Philosophy Discussion Forums

"Paul Great Grace" post_id=463014 time=1716923776 user_id=55442]
Guys, I am currently experiencing same thing, I bought this book for the sake of increasing my reviewer score, but I haven't been given any bonus at all.
[/quote]

WELCOME!

I am also in the same pedicament. The support staff said that it is a glitch in the system and they are trying to fix it. It's been about a week and I haven't heard anything. The problem is it brought me down a level and now the books that are to be selected are not in abundance and the review fees are very low.

In my opinion, there is nothing that I would like to say that I disagree with, but I will say this: there are moments when we want to help people, but we are unable to do so because of everything going on in our lives.

I believe that every book carries a unique message shaped by the author's thoughts, experiences, and passions. Unlike books written solely for profit, which I am sure "In It Together" is not, this book reflects the author's deeply held beliefs. The ideas within it are both relevant and universally applicable.

Mark Maxwell 2 wrote: ↑May 31st, 2024, 9:44 am I believe that every book carries a unique message shaped by the author's thoughts, experiences, and passions. Unlike books written solely for profit, which I am sure "In It Together" is not, this book reflects the author's deeply held beliefs. The ideas within it are both relevant and universally applicable.

agreed with your comment.

Hi.
The book is so fascinating, with so many different view and new outlooks. I was really impressed.
But I don't exactly agree with this line given in page 139 ~

But the perception of literal evil is a manifestation of discontent, meaning a lack of inner peace, a lack of reality acceptance, a lack of unconditional love.

I understand the value of inner peace, and accepting one and all, and the importance of unconditional love, but it is just not right to say that evil is a manifestation of discontent. Sometimes, evil does exist even with all of the virtues given above. That is what makes it evil because it knows it's wrong and still continues.

I agree with everything in the book "In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All." In fact, I couldn't agree more. The insights and reflections provided by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes resonate deeply with my own views on compassion, interconnectedness, and the human experience. This book beautifully captures the essence of our shared journey, offering valuable lessons on empathy and unity.

This book does not and will not call on you to drop your religion, but rather likely quite the opposite. Page 94.


I believe you may not understand me, wait. I feel the book is being biased at some level. A reader would find it difficult on different sides. Now you say you will not call on anyone to drop their religion and still say slightly opposite as you tell them to drop their religion and follow spirituality. The book sits on the left and right philosophy of it subject. And it tries to escape something it feels is the truth. This is my opinion from it, will likely make many commentary as we proceed.

This book does not and will not call on you to drop your religion, but rather likely quite the opposite. Page 94.

Eziokwu960 wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2024, 10:01 pm I disagree with this quote "There is no fight you need to win to have content inner peace and spiritual freedom."

Being a spiritual person, I believe and I am almost certain that there are spiritual forces that fights one's inner peace and spiritual freedom. I have seen cases where some spiritual sacrifices had to be done to free one from a bondage spiritually, and this is the reason for my answer.

Hi, Eziokwu960,

That sentence is from page 149.

I don't see how it could possibly be the very first with which you disagree.

It seems to me that it obviously follows logically from other earlier sentences, such as but not limited to:


Page 103: "There is no fight that needs to be had, no argument that needs to take place, no
voice in your head that needs to be turned off. Let it all be as it is, and choose as you truly wish regardless."

Page 104: "There is no need to try—to fight—when you can simply choose. When it comes to your choices, you always get exactly what you want—meaning what you choose—with infinite ease. No fighting, no trying."

Page 113: "What needs to be done? Nothing."

Page 120: "If you believe the lie that something must be done before you can be content, then you will not be content, and in that way the lie becomes self-fulfilling."

Page 132: "Nothing must be done that isn’t done."


All of the above 5 quotes/sentences, appear before the one you have provided as the very first. Keep in mind, there's others like the ones above even earlier in the book. Even the ones above are just intentionally redundant repeating of previous conclusions.

Thus, I suggest you re-read the book starting from the very beginning.

It's likely you won't actually disagree with anything, especially not from the last half of the book (e.g. pages 100+) if you carefully and slowly read from the beginning.

That's because of the way the logic of the book works, with alter parts building on earlier ones. Anyone who reads only the last few chapters would likely disagree with lots of it, even though anyone who reads it in order usually agrees with everything.

In other words, one usually agrees with all the conclusions, if and only if that person reads the arguments first (i.e. reads the book in full in order).



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

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑January 19th, 2023, 2:50 pm This is a discussion forum topic for the November 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.


Do you agree with everything in the book, In It Together?

If not, what is the very first sentence in the book with which you disagree?

Please copy and paste the sentence in full.

Please explain why you disagree, including any evidence or argument you may have to support your alternate belief.

I love hearing and learning about different viewpoints. So thank you in advance for your honest answers to these questions.

I also love friendly, respectful debates, especially philosophical ones. Much like if I choose to invite you to my literal home for a game of chess or to play some sport or game, please note if I seem to want to or choose to question, debate, or argue you about some thing, please do take it as a major compliment and a sign of my respect and admiration for you. I deeply love, value, and respect people who can disagree and explain their side. And generally I don't bother to debate or argue with people unless I think there is a good chance they could win the argument and thereby change my mind.

If you read the whole book already and don't remember the specific sentence, I strongly encourage you to read the book again up to the point of the first disagreement, and highlight the first sentence you find disagreeable, and then come back here as soon as you can to post it here.


The book is available for purchase from all major book retailers in both ebook and hardcover format.

I didn't find anything in the book that I would disagree with or that was controversial, at least from my point of view!

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑May 21st, 2024, 1:35 pm

In analogy, it's like if you say "the gun-owning snake is armed" and I say "the gun-owning snake is not armed". It would sound like we were disagreeing, but rather we would likely just be using the word 'armed' to refer to different things. Neither of us would be wrong about anything and neither of us would be using the word wrong; it's just the nature of equivocal human language.

Words are just symbols that, like pointing fingers, point at ideas. But it's the non-verbal ideas that matter and determine whether we agree and/or are speaking truth. And the Christian Bible wasn't even written in English.

[...]

The equivocality of words [often] makes it falsely seem like [people] are disagreeing about things, such as whether the snake is "armed"

Juanita Phelps wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2024, 10:42 pm The body is a container that houses the spiritual part or the soul. So, according to the book, what others see is a shell, not the real person. But, by the laws of our society, if a person is convicted of, say, murder, and sent to prison. Which part of that person is culpable for having done the deed?

Or, when a benevolent deed is done, or, a mundane act such as preparing a meal occurs, is God involved? Is the physical human in charge? Or is the free will of the spiritual part in charge? But if free will means I can change my mind, did God know that too? If so, is it fre will or is it written in that book? Are the plot holes the places where people get to surprise God?

With a grin,
Juanita

Hi, Juanita Phelps,

Thank you for your intriguing questions.

The phrase "free will" is very equivocal. How do you define the phrase 'free will'? In other words, what do you mean by the phrase 'free will'?

I think we can agree that an accurate definition for a word or phrase is a new phrase that uses none of the same words that can be used interchangeably with the defined word or phrase. In other words, an accurate definition is also an interchangeable synonym and/or interchangeable synonymous phrase for the original defined word or phrase.


If two different people ask me if the gun-owning snake is armed, I can honestly and correctly answer one of them yes and honestly and correctly answer the other no.

Likewise, if two different people ask me if free-will exists, I can honestly and correctly answer one of them yes and honestly and correctly answer the other no.

Even though their questions appear the same in that they verbatim copies of each other, insofar as an equivocal word is used, they are actually asking different things. Words are just symbols, and the same exact symbols in the same exact order can be used to symbolize very different things, even totally opposite things.



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

Can’t really say I understand everything, but I have to read the book again to clearly point out my questions. Thanks for this AMA though, reading through the messages here has been really helpful.

I mostly agreed with the book. However, when it comes to the topic of evil, I'm in disagreement.

Many readers seem to share a similar view, but I’ll say my piece. Or rather ask my piece.

On page 139, it is written:

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and such a discontent inner-peace-lacking beholder looks at unchangeable reality and thinks, 'It shouldn't be like this.'"

Should a person reading about the horrors of the Holocaust just accept reality with inner peace?

“There is no problem with evil because there is no evil."

When we think of evil, I believe most of us are referring to anything that causes discontent or harm, and keeps things from being "perfect." Interfering with our happiness and comfort --therefore an evil. We have to gain deeper knowledge and understanding of everthing to know, with certainty, what is evil. And there are a few statements in the book that I didnt quite agree with, but cannot say whether true or untrue. I don't know all things as of yet. : )