I love expressing ideas and talking about people in metaphor, analogy, and comparison. Cambodian songs and arts are full of this technique. Some love songs describe a lover, the woman, as beautiful as the moon or flower such as the rose. If the artist wishes to describe the romantic of a couple, he or she may describe the lovers’ relationships as the moon meets the sun at night, a it about to gobble up the moon in a positive mood. This is a good perspective of lovers. It is also a great analogy to apply. (I will use the analogy on my next post to describe the two kinds of people living on this plan. Whose thought and lifestyle are navigating their lives in different directions. As the result, it has then affected themselves and others in two ways: negative and positive on others or themselves, regardless the actual reality presented in life.)

These people stated this could not be achieved! I simply utilized the Celebrity Conflicts example inside a wellness post! You are encouraged The united states!

And when you have in no way observed Celebrity Conflicts and do not understand what I am referring to, you have problems. Critically? I am let down within a person.

An excessive amount of visceral body fat which accumulates within the stomach as well as stomach region is really a residing, inhaling and exhaling bad entire body which retains secreting poisons as well as ingredients which do-it-yourself torture as well as problem your own internal organs day and night. Here is exactly how being overweight could make existence a full time income heck for the essential internal organs:

Impact associated with body fat about the mind

Being obese may cause dementia as well as cause you to susceptible to cognitive difficulties. Additionally, it boosts the possibility of building blocked arterial blood vessels. Right now, whenever arterial blood vessels obtain blocked, the actual bloodstream provide towards the mind will get decreased, as well as therefore results in mind cellular passing away as well as ultimate mind shrinking.

An additional completely new research carried out through the Endocrine Culture within Birkenstock boston proves which surplus fat hurts neurons within the the main mind which regulates bodyweight. This particular can make the actual affected individual consume more without having patient regarding their pounds.

Excess fat and also the digestive tract

Surplus fat can result in intestinal tract as well as wind pipe most cancers. Based on medical scientists, the actual visceral body fat within the stomach region produces the body’s hormones which effect cellular development, which trigger these types of cancer.

Exactly how this eliminates the actual lean meats

It’s clinically confirmed which an excessive amount of body fat leads to non-alcohol greasy lean meats illness (NAFLD). The actual body fat infiltrates to the lean meats tissue (hepatocytes) as well as disrupts their own features. This case should be introduced in check within fast period simply because if it’s overlooked, the actual body fat within the lean meats may ruin the actual lean meats tissue therefore affecting lean meats perform. Exactly what begins being an regular “fatty liver” situation snowballs in to cirrhosis from the lean meats, meaning sophisticated skin damage from the lean meats. This is actually the last and also the most unfortunate phase associated with NAFLD.

Exactly how body fat interferes in the kidneys

There are many methods being overweight may wreak chaos about the kidneys. First of all, extra bodyweight leads to higher bloodstream stress as well as diabetes, as well as these problems may cause CKD (Persistent Kidney Illness), making the actual kidneys shed their own regular perform more than some time.

Researchers additionally state how the hormone leptin, that is primarily manufactured in the actual adipose cells (stomach fat) may cause kidney destruction with time, if it’s manufactured in extra. Therefore, normally, if you have lots of body fat, lots of leptin is going to be created too.

The 1st line “You do not have to be good” (Oliver 1) marks the obvious soulful mood of the poem. This is followed by a description of religious approach when one tends to feel guilty “You do not have to walk on your knees/ For a hundred miles through the desert/ repenting” (2 – 4). This refers to the pressure to obey certain rules which some individuals might find burdensome yet must be followed or they suffer the consequences. Then the poem speaks of a natural human desire “You only have to let the soft animal of your / body/love what it loves” (5 – 7) — the everyday challenge to follow what society considers to be decent but somehow with limited freedom; as well as an invitation to share in the common sadness experienced by all people “Tell me about your despair, yours, and I will tell you mine” (8 – 9).

The obviousness stops at “Meanwhile the world goes on” (10) making way for the underlying meaning by the use of the metaphor in the following lines: “Meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of / the rain” (11- 12). The sun signifies the days when things are going fine and good while the clear pebbles of the rain are the days when things are not going so well. The pebbles are clear in the sense that the rain will not be prolonged and so are the trials.  The succeeding lines: “are moving across the landscapes/ over the prairies and the deep trees/ the mountains and the rivers” (13 – 15) goes on to specify the various places (the landscapes), situations of abundance (prairies) and of poorness (deep trees); moments of glory (the mountains) and defeat (the rivers).

Life is beautiful as emphasized in the lines:

         “Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean

          blue air,
          are heading home again.
          Whoever you are, no matter how lonely,
          the world offers itself to your imagination,
          calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and

          exciting” –     (16-22).

The above are the most obvious calling of the poem. Simple words are used to capture all the possibilities of freedom and joy. The wild geese, after flying in several destinations throughout the day in search of food, are still up high in the sky. They are on the way to their dwelling places but still wandering at the same time: enjoying the feel of the air on their wings and delighting in the company of their fellow geese.  The ending words of “over and over announcing your place in the family of things” (23 - 24) serves as a reminder to enjoy life in the company of people who matters most.

Revealing a few then hiding the rest to produce a mysterious but simple work of art can be a hard thing to do unless you are, of course, Mary Oliver. Her imagination and analogy in relating every aspect of human life to that of nature can never be rivaled. Of note is her use of metaphors at the right placement with effective choice of words to combine it with: the sun, the pebbles of rain, moving in the landscapes, over the prairies and the deep trees, the mountains and the rivers. Using these elements of nature in comparison with everyday human experiences provided the poem with the balance it needs to set off the obvious meanings at the start and at the end of it. Also, the usage of the metaphor made the description necessary enough to aid the poem in conveying its truest meaning.   

The painful effects of years of domination and abusive control by tyrants and dictators would still be felt, nor would the suffering and economic deprivation be at once allayed, nor synchronized with the euphoria, celebrating the expulsion of the old guards.

As an analogy, it is reasonable to state that a house dismantled leaves a whole lot of rubble that needs to be cleared, in order to allow a properly designed construction of a new building, equipped to accommodate the necessary furnishings of a true democracy, while barring the entrance of those with ideologies that do not conform to the principles of true democracy.  A house is no better than the furnishings therein, regardless of its external, ornate design, nor could any so-called democracy survive without the tools that could ensure its progress.

Advocates of true democratic principles need the right tools to insulate themselves against any future abuse by insidious opponents; otherwise, the struggle that has preceded the euphoria would be nothing but an exercise in futility.    

Proverbs and sayings

                        Compiled by Bello Musa Dankano

157:     Whoever fears the darkness of the night hasn’t yet come face to face with danger.

158:     Whoever awaits an escort to ease himself didn’t have a runny stomach.

159:     The elderly man’s stick is for correction not punishment.

160:     May God supply more water to the river for the stream to have a share.

161:     It’s up to the well digger to decide whether to go deeper.

162:     One loses nothing bowing to a dwarf.

163:     Why telling a dwarf ‘a little higher’?

164:     A sneezing horse isn’t fit for a battle.

165:     Those with cold have a lot to drool.

166:     Useless crowd, irreligious on-lookers at the prayer ground.

167:     The eye isn’t a scale, but it knows the right measure.

168:     Ownership of ten different businesses is antidote for the copy cats.

Weak Analogy

Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations.

If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

Other examples:

“Guns are like hammers—they’re both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers—so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.”

(While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features [having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence] are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share—it’d be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it.)

Quickie: Identify what properties are important to the claim you’re making, and see whether the two things you’re comparing both share those properties.

This is part 5 of 12, so you may want to check out the others, of Writing Fallacy-free!

Just as any mechanism can eventually rust and the parts thereof disintegrate, so can the mechanism of society in general, the components of which can gradually deteriorate and even become irreplaceable over a period of time.  What makes the mechanism of society functional is not the mechanism by itself alone, but by the interdependence of its components.  For example, in many parts of the world where hunger and poverty are rampant, and where autocracies are dominant, societies have fallen in disarray and, in most instances, have become practically non-existent.  Why?  The answer lies in the absolute unscrupulousness of those in power, whose indifference to the need for the proper maintenance of the mechanisms of their societies has caused their dysfunction which could have been avoided if the essential lubricants would have been available to restart the mechanism.

As time goes by, populations increase, with circumstances of poverty and hunger built into the structure of  their existence,  confirming the fact that there will always be more and more impoverished people in the world in relation to those that are affluent.

We should, at the same time, bear in mind that no country can forever remain immune to poverty.  Decades ago, the United States, could, in no uncertain terms, better manage its economy than today, by keeping its economy from sputtering or breaking down, while lubricating it with the humility and compassion that helped sustain those in dire need.  Nowadays, with its population steadily multiplying, together with many divergent, political preoccupations, the mechanism of its economy continues to sputter because of the absence of adequate, humanitarian lubrication that could have, perhaps, regenerated its normal function.  

Like it or not, there will always be more and more poor and needy people in the world.  Such a situation is not new nor unusual.  The rich get richer, either through inheritance or sheer hard work, while the status of the poor remains unchanged, mostly because of illiteracy and indifference on the part of those at the helm of affairs.  Since the beginning of time, there has always been a sharp line of distinction between wealth and poverty.  What actually keeps humanity from self-destructing is humility and compassion, and there is no doubt that virtues, such as these, are the essential lubricants that continue to maintain the function of any mechanism, both literal and analogical.   

For instance, as stated on the website http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm, “Employees are like nails.  Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.”  It is not completely nonsensical to compare the two—qualities shared are that of utility and the physical possession of a head.  What must be recognized to validate the analogy as false are the facts that each tool (a nail and an employee) requires a different rubric of maintenance or upkeep, as well as the word ‘head’ being polysemous.  Babies and plants are alike in the sense that both demand high levels of attention and care, but babies are not watered.

Post 9-11 Americans (and residents of America) flocked to the notion that all Muslims are Jihadists.  To take this even further:  in an attempt to “further protect themselves”, all people with a caramel skin tone were labeled Muslims.  Don’t be bamboozled into thinking that because the false analogy was not audible or blatantly verbalized that it did/does not exist.   This is merely a cliché case of actions speaking louder than words.  Thinking that all Muslims are Jihadists is on the same mentality level as believing that all women are overly emotional.  Although women have XX chromosomes, they are not all emotional train wrecks.  Generalizations of a specific group of people (e.g. Muslims and women) are highly prevalent in this world. 

False analogies are somewhat derivative of confirmation seeking biases.  Information is collected and comparisons are contrived to back probable conclusions.  The details that are used to support the outcome are hand-picked to (only) back the thesis.  The key factor that is absent is the lack of research/thought devoted to disproving the analogy.

[1] Informal fallacy:  the basis of an argument fails to back the conclusion

[2] Inductive arguments:  premise provides reasons supporting probable truth; the conclusion is unlikely false; in deductive arguments the premise provides reasons supporting a definite truth; it is impossible for the conclusion to be false

Economic recession! The oft-repeated words are like a sentence of gloom over our future happiness and prosperity.  But following these phrases we often hear a different tune, sung by our goverment of stimulus, bailouts and dedicated efforts by our public servants to turn this economic downturn up.

“Bailout” and “stimulus” bills sound good at first glance, but they seem to disregard one important fact: an economy can only be truly built by the people—by their seeking for their best interest and making decisions accordingly.   As well meaning as President Obama and our government may be, their interference in the economy does not have power to produce the promised results. Their “aid” is artificial and superficial, because it is not based on the principles that actually govern the growth of an economy.  In short, the stimulus has no true power to move the economy forward to recovery–especially considering that the vast majority of the bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) is focused on propagating programs and handing out handouts (like $5 billion for home weatherization grants, and $14.2 billion for a one-time payment of $250 for retirees, disabled people, SSI recipients, railroad retirees and disabled veterans) instead of invigorating the economy.

Surely it is good to help out those in need, and we certainly all know how nice it is to receive a hand when we are down. But when the government tries its hand in social charity and economic stimulus…well, just consider the following:

Let’s say the economy is a vast orchard of orange trees which has been damaged by a deep frost. Many trees are losing their oranges and some even seem on the verge of dying completely. Now a farmer comes along, takes a look at the struggling orchard, borrows loads of oranges from his fellow farmers with the promise that he will help save all their trees, and then proceeds to hurl them all into the orchard.

Not the wisest thing to do for the orchard, is it? However, this is basically what the Recover and Reinvestment Act is doing to our economy. 787,000,000,000 oranges just got chucked all over our country, so you’d better hope you can catch one or two—but please don’t take too many!  I’ll need some left over for my grandkids in a couple of decades. But if not, maybe there will at least still be $250 checks passing around when I retire. One can only hope.

J. S. Mill formulated a version of the argument in An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy. In it, Mill states that, by an examination of his own case, it is clear that feeling is created by an antecedent condition, and results in a subsequent action. For example, when I fall down and hurt my leg, the first thing that happens is that my leg is physically affected (the antecedent condition). A split-second later, I feel this in my mind. Subsequently I express this in my outward demeanour. Therefore, there are three steps involved wherever feeling is concerned.

Mill notes that only the first and last of these steps is observed in other people: you may see another person fall down and hurt his leg then express pain, but there is no empirical evidence to suggest an intermediate stage. In Mill’s own experience the antecedent condition could not produce the subsequent reaction without the transitional stage, therefore he is forced to conclude that there is one in others, and that it must be the mind. That the link happens to be the mind is not a necessary conclusion, but for all intents and purposes is the conclusion that Mill prefers.

It is clear that the argument from analogy largely arises from common-sense, and puts little effort into withstanding philosophic scrutiny. The most notable weakness, it seems, is the idea that there must be a mind in others, simply by virtue of there being antecedent conditions and subsequent reactions. Where common-sense tells us that this is most likely to be the case, logical enquiry begs the question: must there be an intermediate stage? And if so, is it necessarily the mind? If there were no intermediate link, then this would certainly make others automatons, and therefore we can put that possibility aside because it runs contrary to instinct. However, there is no evidence, empirically at least, that this link is the mind.

In any sound empirical argument, it is necessary to take evidence from as many examples as possible – the more examples that agree with one’s hypothesis, the more one can trust the validity of the hypothesis. This, however, is impossible in the case of the mind, because my notion of mind comes only from experience of my own mind, and from the fact I have privileged access to it. We can say with certainty that all people have brains because this is evident from the work of many scientists and anatomists, but our understanding of how the brain creates consciousness (assuming that it does) is very limited, and hence the existence of brains does not entail the existence of minds.

Even if I assume that others do indeed have minds, the argument from analogy does not go to any lengths to describe the nature of these other minds. Let us imagine a hypothetical situation in which a robot were made to replicate human actions and words convincingly. If we saw such a robot not knowing what it was, we would be inclined to think it were human. But robots, although they can be programmed to, for example, recognise the taste of cheese by detecting its chemical composition, would not be able to qualitatively taste the cheese. Therefore a robot, even if it could converse intelligently, would not have a mind in the same sense that I have one, merely a central processing unit. Furthermore, even assuming that other minds do exist and that they experience the world in some sense qualitatively, this hardly guarantees a similarity between other minds and my own. When I see the colour blue, I recognise it as blue in a qualitative sense. From experience I know that others also recognise blue, since they agree with me that it is blue. However, since only they have privileged access to their minds, I can have no conception of precisely how they see blue.

Since the idea of mind is inextricably tied with privileged access, a difficult concept to get around, some philosophers (mainly J. B. Watson and B. F. Skinner) have opted to avoid these difficulties by simply bypassing the intermediate link. “Behaviourism” regards mind as a non-separate entity, because for scientific purposes, it claims, the mind does not exist. Humans merely behave, or act, upon a disposition to act. Therefore a desire for beer, for example, is the disposition to drink beer. Since one cannot know whether someone desires to drink beer without them actually drinking it or expressing their desire for it, as far as we know their desire does not exist independently from these actions.

If actions are just the result of dispositions to act, there is no need to suggest that others have minds at all; they need only have a primitive brain which feels physical pain and desires things. However, this theory seems woefully inadequate as an account of mind. How, for instance, do we account for those beliefs and desires which are not expressed physically or verbally? A belief in God need not be expressed by prayer or by confession, and yet palpably it exists in many people.

On the other hand, Mill’s argument from analogy, as we have seen, does little to explain the nature of other minds. A central premise of the argument is Mill’s observation that others have bodies. While doing away with Cartesian mind-body dualism in one fell swoop, this seems nevertheless to belittle the idea of the mind, limiting it only to the physical sphere. While it is true that in our experience the mind is inseparable from the body, there is no absolute rule that states that minds generally must have a body. It can be said, for instance, that senses such as sight and hearing are illusions, since they operate solely on signals sent from the eyes and ears. If a scientist managed to take someone’s brain from their body and, by replicating the signals from the eyes and ears gave the brain the illusion it was seeing and hearing, then it seems that brain would contain no less of a mind than any other.

Instinct and common-sense tell us that others do have minds. However, philosophy seeks not to make any assumptions, and we cannot assume that common-sense is correct and certainly not that it tells us enough. The argument from analogy is a common-sense approach that seems rather out of place in philosophy, mainly because it is not rigorous or detailed enough to stand up. I don’t doubt that other minds exist, but Mill’s argument cannot be regarded in any way as proof. Further, since it is does not give a satisfactory definition of mind, there is no way I can be certain that others possess minds as I know them, and therefore I cannot even venture to give them the title of minds.