed away from the toxic situation.
 
So, I looked at this as my giving him the money enabled him to open the shop, but then I also empowered him as the shop is 100% his, his design, his dream, and all I did was finance it with no expectation of any return. I have no control over the shop, it's his alone, and he appreciates that he can stand on his own feet without family interfering.
 
Your response has me questioning if I have a deeper motive for helping him;

I think it's healthy to question yourself about that, and only you can know the answer. However, it's very possible that you have no ulterior motive and that the answer is that you were not "enabling" him, as I use the term. In other words, it's very possible that by giving him some of your money, you were making a generous loving sacrifice out of true loving kindness, and that in no way was part of a toxic codependent relationship and in no way was resulting from or enabling an addiction on his part or yours.
 
The four-word quote you pulled ("enabling is not love") is one that is wise to keep in mind, and so too is this other one from the book:
 
"True love is not sacrificing your happiness for another; true love is being happy to sacrifice."
 

You will know better than I can, but from what you have written, such as about having no expectation of return and not holding it over his head or such, it sounds like you were acting out of true love, not addiction, not with a controlling ulterior motive, not toxic codependency, and not toxic pseudo-love. In short, it sounds like you were not doing what I would call enabling, but rather acting out of true love.
 
As for what you could call it instead of 'enabling', you could call it 'making a loving sacrifice out of true love' or 'offering help out of true love' or just 'helping'.
 
That is in consideration of everything else you wrote in your post, as well as especially in consideration of how you ended your post:
 
"I guess the benefit to me is that he's much happier, and we enjoy being together even more now."
 

It sounds beautiful and wonderful to me.



Thank you,
Scott
a.k.a. Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

true love is being happy to sacrifice.PNG (1.22 MiB) Viewed 540 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.

[Limpho Mojakisane]

Hi, Limpho Mojakisane,

Thank you for your questions!

How did you know you wanted to become an author? I don't know if I am asking this right..but what inspired your journey to write?

I wrote the introduction to the anthrology

After that, many friends, family, and others encouraged me to write a whole book of my own. So that was a significant catalyst.

Wow, this is my first seeing the anthology..just added it to my next in line to read. I didn't know you also had short stories on self destruction. Also, I think the support and encouragement from your friends and family worked wonders too if i may say.

[Stephen Christopher 1]

The four-word quote you pulled ("enabling is not love") is one that is wise to keep in mind, so too is this other one from the book:

"True love is not sacrificing your happiness for another; true love is being happy to sacrifice."


You will know better than I can, but from what you have written, such as about having no expectation of return and not holding it over his head or such, it sounds like you were acting out of true love, not addiction, not with a controlling ulterior motive, not toxic codependency, and not toxic pseudo-love. In short, it sounds like you were not doing what I would call enabling, but rather were acting out of true love.

As for what you could call it instead of 'enabling', you could call it 'making a loving sacrifice out of true love' or 'offering help out of true love' or just 'helping'.

That is in consideration of everything else you wrote in our post as well as especially in consideration of how you ended your post:

"I guess the benefit to me is that he's much happier, and we enjoy being together even more now."


It sounds beautiful and wonderful to me.


Thank you,
Scott

Thanks so much for your insight Scott, I like that I don't need to 'label' my actions, yes, offering help out of true love sounds like the right motive to me.

[Wenesha K]

Hi Scott,

I hope this post finds you well.
So tell me, what motivates you daily? And what philosophy inspires you the most that helped you a lot n your daily life?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

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

Hi Scott,

I hope this post finds you well.
So tell me, what motivates you daily? 

Hi, Wenesha K,
 
Thank you for your questions!
 
Different people tend to mean different things by the word motivate, and, by extension, the word motive.
 
Word for word, two people might both seem to ask the same exact question, such as "What was the murderer's motive?"
 
Or, they might ask, "What motivated the murderer?" Or, "What motivated the alcoholic to drink?" Or, "What motivated the adulterer to have the affair?"
 
Of all those people together, one might collectively ask, "What were their shared motives?"
 
However, despite two speakers' words being the same, the meaning might be very different between two different speakers who ask those questions.
 
To really answer your question accurately, let me first ask you: How do you define the word 'motivate'? In other words, what do you mean by the word 'motivate' when you use it?
 
In any case, let me say that I hold my inner peace (a.k.a. consistent true happiness) as very valuable to me and as an absolute top priority. As such, I tend to do my best to avoid what most people would call 'motivation'. Because I value my inner peace (a.k.a. happiness) so deeply, I work hard to be unmotivated and to have relatively little desire—for a human, that is.
 
Many philosophies and religious traditions have taught that desire is the root of all suffering.
 
In my book, I state a similar but slightly different premise: I say desire is suffering. In the lingo of my book, they are two words for the same thing.
 
More roughly speaking, one could say I do my best to desire what I have and only what I have. But, of course, the more common word for that is gratitude rather than desire.
 
For example, I do my best to not covet my neighbor's wife; that is, of course, assuming she isn't already in my bed.  
 
An elaboration on how such intentional de-motivation can play out more practically is in the chapter of my book titled, "Do Less, Better".
 

And what philosophy inspires you the most that helped you a lot in your daily life?

I have been very inspired by the following philosophers, thinkers, and spiritual teachers:
 
- Albert Camus
 
- Eckhart Tolle
 
- Alan Watts
 
- Marcus Aurelius (and Stoicism in general)
 
- Lao Tzu (author of the Tao Te Ching)
 
- Buddha (i.e. Siddhartha Gautama)
 
- Jesus
 
- Ram Dass
 
- Albert Einstein
 

In more practical and human matters, a couple of my personal role models are self-made multi-millionaire Rob White and self-made multi-millionaire Jorge P. Newbery, both of whom, by no coincidence, have more than one book on My Reading List for My Mentees.


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

"There is great power in peacefulness and acceptance because there
is great waste in restlessness, resentment, and unforgiveness."
- In It Together, page 160
power-in-acceptance.jpg (231.87 KiB) Viewed 2632 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.

[Melissa Jane]

Hi,

This is very interesting. I noticed you included Jesus on the list of philosophers that inspire you. Out of curiosity, do you read the Bible often? If not, from which texts do you get Jesus' teachings/ philosophies?

I'm asking this because several people have argued that the Bible is inaccurate, in that it not only misinterprets the original texts but also include fictional accounts and characters.

For example, ROBERT WAHLER, the author of MISREADING JUDAS How Biblical Scholars Missed the Biggest Story of All Time, writes,

Jesus and Judas are inventions of clever writers of the first century to make James disappear from history for the selfish ends of a few. (Page 88)

If, after years of being inspired by Jesus' teachings and philosophies, you finally realize that Jesus was, in fact, fictional, would it make a difference to you?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I believe that Jesus was fictional, neither am I saying he wasn't. I'm just asking that in a hypothetical scenario that it turns out ROBERT WAHLER is, in fact, right, would it affect your inspiration at all?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

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


Hi, Melissa Jane,

Thank you for your questions!
 

Hi,
 
This is very interesting. I noticed you included Jesus on the list of philosophers that inspire you. Out of curiosity, do you read the Bible often? If not, from which texts do you get Jesus' teachings/ philosophies? 

I don't read excerpts from the Christian Bible often, but it is still the primary and only text from which I get Jesus's teachings and philosophies.
 
So when I say that I am inspired by Jesus's teachings/words, I mean as quoted in the Christian Bible.
 
Most of the Bible is not about Jesus.
 
So when I say I am inspired by Jesus's words and teachings, I mean the actual verbatim quotes of things explicitly said by the person/character named Jesus as quoted in the Christian Bible.
 
Here are some of the things Jesus himself actually said (according to the Christian Bible) that inspire me:
 
 
 
"The kingdom of heaven is within you." 
(Luke 17:21)
 
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."
(Matthew 5:38)
 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"
(Matthew 5:43)
 

"Don't worry about tomorrow. It will take care of itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."
(Matthew 6:34)
 

"Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn others, or it will all come back against you. Forgive others, and you will be forgiven."
(Luke 6:37)
 

"Do not judge, or you will be judged. For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
(Matthew 7:1)
Or, as I like to say it, To have hate in your heart is to be in hell. And, as I wrote in my book, "This dreamy world may be but a mirror. If you look in it with hateful eyes, hateful eyes will hate you back."
 

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul."
(Matthew 10:28)
 

"You are the light for the whole world. A city built on top of a hill cannot be hidden, and no one lights a lamp and puts it under a clay pot. Instead, it is placed on a lampstand, where it can give light to everyone in the house. Make your light shine, so others will see the good you do and will praise your Father in heaven."
(Matthew 5:14)
 

"Not everyone saying to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but only the one actually doing the will of My Father in the heavens."
(Matthew 7:21)
Or, as I say it in my book, In It Together: Actions speak infinitely louder than words. In fact, I explicitly talk in my book about the hypothetical example of someone trying to trick and dishonestly manipulate one's god by giving a dishonest verbal apology.
 

"For what has a man profited, if he gains the whole world for the price of his own soul?" 
(Matthew 16:26)
 
I believe the last one especially relates to my philosophy of spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline, freedom of spirit, free-spiritedness, self-determination, self-ownership, self-responsibility, etc.). Spiritual freedom entails transcending temptation, transcending addiction, and transcending anything that would make one a sell-out or spiritual slave. It entails getting to enjoy the wonderful heavenly liberated gracefulness of inner peace and true happiness.  
 
 

If, after years of being inspired by Jesus' teachings and philosophies, you finally realize that Jesus was, in fact, fictional, would it make a difference to you? 

The above question seems like it is accidentally loaded with the false assumption that I don't already believe that the character Jesus, as quoted in the Bible, is at best a slightly fictionalized version of a historical person whose true words and exact life events we cannot ever know for sure.
 
Regardless, no, it doesn't really make a difference to me.
 
There is a similar situation with Socrates.
 
The Socrates we know and love may be a creation of Plato's imagination. Likely, the real human named Socrates, upon whom Plato roughly based his books' character, never said any of the things Plato quoted him as saying.
 
So if I say I am in agreement with or inspired by anything said by Jesus or Socrates, I mean as quoted in these official ancient texts, namely the Bible in Jesus's case and Plato's books in Socrates's case.
 
If it turned out that the real Jesus actually said derogatory things about homosexuals or took strong stances on political issues like abortion, then I could say that I absolutely disagree with the real Jesus and instead agree with the fictionalized Jesus of the Bible, the one who stood bravely and lovingly between a prostitute and the hateful judging punishing stone-throwers.
 
Incidentally, one thing I love about both Jesus and Socrates is that they were both criminals who were executed by their governments for their crimes.
 
You can see a longer list of my favorite criminals from history in the following forum topic:
 
Who is your favorite criminal from history?
 

(Of course, if we include more openly fictional historical figures, I'd have to also include the Death-Star-destroying criminal Jedi rebels from Star Wars.)
 
 
 
Great question! Thank you for asking!



Thank you,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a Scott

Jesus's teachings.png (963.91 KiB) Viewed 389 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.

[Mari Inez]

I'm glad to be included in this.

I'm very curious as to the beginning of OnlineBookClub?

[LastWrdBooks]

What motivates me on the daily?
Well this is a very open ended question! My goals motivate me to do better and be better. I can't say that any one person or philospher motivates me -- there are too many to list. Although , I recently read Emmanuel Kant ( it's a bit heavy but if you take your time to comprehend it's pretty good ) Sometimes, it's my husband that motivates me. Sometimes, it's what I see in other people that have accmplished their goals. Sometimes , it's a bad day ( we all have them..) and the only motivation I get is when I pray/meditate and take a step back. Taking stock of your own accomplishments and seeing what you still want to accomplish or attain can redirect your purpose . Prayer/meditation is a big part of every morning for me. Once a week ( no matter what), I sit for 30mins (no devices/distractions) and review my week --having this time to focus makes my week go smoother and also gives me a sense of how to approach the new week.

[Mari Inez]

Hi Scott,

After reading through some of these forums, there is so much to read. I am very curious about philosophy: "I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.

First, I am curious as to why/how you equate spiritual freedom to self-discipline. This concept is new and I would love to know how you came to this being the sum of your personal philosophy.