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

[Susan Sadiq]

While I found this book amazing, I found somethings that I disagree with. The sentence "There is nothing to forgive." (Page 154) is quite ludicrous. Yhere is absolutely everything to forgive. People who offend others without showing remorse are the worst kinds of people.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

While I found this book amazing, I found somethings that I disagree with. The sentence "There is nothing to forgive." (Page 154) is quite ludicrous.

Hi, Susan Sadiq,

Are you sure that is the very first sentence with which you disagree in the book?

Keep in mind, that sentence doesn't appear until page 154 of the about 200 page book.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

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."

Hi, Jessica Cole 3,

Just to make sure we are understanding each other and avoid miscommunication, may I ask are you completely certain that the above sentence is the very first sentence from the book with which you disagree?



Thank you,
EAH

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

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?

Davy Ifedigbo,

Can you please quote verbatim the first sentence with which you disagreed in the book?

[Mehul P]

Well, I haven't read it. So, I don't think I'd be a better person to answer this. Maybe a bit later.

[PanwarP]

Evil persists in the world even when you believe that you are a better person or that the world is a better place. I'm fascinated by everything else in the book.

[Hy Be]

I always believe self help books are written in view of perception of the author on various aspects of life. As, I have read this book, I found different perspectives of certain things which definitely would make me rethink my views.

[Hy Be]

The book is perfectly crafted in the author's thinking way. As every coin has two sides, there might be conflict in certain sentences. But I I enjoyed thoroughly reading it.

[NENYE1999]

To be honest, I was so much in love with this book that I don't think I have anything to disagree. It was just more of the book enlightening me about things in life.

[Angie Fernandez]

First, I enjoyed your book and agreed with much of what you had to say. Furthermore, I am not a philosopher, so this is not my regular genre of reading (outside of the Bible). But I would have to say, that I first had a problem in the chapter titled "You, the real you, are consciousness itself: Pure beautiful spirit" where you write, "In a very real sense, you are love itself."

I am a teacher, and when looking at infants and toddlers it doesn't take long to see our base nature at work. We are born selfish and must be taught to share our toys, look to the needs of others, and apply the "Golden Rule". I don't see where man embodies "love itself", but only when he submits to God who is love for "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." (Jeremiah 17:9) Again when you look at the headlines every day, you see the depravity of man. It is only when we allow the Holy Spirit to transform our hearts can we truly love our neighbor as ourselves.

[Marina Flisvou]

"In It Together" by Eckhart Hughes is a powerful book about love, self-discipline, and finding inner peace. Using wisdom from many famous thinkers, Hughes asks big questions, like "What's the opposite of temptation?". The book helps readers see that love connects us all and teaches how self-control can lead to freedom. It's a comforting guide for those facing hard times. Highly recommended for anyone wanting a more positive outlook on life.

[Kutloano Makhuvhela]

There is a lot you covered on this book, that I am still trying to wrap my head around it all. I am not a qualified philosopher, so I have to make sure before I disagree, I have my facts and thoughts straight. But what you talked about, especially evil and the negative thoughts, I think those should be challenged just a little bit.

[Moisés Alcántara Ayre]

There is definitely one thing that I don't agree with and that's on page 139, "You need not believe in a god to do your best to see the world from a god's eye, a god eye's view."
As a Christian, the above statement left me puzzled. I do believe there is an all-loving God whose love and wisdom cannot be understood by us, human beings. God and his Word is what sustains me day by day. So I actually feel the above statement is inaccurate.

Moises

[Rob Carr]

For me my first point is on page 12 "This is not a political book."

Philosophy is inherently political. We all have inbuilt political biases that influence our principles. If we genuinely want to reach across political divides to unite behind a common aim we cannot ignore the natural biases that sit beneath our thoughts. If we ignore them and simply try to focus on higher principles we will unintentionally reflect our personal biases in the principles we espouse. This makes it harder to achieve unanimity.

This flows in the example used shortly after in the book around children dying of starvation and noting no one would oppose this directly. I think this can be resolved by recognising the difference between outcomes and principles. Everyone regardless of political views can agree as an outcome that children should not die of starvation. But people's political principles will taint their perspectives on the policy mechanisms to achieve this. The most effective single policy measure to eliminate poverty has been shown to be to directly give people on low incomes money on a regular basis and let them determine how to spend it (there are also a number of supplementary policies needed such as addiction support to achieve complete elimination). However, those on the right with a strong perspective on personal responsibility would rarely accept this as a policy. This is not because they want people to starve but because they have a belief that without needing to work in order to live people will not try and overall production would fall causing greater levels of starvation. It is only by recognising the different principles that will apply to different people that people can be brought to a common approach to achieve a common outcome not by trying to find a common principle underlying all of them.