Philosophy Discussion Forums

I’m only a few pages in so far but no disagreements yet. I’m sure I will at some point but don’t expect any big ones based on what I’ve read so far.

I would agree with you on a lot of things but there are some that I was really confused about. At times, I would worry if I was on the same page with you or if I had gone off your intended tracks. For example, we cant help starving children because we can't help ourselves?

Sugar Rush wrote: ↑March 5th, 2023, 7:04 pm we cant help starving children because we can't help ourselves

Well, that's the name of a chapter.

Would you mind re-reading that chapter and then telling me (excluding the chapter title itself) what the first sentence in that chapter is with which you first disagree?

The only sentence that I didn't agree with was on page 128 where you said, "There is no problem with evil because their is no evil" I kept wondering what you meant by that because I knew there was a lot of evil in this world. I have thought very well about it, and up till now, I still don't know what that sentence really means.

Chinemezu Okafor wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:36 pm The only sentence that I didn't agree with was on page 128 where you said, "There is no problem with evil because their is no evil" I kept wondering what you meant by that because I knew there was a lot of evil in this world. I have thought very well about it, and up till now, I still don't know what that sentence really means.

Hi, Chinemezu Okafor,

Thank you for your reply!

I am so glad to hear that you read well over half the book before finding even a single sentence with which you don't agree.

Regarding that particular sentence, I have explained in more detail what I mean by it and why I believe it to be true in the following forum topic:

What the word "evil" means to me, and why I believe evil (as I use the term) does not exist.


Please do give that topic read, and reply there to let me know your thoughts.


Thank you,
Scott

I will quote a sentence from the book:
"Humans may not exist, but you-the real you-definitely exist."
Who is this 'you'? Are we not human beings?
You go on to say: "In that sense, you-the real you-are definitely not human because you possess something humans don't: definitive undeniable existence."
While in the previous chapter, you say that there are two 'yous'- the real one and the spirit. Are you not contradicting yourself when in the next chapter (from where I quoted above) you say that we are not humans?

Hi, Maliha Naveed,

Thank you for your questions!

Maliha Naveed wrote: ↑April 8th, 2023, 7:47 am While in the previous chapter, you say that there are two 'yous'- the real one and the spirit

That's a misquote.

The spirit (a.k.a. "your spirit") is the real you. In terms of the real you, you are the spirit.

In other words, as both I and the book use the terms, the spirit is the real one.

Here is an excerpt from Page 28, in which the terms are introduced and clarified:

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (In It Together, page 28) wrote: The first You, we can call The Real You or Your Consciousness. Some would call it your spirit, your true self, your spiritual self, your higher self, your inner heavenly parent, your essence, the dreamer, or your soul.

The second You, we can call your false self, your ego, or your body. Some would call it your lower self, your bodily self, your body itself, your avatar, your vessel, your ship, your form, your inner demon, your lizard brain, the beast inside the man, or the primitive self.

Maliha Naveed wrote: ↑April 8th, 2023, 7:47 am I will quote a sentence from the book:
"Humans may not exist, but you-the real you-definitely exist." [page 31]
Who is this 'you'? Are we not human beings?

That question is already answered in advance three pages earlier, namely on page 28 as quoted above.

Maliha Naveed wrote: ↑April 8th, 2023, 7:47 am You go on to say: "In that sense, you-the real you-are definitely not human because you possess something humans don't: definitive undeniable existence."
. Are you not contradicting yourself when in the next chapter (from where I quoted above) you say that we are not humans?

I did not contradict myself.

There are two Yous. What is true of one isn't necessarily true of the other.

The real you is not human.

The other you may very well be human, or at least may be at times, in the same sense that it at times may be a 'blue-shirted guy' or be a 'red-shirted gal' or be ''an employed police officer' or be 'someone who is not employed as a police officer', or be 'an angry person', or be 'a non-angry person', etc.

In analogy, one is you, the real you, and the other is some of the clothing you may happen to wear at some points in spacetime. I do not contradict myself at all by saying you--the real you--are not your clothing and that the clothing may not even really exist.


If you still think there is a contradiction, can you post for me verbatim the two sentences that you think contradict?


For reference, these are the two you quoted in your previous post:

1. "Humans may not exist, but you--the real you--definitely exist."

2. "You--the real you--are definitely not human..."


Not only does it seem to me that the above two sentences do not contradict at all, but also quite the opposite: They seem to me to be saying essentially the exact same thing.

In other words, not only are they compatible, they are actually synonymous.



A few related discussion topics that might interest you are as follows:

- If you woke up as an alien in a humanless world, would you still be you?

- If your body very slowly and steadily morphed into an atom-by-atom identical copy of my body, would you still be you?

- What is your answer to the updated Opening Question? ("If you went to sleep in your body in your bed with your...")



Thank you,
Scott

Thank you.
It's making sense to me now after your explanation. But it's pretty confusing at first reading. I have to go back to the chapters repeatedly to connect the links.
I mixed up the 2 you's.

Hi, Scott,

First, let me say that I agree with most of what is written in this book. However, I cannot seem to agree with the following:

"Logic tells us that if there is an all-loving god, then there would be no evil" (page 139, Kindle edition).

For some reason (call it a woman's logic if you like ), my logic is telling me that if there is a personification of love (God), there must be a personification of evil (Devil), too. How else could we tell the difference? And how does the existence of an all-loving god reverse the existence of evil?

Here's a half-serious lightening thought to this serious topic: The fight between good and evil is an epic source of all good fantasy books; how did all these authors come up with it if it doesn't exist? Of course, authors writing fiction are mostly equipped with an amazing imagination, I know, but still...

Hi, Kirsi_78,

Thank you for your reply and thoughtful questions!

Kirsi_78 wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2023, 2:41 pm Hi, Scott,

First, let me say that I agree with most of what is written in this book. However, I cannot seem to agree with the following:

"Logic tells us that if there is an all-loving god, then there would be no evil" (page 139, Kindle edition).

For some reason (call it a woman's logic if you like ), my logic is telling me that if there is a personification of love (God), there must be a personification of evil (Devil), too.

I think my quoted statement might be unclear and/or incomplete as written, in that it would be more clear (albeit perhaps redundantly so) if I add the word "all-powerful" so that it instead reads as follows:

"Logic tells us that if there is an all-loving all-powerful god, then there would be no evil."

Would you agree with that statement?

In any case, I will likely update it in the next print of the book, based on your pointing of this out to me, so thank you very much for sharing this potential point of disagreement.

Kirsi_78 wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2023, 2:41 pm Here's a half-serious lightening thought to this serious topic: The fight between good and evil is an epic source of all good fantasy books; how did all these authors come up with it if it doesn't exist? Of course, authors writing fiction are mostly equipped with an amazing imagination, I know, but still...

As I use the term 'evil', I don't believe 'evil' really exists. But I suspect you and I use the term differently, such that you use the term 'evil' to refer to something that does exist, and I use it refer to something that doesn't exist. It might thus seem like we disagree when actually we agree, and the seeming disagreement may merely be an illusion of equivocation, analogous to if we seemed to disagree about whether a weapon-having snake was armed.

In regard to what I use the word "evil" to refer, I explain both how I define the word and why I believe what I call evil doesn't exist in my other topic, What the word "evil" means to me, and why I believe evil (as I use the term) does not exist.

In regard to how you might be using the word 'evil' to refer to some kind of beautiful and/or dramatic yin-yang-balanced cosmic dance, the kind that an all-loving all-powerful god might artistically and lovingly create, similar to an author writing an epic story or a dreamer dreaming a dramatic fun dream, I think I generally share your views on such matters and explain it in my topic, The lion & the antelope share a spirit. Even your worst enemy is but a friend—you yourself in fact—in playful disguise.

In other words, in regard to the playful meme below, if we regard it as a rough but accurate analogy for actual reality, then I think as I use the term it reflects a reality in which true "evil" does not exist, but it also reflects a reality in which what you call 'good' and 'evil' and by extension the perhaps fun, beautiful, and/or dramatic battle between them does all exist.


Thank you,
Scott

SINGH JAY wrote: ↑April 25th, 2023, 2:09 am I want to first say that I am knowledgeable about philosophy before I react. In light of this, I must declare that the first statement in the book with which I disagree is, "There is no problem with evil because there is no evil." I have a hard time understanding that sentence. The only justification I can offer is that, whereas you approach it philosophically, I approach it spiritually. Spiritually speaking, there is much wickedness in our world. Evil is all around us, spiritually speaking. If we look, we can feel it, hear it, and even see it. Now that you have my attention, I am ready for the philosophical response.

Hi, SINGH JAY,

I created a special topic to discuss that sentence, what I mean by it, and why I believe it is true:

What the word "evil" means to me, and why I believe evil (as I use the term) does not exist.

Please do read and reply to that one, as I would love to discuss these ideas further with you.


Thank you,
Scott

I totally agree with the author's viewpoints expressed in his book, and there was nothing I disagreed with. In fact, that was what I appreciated and admired about the book. I have read literally the same thoughts and ideas in other traditions of philosophy and branches of knowledge. The book is memorable and worth assimilating because of its elevated ideals and coherence.

Unwavering affection and pardoning. This is the point where I encounter a challenge. If an individual causes harm to me, would it still qualify as unwavering affection and pardoning if I remove that individual from my existence? Because it seems that I hold animosity towards the previous deed by choosing to never communicate or be in the company of that individual again. Am I overcomplicating matters by adopting this mindset?

Unconditional love and forgiveness start with letting the past be the past. I believe you have to forgive to have the Almighty's forgiveness. Pray for forgiveness of your sins nightly before bed. There is no guarantee there will be a tomorrow. Definitely, do not leave it undone today. You do not have to trust everyone, only yourself. That includes a philosopher's statement. The word is for you to study yourself and form your own opinions.

I disagree with the first sentence of page 128: "When it comes to inner peace, the phrase 'finding inner peace' is a misnomer. The peace is already there. There is nowhere you need to go."

As someone who has had a bunch of trials and tribulations, I wholeheartedly disagree with these statements. I can understand your POV, and maybe this is true for many people. However, certainly not true for all. In some situations, I found myself needing to physically remove myself from a toxic environment in order to obtain peace. In another situation, I realized that I needed to change my mindset in order to thrive. While that relocation wasn't physical, it was a mental move. I could not stay where I was in either case, and so I did have to "find" peace. Peace wasn't already within me and, in fact, I had not known what true peace was until about a decade ago. I had to make changes in my life to finally get to a better place - physically and otherwise. This wasn't mere restlessness/discontent, but truly harrowing experiences. This was about getting to healthy.