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

[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.


Important Note: Before posting in this topic, please do make sure you have looked up any words or phrases with which you aren't familiar in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia. You can do this in seconds online using your preferred search engine (e.g. Google or DuckDuckGo).


Do you feel you understood every sentence in the book, In It Together? In other words, do you feel you understand what the author (me) meant by every single sentence in the book?

If not, please quote the very first sentence or very first paragraph you do not understand. Then I will do my best to explain and clarify what I meant by it.

The book is written in a certain order, with later ideas building off earlier ones. Like a train going off the track, one point of misunderstanding or disagreement early in the book can (sometimes) lead to and cause many others later that will become clarified once that earliest point of misunderstanding is clarified.

If you don't remember what the first sentence you didn't understand was, then I strongly encourage you to re-read the book and highlight any sentences you don't understand, and then post the first one here as soon as you can.

Even though I am only asking for the first one, once I have clarified that one you can post the next one. And we can go through each one you don't understand one at a time in that way, until you are confident you understand every single sentence in the book.


When replying, please provide your best guess(es) about what you think the sentence probably means. Then, from there, I can let you know which of your guesses (if you have more than one) is correct or closest to correct and/or I can then, based on your guess(es), know what was missed or misunderstood to then know how to clarify it for you.



The book is available for purchase from all major book retailers in both ebook and hardcover format.

[meadowsem]

Hi Scott -

Fun question! The first sentence I didn't understand was on page 27. You say, "One could even argue that the differences between most forms of dualism and monism are merely semantics." I am not a philosopher, and while I understand 2 versus 1, I don't know the arguments around the two concepts. I read that paragraph, oh, ten times? Overall I understood (and agreed with) the concept that there are two selves - the spirit/soul and the physical self/body. My spirit is strong whereas my body gets in the way sometimes.

[Bertha Jackson]

I am sure the first time I read this book, I may have misunderstood some of the sentences. However, now that I have read it four times, I am sure I understand everything in your book. My understandings are insufficient to make me an expert on the topics, but I am comfortable with how I understand everything you wrote in your book. I continue to use it as an inspiration.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi Scott -

Fun question! The first sentence I didn't understand was on page 27. You say, "One could even argue that the differences between most forms of dualism and monism are merely semantics." I am not a philosopher, and while I understand 2 versus 1, I don't know the arguments around the two concepts. I read that paragraph, oh, ten times? Overall I understood (and agreed with) the concept that there are two selves - the spirit/soul and the physical self/body. My spirit is strong whereas my body gets in the way sometimes.

Thank you for your reply!

Here is the quote in context:

When we speak about ‘you’, there are actually at least two different yous about whom we speak.

That is not a reference to some kind of philosophical metaphysical dualism. Rather, the truths in this book are agreeable
to metaphysical dualists and monists alike. One could even argue that the differences between most forms of dualism and monism
are merely semantics.

[...]

Rather, this duality is a conceptual duality, not a metaphysical duality.

In analogy, if one claims that the vague term ‘your computer’ can refer to two different things: your laptop or your desktop, it doesn’t propose some grand philosophical dualism entailing a magical realm of laptop-substance versus desktop-substance.
Rather, the conceptual duality and two meanings for the same word are simply a symptom of the vagueness and equivocality of
human language.

The specific sentence was a tangential remark primarily referencing the Mind-Body Problem. The Mind-Body Problem is one of the most known and debated issues in philosophy. The way I would describe it: Dualism is generally the belief that the body (i.e. physical material) and conscious mind both really exist in an absolute sense and are each made up two separate irreducible substances. In contrast, monism generally says there are not two substances and essences but rather they reduce to one. That reduction from two to one (i.e. from dualism to monism) would generally logically need to take one of the following three forms:

(1) the belief that body (i.e. physical material) is either not fundamentally and absolutely real or reduces to mind (i.e. consciousness or the spirit)

(2) the belief that mind (i.e. consciousness or spirit) is either not fundamentally and absolutely real or reduces to the body (i.e. physical material)

(3) the belief that body (i.e. the physical) and the conscious mind (i.e. the spirit) both reduce to some third singular thing, which is analogous to they way electricity and magnetism were long thought to be two different things but were discovered to both reduce to and actually be the same one thing: electromagnetism.

The three above categories are just broad categories of monism. Much like all the countless religions in the world, there are countless variations of each, some of which bend or blend the lines between the above categories.

So let's go back to the original issue this post is meant to address: What do I mean when I say that the disagreements philosophers have about the above issues are arguably merely semantics. I mean that I think the answer of whether dualism is true or monism is true changes and is different depending on how one happens to define the related words such as 'body', 'mind', 'spirit', 'consciousness', 'physical', and 'material'. Different people use those equivocal words to mean different things.

For example, it can sound like and seem like two people disagree when one yells, "Mind and body are fundamental dualistic", and the other person screams back, "Mind and body reduce to the same thing and are thus fundamentally monistic!" But I think it could be mere semantics in the same way that it could be a semantic difference rather than a real disagreement if two people are looking roughly in the direction of a bowl of frozen ice cream on the ground in the Sahara, and one writes, "the desert is hot", and the other writes, "the desert is cold". Do they disagree? Not necessarily. It sounds like disagreement, but they could both be saying two different compatible things, namely because they could be talking about two completely different things. They might even think they disagree even though they don't. They might not realize that their seeming disagreement is just a semantic issue caused by the equivocality of language (i.e. that the same word can mean two very different things to two different people).

Just imagine if we put a pair of sunglasses on the bowl of ice cream in the Sahara. Then it would be even more confusing to talk about whether or not the desert was cool.


I hope this helped clarify what I meant by the quoted sentence in the book, but please do let me know if you have any further questions about that sentence or anything.

[meadowsem]

So let's go back to the original issue this post is meant to address: What do I mean when I say that the disagreements philosophers have about the above issues are arguably merely semantics. I mean that I think the answer of whether dualism is true or monism is true changes and is different depending on how one happens to define the related words such as 'body', 'mind', 'spirit', 'consciousness', 'physical', and 'material'. Different people use those equivocal words to mean different things.

...But I think it could be mere semantics in the same way that it could be a semantic difference rather than a real disagreement if two people are looking roughly in the direction of a bowl of frozen ice cream on the ground in the Sahara, and one writes, "the desert is hot", and the other writes, "the desert is cold". Do they disagree? Not necessarily. It sounds like disagreement, but they could both be saying two different compatible things, namely because they could be talking about two completely different things. They might even think they disagree even though they don't. They might not realize that their seeming disagreement is just a semantic issue caused by the equivocality of language (i.e. that the same word can mean two very different things to two different people).

Just imagine if we put a pair of sunglasses on the bowl of ice cream in the Sahara. Then it would be even more confusing to talk about whether or not the desert was cool.


I hope this helped clarify what I meant by the quoted sentence in the book, but please do let me know if you have any further questions about that sentence or anything.

Fantastic response ^^ and super helpful and clarifying.

Your humor in the book (and here too) is fantastic. Thanks Scott!

[OTrain M]

Do you feel you understood every sentence in the book, In It Together? In other words, do you feel you understand what the author (me) meant by every single sentence in the book?

If not, please quote the very first sentence or very first paragraph you do not understand. Then I will do my best to explain and clarify what I meant by it.

The book is written in a certain order, with later ideas building off earlier ones. Like a train going off the track, one point of misunderstanding or disagreement early in the book can (sometimes) lead to and cause many others later that will become clarified once that earliest point of misunderstanding is clarified.

If you don't remember what the first sentence you didn't understand was, then I strongly encourage you to re-read the book and highlight any sentences you don't understand, and then post the first one here as soon as you can.

Even though I am only asking for the first one, once I have clarified that one you can post the next one. And we can go through each one you don't understand one at a time in that way, until you are confident you understand every single sentence in the book.

The book was written in simple, efficient language. Nowhere had I ever have to stop and re-read a sentence because I didn't understand it. Most philosophy books are not like that. They are intimidating in their texts, but this one wasn't.

[Tori_J]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading In It Together. It's the first book by Scott I've read and I'm not disappointed. Also, to answer the question, there was not a sentence I couldn't understand not a sentence I that didn't touch me.

[Anna Hernandez 2]

p5 first sentence of paragraph
'The common struggle this book will show goes much deeper.' (ok, got it so far. next sentence)
'We fight together not merely as evolutionarily programmed robot-like sympathetic social humans desperately seeking to avoid pain, discomfort, and death.' (losing it. looking to next sentence for clarification)
'Granted, those qualities of our human nature do certainly play a role in our deeper and more spiritual war.' (lost. end of paragraph)

We fight together not merely as humans but as... what? (this is a cliffhanger in my mind lol any guidance welcome)

[meadowsem]

(ok, got it so far. next sentence)
(losing it. looking to next sentence for clarification)
(lost. end of paragraph)

These parts of your response! Bwah haha. When I say I SNORTED! Thank you for the chuckles.

[Sheilaread]

Hello
I was re-reading and realized I did not understand this part completely, the first time through; thank you.

That is not a reference to some kind of philosophical metaphysical dualism. Rather, the truths in this book are agreeable to metaphysical dualists and monists alike. One could even argue that the differences between most forms of dualism and monism are merely semantics. In fact, some philosophers argue that all philosophy is just word games.

Regardless, those are not arguments for this book. Rather, this duality is a conceptual duality, not a metaphysical duality.

[Shem Norris]

Yes, I understood everything in the book. It was easy to understand. It makes you see life in a new light. After reading the book, I had to come to a realization that nobody gets out of here alive. We live each day worried about the next day, but at the end of day nobody knows when it's their time to go. With that being said, we are all in it together. This is a great book!

[Kirsi_78]

Yes, I believe I understood everything. However, that is my point of view, and maybe it turns out someday that I didn't, after all. We all have different experiences in life, and those affect the way we think and interpret what we see and read.

Anyway, even though I think I understood everything, I do not agree with everything. I like it when somebody challenges my thinking, and I enjoyed the reading very much.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

The issue may not be understanding as what the word understand ssimply implies. We should see whether the author and the reader are having the same thoughts in mind, the author before writing and the reader after reading.

[Blessing Chi Peculiar]

I'll admit that I had a great time reading In It Together. I've only read one book by Scott, but I wasn't let down. To further answer your question, I was able to understand every sentence and felt something in every sentence.

[Tosin-Le]

At first, the title of the book got me confused. I wondered at the exact struggle that might be the one uniting all humans considering that some people do not seem to struggle at all. I got more clarity after I finished reading it.