Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[diana lowery]

Like many others here who have been asked to post, I am not a philosopher. Also, even though I have been asked to post a sentence, I am posting something less than a sentence, and there is no page number for the thing that I disagree with; it is on the cover. I do not agree with Scott using a pen name. In the chapter titled "A World of Problems," he states, "Truth is something that can be revealed, not something that can be done." I do not understand how using a fake name can align with that statement.

Hello Diana,

I am not a philosopher either, but I do view names as ambiguous things. Think about languages. There is a skillet and a loaf of bread on a table. I have an index card with "PAN" written on it. Where the label goes depends on the language of the person to whom I pass the label.

Human names are labels. I am labeled by a man's last name. In our culture, we get our father's last name. Aha! But some people get their moms' last names. It doesn't matter because somewhere along the way, that last name came from a grandfather...

So, people are not their names. Have you ever heard the old joke, " I don't care what you call me, just as long as you call me in time for dinner"?

Almost all celebrities use stage names. Many kids get nicknames that last through adulthood.

You say toe-MAY-toe; I say toe-MAH-toe. It is still a round red fruit (or green, or yellow).

So, is it dishonest of Scott to use a pen name? I wish we could ask Mark Twain.

Grinning, I am
Suzy Q
Scissor Bill
Carrie
Sissy
Mom
Gree
G-ma
Or Juanita [depending on who you ask]

Juanita,
Thank you for responding to my post. To answer your question, "Is it dishonest of Scott to use a pen name?" I guess the issue could be debated both ways depending on the reason for using a nom de plume. I find it curious that the name Scott Hughes is used in one of the editorial praise comments at the beginning of the book.

[Nancy Bansal]

Hello team and author,
This is my first ever comment or discussion, so kindly do not mind if i make a mistake.

I disagreed with a quote on page 157, "Unconditional forgiveness - or more accurately the transcendence of the feeling that there ever really is anything to forgive-is the infinitely easy passive act of not making the mistake of looking at other people and thinking or saying, "They shouldn't be the way they are," or "They ought not to have done what they did"-nonsense utterances that would irrationally attempt to deny the simple fact that, whatever it is, it is what it is.

The reason behind it-

Lately a lot of unwanted things happened where i did a lot of efforts to save the day, save the relationship, even forget about the other past mistakes of the other person, still at the end i was the one, who is standing all alone. how can i forgive a person this time. when all the efforts i made to save it.
then again when i read further, page 191 says. Just love everything and everyone.

I personally feel like, it only feels good to read it or to hear it from someone successful but in reality we are not even close to it and we can not be. as when we start loving ourselves and then we automatically see good in others, people still take us for granted. That means we can not always love everyone. we can simply ignore that person for lifetime but can not forgive them or love them again.

First expression can be made good, but not every other expression can be made loveable.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hello team and author,
This is my first ever comment or discussion, so kindly do not mind if i make a mistake.

I disagreed with a quote on page 157, "Unconditional forgiveness - or more accurately the transcendence of the feeling that there ever really is anything to forgive-is the infinitely easy passive act of not making the mistake of looking at other people and thinking or saying, "They shouldn't be the way they are," or "They ought not to have done what they did"-nonsense utterances that would irrationally attempt to deny the simple fact that, whatever it is, it is what it is.

The reason behind it-

Lately a lot of unwanted things happened where i did a lot of efforts [...]

Hi, Nancy Bansal,

I don't understand how that could possibly be the very first sentence with which you disagree, since it simply repeats things already said earlier in the book, such as the following:


"It is here now always, the conscious eternal present, the capacity for unconditional love, acceptance, and forgiveness." (Page 116)

"You are a source of infinite invincible inner peace, of unconditional love and forgiveness, of true timeless meaning and purpose, of unpossessive appreciation." (Page 124)

"It is liberating to realize in the spirit of timeless unconditional love and acceptance that without time everything is inexorably perfect, eternally so, worthy thus of unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness." (Page 130)

"In reality, there are no shoulds and oughts." (Page 151)

"If you were fully in their shoes, you would do exactly as they do, so there is nothing to forgive." (Page 156)


All of the above sentence appear before the one you claim is the very first sentence with which you disagree.

This makes it seem to me that you either (1) did not read the whole book, or (2) skim read some or all of it.

Thus, my advice to you is to slowly re-read the book from the beginning, making sure to carefully read each and every sentence in order.

If you come across even a single sentence you do not understand or with which you disagree, then immediately stop reading and post a verbatim quote of that sentence in the corresponding topic:


Did you understand every sentence in the book, "In It Together"? If not, what part did you first not understand?


Do you agree with everything in the book, "In It Together"? If not, what is the first sentence with which you disagree?


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

[Shirley Labzentis]

I did not agree with much of what was written in the book. I have hesitated to delve into this forum as I am not into philosophy, and having what’s called “Fibro Fog” makes it hard to understand what I have read sometimes. So here it goes! I first disagreed with Page 127 - There Is No Problem With Evil. The first sentence I have a problem with is at the top of page 128: “There is no problem with evil because there is no evil.” Really? I have re-read the chapter three times, and you don’t explain why there is no evil, only that things will be better if you think of things in a better light. There are a lot of “what ifs” in the chapter and how to dream of a better way of life. Just because you think of yourself as a better person or you think of the world as a better place does not eliminate the evil in the world. You are looking at everything through rose-colored glasses.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I did not agree with much of what was written in the book.[...] I first disagreed with Page 127 - There Is No Problem With Evil. The first sentence I have a problem with is at the top of page 128:

Hi, Shirley Labzentis,

Thank you for your reply!

You seem to have contradicted yourself.

First, you say that you did not agree with most of the book.

But then you indicate that you agreed with every single sentence on pages 1 - 126.

The book is only about 200 pages long. So even if you disagreed with every single sentence from pages 127 to the end, you still agreed with over 63% of the book (i.e. most of it).

Can you clear up this contradiction?

Did you disagree with most of the book or did you agree with every single sentence on pages 1 through 126?


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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

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.


[Emphasis added.]

Apart from the, "There is no problem of evil" on Page 127 that I have gone into before, I also do not agree with Page 122, "If heaven exists only in the future, then it does not exist because the future does not exist. I believe that there is a future, as well as a past. Yesterday was in the past and tomorrow is in the future.
Page 151 - "In reality, there are no shoulds and oughts. There simply is what is and what's not." I strongly believe that there are many things in life that you should do. You may not want to do them or you may not do them, but you should do them. Example: Taking care of your children. You may not want to do this, but you should do it as they have no one to take care of them. The same goes for your elderly parents. You should take care of them as they took care of you growing up.

Hi, Shirley Labzentis,

Thank you for your post. However, per the instructions in the OP (Original Post), please only post the very first sentence with which you disagree (i.e. the sentence closest to the beginning of the book).

What is the very first (i.e. closest to the beginning) sentence in the book that you do not agree with?


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

[Shirley Labzentis]

The first sentence that I disagree with is on page 23: "We can't help starving children because we can't help ourselves." It sounds like you are saying that everyone in the world is lazy, worthless human beings. That isn't the case. There are people in this world who can take care of themselves very nicely. They can donate funds and, if they so desire, volunteer their time at food pantries and food banks. The first step in helping starving children is to educate adults about birth control and the need to stop having so many children that they can't take care of.

[Hilda Murithi]

I agree with everything in the book. At the first glance, most of the things and headlines may look controversial and even ironical, but once you read it, you begin understanding it from a philosophical point of view. I think they are worth giving a thought.

[Abdm28]

I have a line or sentence in the book which I just need further explanation. I feel like it's a simple line to grasp but I want more clarification. The line is:Humans don't come into the world; they come out of it, like an apple comes out of an apple tree, like a rose comes out of a rose garden. (Page 97). I still want a further in-depth explanation.

[Abdm28]

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.


[Emphasis added.]

Apart from the, "There is no problem of evil" on Page 127 that I have gone into before, I also do not agree with Page 122, "If heaven exists only in the future, then it does not exist because the future does not exist. I believe that there is a future, as well as a past. Yesterday was in the past and tomorrow is in the future.
Page 151 - "In reality, there are no shoulds and oughts. There simply is what is and what's not." I strongly believe that there are many things in life that you should do. You may not want to do them or you may not do them, but you should do them. Example: Taking care of your children. You may not want to do this, but you should do it as they have no one to take care of them. The same goes for your elderly parents. You should take care of them as they took care of you growing up.

Hi, Shirley Labzentis,

Thank you for your post. However, per the instructions in the OP (Original Post), please only post the very first sentence with which you disagree (i.e. the sentence closest to the beginning of the book).

What is the very first (i.e. closest to the beginning) sentence in the book that you do not agree with?


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

I have a line or sentence in the book which I just need further explanation. I feel like it's a simple line to grasp but I want more clarification. The line is:Humans don't come into the world; they come out of it, like an apple comes out of an apple tree, like a rose comes out of a rose garden. (Page 97). I still want a further in-depth explanation.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The first sentence that I disagree with is on page 23: "We can't help starving children because we can't help ourselves." It sounds like you are saying that everyone in the world is lazy, worthless human beings.

Hi, Shirley Labzentis,

Thank you for your reply.

You misunderstood that sentence.

I was not saying that "everyone in the world is lazy [and] worthless".

In fact, I would never say that.

If I did say everyone was lazy or such, then I would be contradicting myself and some of my other most important teachings, such as those discussed around the following points in the book:

The over-productive productivity addict will make a false anti-idol of laziness, and a false idol of productivity in the present, rather than recognize the motivating and inspiring but not restless grace to be found in the eternal present.

Laziness can be a major prop in some people’s insatiable comfort addiction or spiritual slavery, but many times the opposite—anxious restlessness—is the more deeply rooted and influential issue.

For more on this topic, I suggest you read the following posts of mine:

- Do less better! | The incredible power of doing nothing

- Posts on Projection, Reading Between the Lines, and Toxic Unassertiveness


I suggest you then re-read the book slowly from the very beginning without any reading between the lines. I then suggest you make sure you are 100% confident you understood the intended meaning of any sentence before deciding whether or not you agree or disagree with it.

Then, unless you are 100% sure you understand every sentence in the book, I suggest you post in the following topic instead of this one:

Did you understand every sentence in the book, "In It Together"? If not, what part did you first not understand?


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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

per the instructions in the OP (Original Post), please only post the very first sentence with which you disagree (i.e. the sentence closest to the beginning of the book).

What is the very first (i.e. closest to the beginning) sentence in the book that you do not agree with?

I have a line or sentence in the book which I just need further explanation. I feel like it's a simple line to grasp but I want more clarification. The line is:Humans don't come into the world; they come out of it, like an apple comes out of an apple tree, like a rose comes out of a rose garden. (Page 97). I still want a further in-depth explanation.

Hi, Abdm28,

Thank you for your reply.

I have just now posted the following topic to help explain that section of the book:

Alan Watts on The Unity of All Things and The Miserable Depressing Myth of Alienation


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

[Ammirati Michael]

The ideas in the book are both personal and universal. I truly have no objections; we are all in this together. Our lives are more meaningful when we learn to live for others. It is a wonderful book.

[Abdm28]

per the instructions in the OP (Original Post), please only post the very first sentence with which you disagree (i.e. the sentence closest to the beginning of the book).

What is the very first (i.e. closest to the beginning) sentence in the book that you do not agree with?

I have a line or sentence in the book which I just need further explanation. I feel like it's a simple line to grasp but I want more clarification. The line is:Humans don't come into the world; they come out of it, like an apple comes out of an apple tree, like a rose comes out of a rose garden. (Page 97). I still want a further in-depth explanation.

Hi, Abdm28,

Thank you for your reply.

I have just now posted the following topic to help explain that section of the book:

Alan Watts on The Unity of All Things and The Miserable Depressing Myth of Alienation


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

Thanks for the update and explanation.

[George Chibuike]

I am still reading the book, I would come back with loads of question. I am grateful to be in this forum. Wow.