Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Justin Henrichs]

I agreed with everything. The author echoed most of sentiments and thought. Particularly the message of spiritual liberation and inclusiveness

[Gift Omolade]

I really enjoyed "In It Together" and found many of its ideas inspiring. While I may not agree with every single point, I appreciate the overall message of love and unity. The book encourages open-mindedness and connection, which are valuable themes that resonate with me.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, NaghmaQ

Thank you for your reply!

The first sentence I disagree with is on page 33 - "We Can't Help Starving Children Because We Can't Help Ourselves"
In my opinion, we cannot state this to be true because many of us do find some enlightened paths when we learn how to help ourselves and we also help others. [...] if we look at smaller groups or individuals, there are individuals and even communities that take care of each other.

Can you give me some examples of specific individual humans who have helped themselves and starving children? Do those people themselves live in terrible poverty, having given all their money away to starving kids? Do they drink alcohol? Do they get angry and act out of anger ever? Do they spend any money at all on anything like TV, movies, jewelry, shoes, or clothes--even just a single penny? If so, why? Why not give every spare penny to starving children?

In the book, I also wrote, "All humans are on the addiction spectrum". Do you disagree with that too? If so, can also give me examples of some of these specific individual humans that exist that allegedly are not on the addiction spectrum?


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

[Amy Jackson]

I do not agree with rhis statement:
'However, there is no problem of evil.
There is no problem of evil because there is no evil.'
I do not agree with it because I've encountered evil. It is a vile spirit and very deceptive. It exists just as darkness exists, even though there is light. But light always overxomes darkness. Therefore, evil doesn't have to be a problem when you are light. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I do not agree with rhis statement:
'However, there is no problem of evil.
There is no problem of evil because there is no evil.'
I do not agree with it because I've encountered evil. It is a vile spirit and very deceptive. It exists just as darkness exists, even though there is light. But light always overxomes darkness. Therefore, evil doesn't have to be a problem when you are light. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though.

Hi, Amy Jackson,

Thank you for your reply!

Since you believe that evil (a.k.a. should-not-have-ness) exists, please reply to each of the ten questions in the following topic:

Ten Questions for People Who Believe Should-Not-Have-Ness [a.k.a. evil] Exists


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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The book, a testament to the author's wisdom, resonated with me on many levels. His extensive knowledge and life experiences are evident in his writing. However, when I was asked if I agreed with everything in the book, I had to answer 'NO'. After all, it's impossible to align with every viewpoint, even from our favorite authors. This passage came to mind:

“But the perception of literal evil is a manifestation of discontent, meaning a lack of inner peace, a lack of reality acceptance, a lack of unconditional love.”

I do not believe that the perception of evil always manifests discontent and lack of inner peace. Many horrible things are happening in the world, and this can include pedophilia, sex trafficking, innocent children being killed in wars, and environmental disasters. Perceiving this type of evil is more linked to a heightened critical sense than a lack of inner peace. However, I acknowledge that this is a complex and nuanced topic, and I'm interested to hear your thoughts. What do you think?

HI, João Ramos,

Per the instructions in the Original Post (OP), please post the first sentence in the book with which you disagree.

The sentence you quoted would almost certainly be very unclear, severely misunderstood, and/or disagreeable to someone who doesn't understand and agree with some of the sentences that come before it.

If you agree with every sentence before the one you quoted, that means, among other important things, that should-not-have-ness (a.k.a. "evil") doesn't exist.

But that makes the reasoning you've provided incoherent, since you talk about "evil" as if it actually exists, and thus you talk about the perception of "evil" as if it is not a hallucination but rather somehow perceiving something that actually exists.

Long story short, it appears the sentence you quoted must not actually be the very first sentence in the book (i.e. the one closest to the beginning) with which you disagree. So please instead post a verbatim quote of the very first sentence in the book with which you disagree.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

[Mr Benji]

"Documented suicide doesn't include most lethal drug overdoses."

Page 34, paragraph 3, sentence 2.

I think some of these cases are documented as one.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

"Documented suicide doesn't include most lethal drug overdoses."

Page 34, paragraph 3, sentence 2.

I think some of these cases are documented as one.

Hi, Mr Benji,

I agree that some are included.

I think you misunderstood/misread the sentence that you are claiming to disagree with.

It says "most", not "all".




With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

[Mr Benji]

Hi Eckhart Aurelius Hughes,

Now, i see the difference. "some" not "all."

By the way, I have been on the mentorship program for 40th day, and have not been receiving the weekly checkin mails. Though i have indicated interest for the book promoter and volunteer forum moderator posts, I have not gotten any response.
Thanks for the clarification.

Regards

Mr Benji

[Mr Benji]

Pg 162, paragraph 1, sentence 1


Trying is lying, and lying is futile fight against reality.



I assume if a person attempt a task, that is not lying. The person is trying to accomplish a goal by putting an effort to the task.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Pg 162, paragraph 1, sentence 1


Trying is lying, and lying is futile fight against reality.



I assume if a person attempt a task, that is not lying. The person is trying to accomplish a goal by putting an effort to the task.

Hi, Mr Benji,

Per the instructions in the Original Post (OP), please post the very first sentence with which you disagree.

The above one you quoted cannot possibly be the very first sentence, since it is a reiteration of previous sentences in the book.


Page 103: "...there is no trying when it comes to your choices." (This is not the full sentence but just part of it.)

Page 145: "When it comes to your choices, there is no try." (This is the full sentence.)



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

[Catherine Sweet]

I don't know much about philosophy, but I did agree with many of the ideas in this book. Like other people posting here, the only thing I disagreed with was, "There is no problem of evil." My views may be simplistic, but I think there is a problem with evil, and in certain circumstances, it shouldn't be forgiven. I'm quite liberal in most ways, but not in this.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I don't know much about philosophy, but I did agree with many of the ideas in this book. Like other people posting here, the only thing I disagreed with was, "There is no problem of evil." My views may be simplistic, but I think there is a problem with evil, and in certain circumstances, it shouldn't be forgiven. I'm quite liberal in most ways, but not in this.

Hi, Catherine Sweet,

Thank you for your reply!

Since you believe that evil (a.k.a. should-not-have-ness) exists, please reply to each of the ten questions in the following topic:

Ten Questions for People Who Believe Should-Not-Have-Ness [a.k.a. evil] Exists



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

[Dea Ann Bridegroom]

...a division in yourself as a synthetic human being. Pg. 95. I don't agree we are synthetic. We are not synthesized. We are not made of man-made materials. We are not robots. We are made of natural materials and when we pass into the next life. Believe me there's one. Our spirit, our living spirit is whole again and at peace according to your work here on this Earth In the flesh. The flesh dies and goes back to the dust from which it was created by the living spirit, a higher power, a god, the Lord, our father in heaven.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

...a division in yourself as a synthetic human being. Pg. 95. I don't agree we are synthetic. We are not synthesized.

Hi, Dea Ann Bridegroom,

Based on what you have written, that cannot be the first sentence from the book with which you disagree because I refer to us to as "synthetic human beings" before that on Page 78, in a sentence starting with, "Granted, that kind of logically arbitrary and flawed distinction can have useful practical meaning in everyday life, where we each..."


Please do re-read the book starting from the very beginning and as soon as you come across the very first sentence with which you disagree, post a verbatim quote of the full sentence here.

It's important that it's the very first sentence with which you disagree (i.e. the one closest to the beginning), not some other sentence.


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