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]

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.

[meadowsem]

First person to respond to this post? Aieeeee!

The first sentence I really disagreed with and still struggle with was 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."

Ooof - nothing to forgive? It feels naïve. There are people who murder others, parents who abandon their children, etc. Those things - those deep betrayals of our human code - fall in to the category of "tough to forgive" and "an act heinous enough to fall into the category of needing forgiveness."

That's just my point of view, and I would LOVE to be able to grow spiritually to a place where I was able to practice unconditional forgiveness.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The first sentence I really disagreed with and still struggle with was 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."

Hi, meadowsem, thank you for your reply!

Considering that sentence does not appear until page 157, I take it as a significant compliment and honor if that is the very first sentence with which you disagreed, meaning we have 156 pages of agreement with which to work.

But are you really sure it is the first?

For example, several pages before that appears the five-word sentence, "There is nothing to forgive." (Page 154)

To be clear, you are saying that you do agree with the five-word sentence, "There is nothing to forgive."

Correct?


Also, on page 156, it says, "If you were fully in their shoes, you would do exactly as they do, so there is nothing to forgive."

You also agree with that, correct?


But despite agreeing with both of the above quoted sentences, you do not agree with the second of the following sentences from page 157:

Insofar as the word ‘should’ even has meaning, then we must say that the past is exactly as it should be, everything that happened should have happened, and everything that should happen will happen.

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 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.

Correct?


If my above understanding of your position is all correct, then can you explain in a little more detail and more specifically what it is you disagree with about the second sentence (and only the second sentence) in the above quote.

Some other agreed premises that might be relevant are "there is no problem of evil" (page 127) and "there are no shoulds and oughts (page 151)?

What is the minimum amount of change I would have to make the sentence to turn into a sentence with which you would agree, but without contradicting earlier statements already made?

This isn't a rhetorical question. I am genuinely interested in what particular part of the quoted sentence it is you disagree with and why, at least if working on the assumption that we agree on all those other things, since at least most of the sentence is intentional re-statements of earlier statements.

[meadowsem]

Hello Scott !

Okay, first of all, my ego if freaking out a bit because I am not a philosopher. I feel intimidated even commenting in this forum.



You're right that the chapter itself bothers me, which means I apparently disagree with you AND with Eckhart Tolle. Fabulous. It is very easy to say that there is nothing to forgive (because it is what it is) until it gets personal. That's what I meant by the naïve comment. There are degrees when it comes to acts that might require forgiveness. It is easy to put ourselves in the shoes of others when they do smaller acts - stealing a candy bar, getting road rage and flicking someone off, punching someone who angered them. It feels absurd to me (and I am a flawed human) to paint the same brush over more awful acts. I need a caveat for the severe stuff - like rape/torture of an innocent person. Let's say the raped/tortured innocent person was my child or your child? At that point could you really just say "it is what it is"? If so, sir, I raise my cap to you.

Looking at the sentence in question and breaking it apart...

"...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 have done what they did”

I am WITH YOU. Sure! Who am I to judge another person? I love the concept of practicing acceptance. It feels incredibly healthy.

"—nonsense utterances that would irrationally attempt to deny the simple fact that, whatever it is, it is what it is."

This is where you lose me. Yes, it is what it is. How about, "it is what it is until it isn't"?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Okay, first of all, my ego if freaking out a bit because I am not a philosopher. I feel intimidated even commenting in this forum.

I'm happy you did. No two people agree on everything. Any two people will have many disagreements and very different perspectives in general. So really appreciate you sharing yours with me.

You're right that the chapter itself bothers me, which means I apparently disagree with you AND with Eckhart Tolle. Fabulous.

Is it possible to pinpoint the very first sentence you disagree within the book?

I will likely misunderstand your words, points, and questions if I am incorrectly working under the assumption you agree with the preceding statements in the book.

With that said, I do believe I can logically derive the truth of the quote in question not only from earlier statements in the same chapter, but also derive the whole chapter from previous chapters, such as the one immediately before it (Suggestion Four) and the one about there being no such thing as evil ("There is No Problem of Evil").

It is easy to put ourselves in the shoes of others when they do smaller acts - stealing a candy bar, getting road rage and flicking someone off, punching someone who angered them. It feels absurd to me (and I am a flawed human) to paint the same brush over more awful acts.

I am not completely sure what you mean by "feels absurd". I think I do have a rough general of what you are getting at. Nonetheless, I usually think of absurdity as meaning illogical, which is independent of feelings. (That isn't to say feelings don't matter, but rather that they don't affect logic or math, namely in terms of logical validity and objective truth. If anything, I'd say feelings matter more, but in any case they are two completely separate things.)

Extreme feelings and extreme emotions do make people (and animals) behave very irrationally and hinder their ability to think logically. If I remember correctly, I mention this in the book in one time with the example of someone being being drunk on anger, which at a certain points makes it where we might even say, "they are not themselves", just as we might say about a person who is literally drunk. "They are a different person", we might say. And that different person is a lot less rational.

In a sense, what we know to be logical and true when we are sober, both (1) literally in terms of alcohol and (2) proverbially in terms of extreme emotional states, can be forgotten and "feel absurd" or feel untrue while we are drunk, either literally on alcohol or proverbially on extreme emotion.

I also reference this idea in my older forum topic, Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom, in which I wrote in part:

I don't believe in "shoulds" or "oughts" or other moralizing. So if hypothetically I'm asked "what should the government do" or "what ought my neighbor do", I cannot answer. There are no shoulds or oughts in my philosophy, only cans and cannots; and then from ‘can’ there is only do and do not. In my philosophy, there is no ought, no should, and no try. I can tell you what I will or would do, and only time and happenstance will tell if my answer is honest and true.

[...]

When I am given the choice to commit murder for a Nazi to prove my loyalty, and thereby live another day, or have myself and my whole family murdered by the Nazis as punishment for my peaceful civil disobedience, I must choose whether I will murder one to save multiple including myself or die as a defiant free stubborn peaceful man. Live as a murderer or die? If that choice is presented to me, I choose death, or at least I hope to have the courage and self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom) to honor the promise I have made here and bravely choose death for me and my family instead of becoming a murderer, rapist, or enslaver.

The reality of humans isn't that they are bad at designing diets, but that they are bad at sticking to their own diets, at maintaining honest spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) in the heat of fleshy discomfort and in the face of those or that which would say, "eat the cake; break your diet and eat the cake".

[Emphasis added.]

In terms of the subject at hand, I am on a behavior diet of engaging in unconditional forgiveness, analogous to the way I am on a vegetarian diet literally in terms of what food I eat. I haven't ate meat in over 15 years. Please keep that in mind while we look at this wise question you ask me:

Let's say the raped/tortured innocent person was my child or your child? At that point could you really just say "it is what it is"? If so, sir, I raise my cap to you.

My self-chosen behavioral diet instructs me to practice unconditional forgiveness and unconditional love, which may include literally saying "it is what it is" but would definitely include proverbially saying it in terms of living by it. Logically, it is undeniably true that it is what it is, and it always is.

But emotion can trump logic in actual behavior. It's quite possible this human being we call Scott would kill and eat the murderer, becoming not just a meat eater but a full-blown cannibal.

I will tell you no now. And that is my self-chosen diet. But humans break diets often when drunk on extreme emotion.

You mention you are not perfect. As a mere human myself as well, neither am I. Not even close. I don't always stick to diets, literal or otherwise. I don't always score 100% on every math test I take. Enough whiskey or extreme bodily emotions, and suddenly I am very bad at math and diets, in fact.

But it's not the logic or math that is flawed or mistaken, it's only the human in that situation, namely the drunk or very emotional human.

If that version of Scott was to take over, then in a way consider the real me to be in a spiritual cage or prison. I would consider myself to have become a spiritual slave to the anger, fear, hunger, or addiction that controls that very irrational Scott like a puppet, perhaps having vengefully eat people as an angry cannibal.

Hopefully not.

That version of Scott--Cannibal Scott--would probably agree that some things are unforgivable. He would probably willfully engage in hate and resentment with eager rage.

In an important sense, he would not be me. He would be a puppet or slave to other things, such as anger or fear. He would not be the free-spirited person who writes to you know. I would be a prisoner, then, lost to you and the world for a bit at least.

I need a caveat for the severe stuff - like rape/torture of an innocent person.

Do you, though?

Do you need it, really?

I've heard alcoholics say, "I need a drink."

I've heard severely morbidly obese people on a diet (which in that sense can be life or death) say things like, "I had a rough day, so I need to eat tasty food for comfort."

I've heard adulterers say in more words than this, "I need this."

On page 135 (well before the sentence you have pulled out as the first with which you disagree), I wrote, "Must and choice are incompatible. Nothing must be done that isn't done."

On page 84 I wrote, "There is nothing you need to do." That's the full sentence.

If you hold onto unforgiveness (i.e. resentment) like its valuable, then as we chip away at it, it could feel like you're giving up more and more, which might lead you to want to cling to it even harder. The stuff that you personally happen to find most unforgivable (e.g. human rapers), or the unforgiveness that you personally find most valuable to you (e.g. the resentment you hold towards human rapers), would be the hardest to give up.

But what if you think of unforgiveness (i.e. resentment) as being not valuable, as being the opposite of valuable, as being something that hurts you. And just give it all up at once. Then it isn't a line that is being pushed further and further back against your desires. Then it isn't pushing harder and harder against a dualistically judgemental human mind (as all of ours are) that desperately wants to categorize things as us vs them, enemy vs friend, good vs bad, lovable vs unlovable, forgivable vs unforgivable, food vs non-food, this vs not this, etc.

In other words, insofar as you believe things can be unforgivable, then you will find it feels absurd to forgive those things you would deem most unforgivable. If you are going to categorize anything as unforgivable, then of course why wouldn't you put them in that category? Once you a draw line, of course you would want to push them onto the other side of it, or at least draw the line on this side of them so they are on the other side. For otherwise, it would seem like you are giving them some kind of honor or somehow saying they are better than someone or something else, namely better than that which is unforgivable. If you treat it as something comparative rather than unconditional and thus inherently non-comparative, then you will indeed be stingy giving people or things the honor of being on the better side of the comparison. Then you would look at forgiveness as some kind of gift (even if symbolic in your head) that you give the forgiven rather than simply the lack of giving an anti-gift to yourself: stealing your own inner peace by resenting that which you don't control for being the way it unchangeably is. In earlier sections, the book talks about how such things, such as fear too, can be self-fulfilling. It gives the example of how even an imaginary roadblock is effective. Generally, believing anything is unforgivable even merely in principle will make it impossible to forgive those you happen to personally like least, and it will make it difficult and unpleasant to forgive that which comes closest to being that which you like least. If there is two categories, and thus you need to bring forth the judgemental human mind (a powerful tool), why would you put them (e.g. human rapers) in the better one of the two? For you, maybe that's human rapers, or humans who torture innocent human children. For an antelope being eaten by lion, it may be the lion. For a starving lion who just saw a selfish antelope successfully run away, dooming the lion to death by starvation, perhaps the antelope is unforgivable.

But, see, I'm arguing there is only one category. Since, logically, I believe it's been proven and mutually agreed by you and I earlier in the book that nothing is unforgivable and everything is what it is, then being in the forgivable category doesn't make something 'better than' or 'more forgivable' than something else. It is not to put in on the better side of a dualistic comparison. So, to use one of your wisely chosen examples, I'm not saying human rapers are better than or more forgivable than someone else. All it may take is one little crack to let the whole ocean into the boat. Once you allow two categories, why not shove rapers into the worse one? I agree.

Is it only humans and things done by humans that you categorize as unforgivable vs forgivable? Is it only with other humans that you do not choose a no-resentment diet? Is it only towards other humans that you would willfully--even in sober mind--sacrifice inner peace by choosing to engage in resentment (i.e. unforgiveness)?

What if you lived alone on a deserted island with no contact with other humans at all ever? What if you were the only human who existed? Would you then let go of all unforgiveness (i.e. resentment)? Would you then stop categorizing things into that which is unforgivable and that which is not? Would you then just simply throw that proverbial lens in the trash, and then be able to fully and unconditionally say that it is what it is, and it always is.

I'm reminded of this quote by Ram Dass: "All day you keep deciding what to love and what not to love. It’s easier to just love everything. The whole shebang. Even the things you don’t like."

[meadowsem]

My self-chosen behavioral diet instructs me to practice unconditional forgiveness and unconditional love, which may include literally saying "it is what it is" but would definitely include proverbially saying it in terms of living by it. Logically, it is undeniably true that it is what it is, and it always is.

But emotion can trump logic in actual behavior. It's quite possible this human being we call Scott would kill and eat the murderer, becoming not just a meat eater but a full-blown cannibal.

I will tell you no now. And that is my self-chosen diet. But humans break diets often when drunk on extreme emotion.

I like the diet concept. Being on a behavioral diet to practice unconditional forgiveness and love seems like a relatable way to acknowledge that we're striving towards something but may not always be perfect.

And I snorted at the idea of full cannibal Scott.

But what if you think of unforgiveness (i.e. resentment) as being not valuable, as being the opposite of valuable, as being something that hurts you. And just give it all up at once. Then it isn't a line that is being pushed further and further back against your desires. Then it isn't pushing harder and harder against a dualistically judgemental human mind (as all of ours are) that desperately wants to categorize things as us vs them, enemy vs friend, good vs bad, lovable vs unlovable, forgivable vs unforgivable, food vs non-food, this vs not this, etc.

I like this. Resentment is the opposite of valuable, for sure.

Is it only humans and things done by humans that you categorize as unforgivable vs forgivable? Is it only with other humans that you do not choose a no-resentment diet? Is it only towards other humans that you would willfully--even in sober mind--sacrifice inner peace by choosing to engage in resentment (i.e. unforgiveness)?

Fair. As I mentioned, I am actively on the behavioral diet. I value by inner peace enough to continue actively trying to get better at letting go of resentment because I know that the tiny nugget of me that still holds on to anger isn't healthy!

Thanks for the conversation!

[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.

[Owuamanam Eberechukwu]

I firmly believe that every book has a peculiar message to communicate. They are products of the author's thoughts, experience, and passion. Unless a book was written to make money, of which I am convinced "In It Together" is not such a book, the author's beliefs are sacrosanct. The ideas contained in the book are not only relative but universal. I sincerely don't object to anything; we are in it together. Our lives make more sense if we learn to live for others. It is a beautiful book, I must say.

[Dea Ann Bridegroom]

The more I look the book over and reread different parts the more I agree with book overall. This is what I did not agree with.
Please copy and paste the sentence in full. Cannot do that in Amazon with content in kindle.

[Dea Ann Bridegroom]

I found offensive the title We Can't Help Starving Children Because We Can't Help Ourselves. Probably, since I tithe food and money for food. I thought that was a bad choice to use as a focus.
There are many profound statements that touched me or hit home. I think what the book is designed to do is awaken you. Your emotions, enough, you take an action!

[Blessing Chi Peculiar]

Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with everything in the book. My first point of contention is on Page 127, under the heading "There Is No Problem With Evil." I tried to figure out why this statement was made, but I couldn't figure it out. The first sentence that bothers me is on page 128: "There is no problem with evil because there is no evil." Hmm? I reread the chapter twice, and you don't explain why there is no evil, only that things will be better if you think about them differently. Second, there are many "what ifs" in the chapter and how to fantasize about a better way of life. Though this is my personal opinion, thinking of yourself as a better person or the world as a better place does not eliminate the evil in the world. Everything else in the book fascinates me.

[Dea Ann Bridegroom]

Pertaining to Rapists, the Lord commands, send them to me. I gather from this he believes in Capital Punishment himself. We will be forgiven for doing his will.

[Mounce574]

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?

[meadowsem]

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?

Great question! I have eliminated someone from my life and I consider it unconditional love and forgiveness for MYSELF that I did that. I needed to, for my own health. I hope that counts, haha.

[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!