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

[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.

[Nessa Vee]

I don't think love is unconditional. Every kind of love has conditions. People love each other because they might be family, have strong feelings for each other, or feel happy when they help each other. These are the conditions of love.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I don't think love is unconditional. Every kind of love has conditions. People love each other because they might be family, have strong feelings for each other, or feel happy when they help each other. These are the conditions of love.

Hi, Nessa Vee,

That is not a quote from my book.

If you don't agree with every single sentence from the book, please post a verbatim quote of the very first sentence in the book with which you disagree, meaning the sentence closest to the beginning of the book.


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

[Mari Inez]

The first thing I remember disagreeing with is the following:

"Despite the urge to rationalize, minimize, justify, or excuse the suffering of other humans, when the suffering humans are starving children, few would actually say something like the following: ... 'I cannot afford to help at all, not more than I already do. There is nothing I could spare, not even a dime more. Even if it would only cost then cents to save a child's life, I simply could not spare the ten cents.'"

In this individualistic society, we live in, especially in the USA, this is something I have heard many times. Or in response to other social/political issues the idea that one person cannot help or make a difference. I think of the list it is the one thing we would hear and at least I have not only heard but have also said.

[Eagle Adastra]

I agree with everything in the book. It is great to analyze and agree with philosophical issues. what a good book.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Mari Inez,

Thank you for your reply!

The first thing I remember disagreeing with is the following: [...]

"few would actually say something like the following: ... 'I cannot afford to help at all, not more than I already do. There is nothing I could spare, not even a dime more. Even if it would only cost ten cents to save a child's life, I simply could not spare the ten cents.'"

[...] this is something I have heard many times.

Really? That's very interesting.

Presumably, if you've heard it many times, that includes hearing/seeing it many times in writing, such as on comments on your social media pages, or via text messages sent to you, social media DMs sent to you, emails send to you by friends, family, coworkers, acquaintances, and various other people.

Thus, can you please send me a few screenshots of the many emails/texts/messages/etc. you have received of people saying that they literally could not even give 10 cents to save an innocent child from starvation and saying something almost identical to, "even if it would only cost ten cents to save a child's life, I simply could not spare the ten cents.'"

I'm surprised to learn you've heard that "many' times, but I like being surprised and love being proven wrong, and thereby getting to learn new things and become better informed.

So I would really love to see those screenshots and see in context exactly how those people who said/wrote those things did so.


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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Yes I do agree with everything in the book; on the Philosophical aspect, The book’s focus on interconnectedness and unity aligns with many philosophical and spiritual traditions, which suggest that compassion and mutual understanding are key to personal and collective growth.

I am glad you agree with everything in the book.

[byrondsouza]

Yes, I agree with everything you have mentioned in your book.

[Sandre Lamar]

I read this book with open mind, and find full truth in some assertions. However, I only found an element of truth in some assertions, which means looking at them in another way round I could not agree with them and found them not true. Specifically, I agree with the concept of there is no evil. But could not fully agree with the concept that there is nothing to forgive. I will say there is nothing to forgive, if the offense is not intentional and the person that offends would not have helped not offensive at that time and position they offend the other fellow. However, in the case of intentional offense when someone intentionally study what would offend the other fellow and punish them on that. In that case it is only forgiveness that can allow the two to ever be together or even agree on a common thing.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I read this book with open mind, and find full truth in some assertions. However, I only found an element of truth in some assertions, which means looking at them in another way round I could not agree with them and found them not true. Specifically, I agree with the concept of there is no evil. But could not fully agree with the concept that there is nothing to forgive. I will say there is nothing to forgive, if the offense is not intentional and the person that offends would not have helped not offensive at that time and position they offend the other fellow. However, in the case of intentional offense when someone intentionally study what would offend the other fellow and punish them on that. In that case it is only forgiveness that can allow the two to ever be together or even agree on a common thing.

Hi, Sandre Lamar,

That is not a quote from my book.

If you don't agree with every single sentence from the book, please post a verbatim quote of the very first sentence in the book with which you disagree, meaning the sentence closest to the beginning of the book.


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

[Ezeakor Oliver]

Yeah. I believe I understand and agree with every view in this book. But it's just my perspective.

[Ezeakor Oliver]

I didn't know what philosophy was all about, at least 3 years ago, though I had an assumption in mind. Well, lately I realized it's basically a study of how human live and interact. After reading this book, I don't think there's anything I don't agree with anyway.

[Ajay pratap singh Tomar]

The assertion made on page 157 that unconditional forgiveness is simply the passive act of not making mistakes is not supported by the author. According to them, there is nothing to forgive since serious transgressions of human decency are "tough to forgive." They aspire to develop spiritually and embrace unconditional forgiveness because it is a vital first step on the road to recovery and development.

[Ajay pratap singh Tomar]

The author disagrees with Eckhart Aurelius Hughes' book "In It Together" and the first sentence they disagreed with. They believe unconditional forgiveness is the transcendence of the feeling that there is anything to forgive, and that spiritual freedom manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace. They suggest breaking down the sentence into "it is what it is until it isn't" and "it is what it is until it isn't." In conclusion, the author emphasizes the importance of accepting and accepting others' actions, as well as the concept of "shoulds and oughts."