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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I did not agree with much of what was written in the book. [...] I first disagreed with Page 127 -

Hi, thank you for your reply!

I am a bit confused and suspect I might not be understanding you fully.

The book is only 207 pages. If the very first sentence with which you disagreed wasn't until page 127, then that means you agreed with most of the book. Is that correct?

If so, that's great. I just want to make sure I am understanding correctly.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I found offensive the title We Can't Help Starving Children Because We Can't Help Ourselves.

Thank you for your reply!

Did you disagree with that sentence, or just find it offensive?

If you disagree with it, which part(s) of it is it with you disagree:

1. That we can't help starving children?

Or...

2. That was can't help ourselves?

Or...

3. That #1 is because of #2?


Also, are you sure that is the very first sentence with which you disagree? For reference, that particular chapter heading doesn't appear until page 22, but I mention "starving children" several times before that, starting on page 7.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

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.”

Interesting, thank you for your reply.

I take that to mean you agree with the quote from The
Gulag Archipelago on page 26:

To that end, I quote a passage from The
Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people
somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were
necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy
them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart
of every human being.


Why We Can’t Help Ourselves:
The Two Yous

The previous chapter ends with a wise quote from a convicted
criminal who proposed that the line between so-called “good”
and so-called “evil” cuts through the heart of every human being. Even
if we drop the unnecessary moralizing language, we can still see that
we are each in many ways cut into two.
When we speak about ‘you’, there are actually at least two different
yous about whom we speak

In any case, I invite you to also reply in my topic, There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'. To me, it's the same concept, just in slightly different words.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Unconditional love and forgiveness. Here is where I have an issue. If a person hurts me, is it still considered unconditional love and forgiveness if I eliminate that person from my life? Because it appears I resent the past action by responding by never speaking, being in the presence of that person again? Am I making this more complicated by thinking this way?

Can you quote for me the very first sentence in the book with which you disagree?

One helpful aspect of that is then it lets me know all the sentence with which you agree before that, so I can use that as a common ground to understand you better and discuss things more easily with you.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Before I respond, I first want to say that I know virtually nothing about philosophy! That being said, the first sentence in the book that I disagree with is on page 128 where it says: "There is no problem with evil because there is no evil." I can't wrap my mind around that sentence. My only reasoning is that you are stating that from a philosophical view, while I look at it from a spiritual view. From a spiritual view, this world is full of evil. Spiritually speaking, evil is all around us. It can be felt, heard, and even seen if we look. Now, I am ready for the philosophical answer just as long as you don't expect me to understand it!

Thank you for your reply.

What were your thoughts about the quote from The
Gulag Archipelago on page 26:

To that end, I quote a passage from The
Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people
somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were
necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy
them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart
of every human being.


Why We Can’t Help Ourselves:
The Two Yous

The previous chapter ends with a wise quote from a convicted
criminal who proposed that the line between so-called “good”
and so-called “evil” cuts through the heart of every human being. Even
if we drop the unnecessary moralizing language, we can still see that
we are each in many ways cut into two.
When we speak about ‘you’, there are actually at least two different
yous about whom we speak.

?


In any case, I invite you to also reply in my topic, There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'. To me, it's the same concept, just in slightly different words.

[Donna Walker 1]

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.

 
I am so grateful that I am not the only one who has had to read this chapter repeatedly in an attempt to understand it. It's also comforting to know that I'm not alone in my apprehension about entering a philosophical forum. Philosophy is also not really my thing. "There is no problem with evil because there is no evil." I still don't get it, and I still haven't found the author's explanation for this shocking statement. It's completely perplexing to me. If anyone has some enlightenment on this statement, please feel free to chime in and explain it to me.

[Olga_Markova]

The first instance of my disagreement in the book was the interpretation of The Golden Rule at location 321 Kindle version:

I agree with and always try to follow The Golden Rule in my own life: "Treat others how you want to be treated".

But the interpretation of The Golden Rule in the immediately following sentence seems to be addressing a different point, yet it concludes that it is "an unfortunate following of The Golden Rule": -

"If we judge the way someone wants to be treated by how they treat themselves, then the seeming problems in this seeming world of problems can be explained simply by an unfortunate following of The Golden Rule."

If I were to explain my point, I'd say that the Golden Rule means projecting the preferred treatment of oneself onto the relationship with others, whereas the point made in the interpretation is the opposite - it concerns the problems that arise when others judge the person by the way that latter person treats one's own self. So as a suggestion, instead of concluding that those problems are "an unfortunate following of The Golden Rule", I would contend that The Golden Rule does not work in the opposite way described in that interpretation.

[Brenda Creech]

Before I respond, I first want to say that I know virtually nothing about philosophy! That being said, the first sentence in the book that I disagree with is on page 128 where it says: "There is no problem with evil because there is no evil." I can't wrap my mind around that sentence. My only reasoning is that you are stating that from a philosophical view, while I look at it from a spiritual view. From a spiritual view, this world is full of evil. Spiritually speaking, evil is all around us. It can be felt, heard, and even seen if we look. Now, I am ready for the philosophical answer just as long as you don't expect me to understand it!

Thank you for your reply.

What were your thoughts about the quote from The
Gulag Archipelago on page 26:

To that end, I quote a passage from The
Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people
somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were
necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy
them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart
of every human being.


Why We Can’t Help Ourselves:
The Two Yous

The previous chapter ends with a wise quote from a convicted
criminal who proposed that the line between so-called “good”
and so-called “evil” cuts through the heart of every human being. Even
if we drop the unnecessary moralizing language, we can still see that
we are each in many ways cut into two.
When we speak about ‘you’, there are actually at least two different
yous about whom we speak.

?


In any case, I invite you to also reply in my topic, There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'. To me, it's the same concept, just in slightly different words.

I agree with the statement 'the line between so-called “good”
and so-called “evil” cuts through the heart of every human being. Even
if we drop the unnecessary moralizing language, we can still see that
we are each in many ways cut into two.'
We have free will to choose. I think we have to make a conscious effort to choose good over evil. We have to make the decision in every circumstance we face to respond with, as you say, unconditional love and forgiveness. If someone hurt someone I love my first response would be that I want to hurt them back. My 'conscious' response would be to show unconditional love and forgiveness. I have free will to choose my path if that makes sense!

[Phoebe Felix]

Hi Scott,

I like that you created this forum for us to have a friendly philosophical conversation about In It Together.

On Page 30, you said, "But we are not psychopaths."

The statement sounded absolute. However, I believe it would have been better put in way that accommodates the reality we face in our world today.

"But we are not all psychopaths." is a better way of putting it.

What do you think?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

However, I believe it would have been better put in way that accommodates the reality we face in our world today.

"But we are not all psychopaths." is a better way of putting it.

What do you think?

That's perhaps subjective, but in any case even if it's better worded that way, we can still agree the original wording is true.

However, the book as much as possible was written in the second person, so when I wrote, "We are not psychopaths", I meant specifically you and I are not psychopaths.

Thus, the truth of that statement would vary from reader to reader depending on whether that one individual reader was a psychopath.

For a reader who is either a psychopath and/or a philosophical zombie, there are many statements in the book that will be inapplicable or simply incorrect in relation to that reader. I don't think a literal psychopath and/or philosophical zombie would enjoy or even understand the book.

For instance, a psychopath presumably wouldn't and perhaps couldn't feel united with (i.e. truly love) their others in time, namely their future self, which is presumably why psychopaths seem to behave relatively fearlessly. They seem to lack the capacity for empathy and love for their so-called future self. Thus, the whole section about temporal unification of selves would be inapplicable to them.

Long story short, there would a lot of sentences in the book that would be rendered 'untrue' for a psychopathic reader, due to it being written in the second person and under the assumption the reader is not a psychopath.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The first instance of my disagreement in the book was the interpretation of The Golden Rule at location 321 Kindle version:

I agree with and always try to follow The Golden Rule in my own life: "Treat others how you want to be treated".

But the interpretation of The Golden Rule in the immediately following sentence seems to be addressing a different point, yet it concludes that it is "an unfortunate following of The Golden Rule": -

"If we judge the way someone wants to be treated by how they treat themselves, then the seeming problems in this seeming world of problems can be explained simply by an unfortunate following of The Golden Rule."

If I were to explain my point, I'd say that the Golden Rule means projecting the preferred treatment of oneself onto the relationship with others, whereas the point made in the interpretation is the opposite - it concerns the problems that arise when others judge the person by the way that latter person treats one's own self. So as a suggestion, instead of concluding that those problems are "an unfortunate following of The Golden Rule", I would contend that The Golden Rule does not work in the opposite way described in that interpretation.

I think I might be able to explain what I meant by that sentence via an example:

If a suicidal person followed the Golden Rule, that suicidal would presumably commit murder against others. A drug addict following the Golden Rule would presumably give hard drugs to other drug addicts.

In contrast, I don't think it's unfortunate or problem-causing if a truly happy person with inner peace and spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) follows the Golden Rule. Rather, a potential problem only arises when the Golden Rule is followed someone who hates or hurts themselves, or who otherwise doesn't have a healthy loving relationship with themself, namely one marked by inner peace and spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline).

I think explained the idea more sincerely and fully in my other post, Whether you are looking for a savior or someone to save, or both, look into a mirror.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

"There is no problem with evil because there is no evil." I still don't get it, and I still haven't found the author's explanation for this shocking statement. It's completely perplexing to me. If anyone has some enlightenment on this statement, please feel free to chime in and explain it to me.

Hi, Donna, in this case, I suggest reading and replying in my topic, There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

Please do reply there with some examples of some things that you can neither change nor control that you think 'should' not be the way they unchangeable are or 'ought' not be the way they unchangeably are.

[Phoebe Felix]

However, I believe it would have been better put in way that accommodates the reality we face in our world today.

"But we are not all psychopaths." is a better way of putting it.

What do you think?

That's perhaps subjective, but in any case even if it's better worded that way, we can still agree the original wording is true.

However, the book as much as possible was written in the second person, so when I wrote, "We are not psychopaths", I meant specifically you and I are not psychopaths.

Thus, the truth of that statement would vary from reader to reader depending on whether that one individual reader was a psychopath.

For a reader who is either a psychopath and/or a philosophical zombie, there are many statements in the book that will be inapplicable or simply incorrect in relation to that reader. I don't think a literal psychopath and/or philosophical zombie would enjoy or even understand the book.

For instance, a psychopath presumably wouldn't and perhaps couldn't feel united with (i.e. truly love) their others in time, namely their future self, which is presumably why psychopaths seem to behave relatively fearlessly. They seem to lack the capacity for empathy and love for their so-called future self. Thus, the whole section about temporal unification of selves would be inapplicable to them.

Long story short, there would a lot of sentences in the book that would be rendered 'untrue' for a psychopathic reader, due to it being written in the second person and under the assumption the reader is not a psychopath.

Fair enough. But you never know who eventually gets to read the book. Who knows, In It Together might be part of the therapeutic help a psychopath needs to begin the journey towards healing and showing empathy instead of violence.

[Chiwelite Obioma Mgbeoji]

It took me some time and a little bit of reading over and over again to have a better understanding of some sentences. In particular, my first reaction to "...because there is no evil" was to dismiss it since I hold on to the belief that there is evil everywhere and in all of us. Reading over and over again, I think I could understand what you meant.

[Tosin-Le]

Yes, I resonated with everything in the book. It was an eye-opening read for me knowing that every human existing in this world has struggles and pains unique to each other and this unites us all.