Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Petrokley]

Hi there,

I found your book very interesting, and I was struck by how much of it aligns with the Word of God—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. However, I noticed that there is no acknowledgment of Him throughout the text, and I seemed to have looked for it everywhere.

You mention the existence of an afterlife, but you don’t explain where you believe people go after death. That left me wondering about your perspective on this important topic.

Another point that stood out to me was your description of a highly complex and intriguing being. (us) From what I understood, you suggest that this being evolved. But how? How can there be no Creator behind such a creation? That question felt crucial and obvious in many parts of your book, yet it seemed to go unaddressed.
The idea that such a complex being could evolve from a single cell—as I understand to be your belief—is difficult to grasp. How is it that some creatures remain so basic, while humans have become so incredibly complex, all through the same process of evolution? That seems highly unlikely to me. In fact, I do not believe that at all.

Additionally, I want to mention that I disagree with the way you use Luke 17:21. The translation you rely on in this instance is, in my view, inaccurate. It does not reflect the true meaning of the original text. Here's a portion of Luke 17 directly translated from the Hebrew, which I believe offers a clearer and more faithful interpretation.

ו קוּם וָלֵךְ אֱמוּנָתְךָ הוֹשִׁיעָה לָּךְ׃ ‏ וַיִּשְׁאָלֻהוּ הַפְּרוּשִׁים לֵאמֹר מָתַי תָּבוֹא מַלְכוּת הָאֱלֹהִים וַיַּעַן וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם מַלְכוּת הָאֱלֹהִים לֹא תָבוֹא בְּמַרְאֵה עֵינָיִם׃ ‏ וְלֹא יֹאמְרוּ הִנֵּה־פֹה אוֹ הִנֵּה־שָׁם כִּי מַלְכוּת הָאֱלֹהִים הִנֵּה בְּקִרְבְּכֶם׃ ‏ וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־הַתַּלְמִידִים יָמִים בָּאִים וְהִתְאַוִּיתֶם לִרְאוֹת יוֹם אֶחָד כִּימֵי בֶן־הָאָדָם וְלֹא תִרְאוּ׃ ‏ וְאִם־יֹאמְרוּ אֲלֵיכֶם הִנֵּה־שָׁם הִנֵּה־פֹה אַל־תֵּלֵכוּ וְאַל־תָּרוּצוּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם׃ ‏ כִּי כַבָּרָק אֲשֶׁר יִבְרַק מִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְיָאִיר עַד־קְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם כֵּן־יִהְיֶה בֶן־הָאָדָם בְּיוֹמוֹ׃ ‏ אַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה עָלָיו לִסְבֹּל הַרְבֵּה וְלִהְיוֹת נִמְאָס בַּדּוֹר הַזֶּה׃ ‏ וְכַאֲשֶׁר הָיָה בִּימֵי נֹחַ כֵּן יִהְיֶה בִּימֵי בֶן־הָאָדָם׃ ‏ הֵמָּה אָכְלוּ וְשָׁתוּ נָשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים וְהָיוּ לַאֲנָשִׁים עַד־הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר־בָּא נֹחַ אֶל־הַתֵּבָה וַיָּבֹא הַמַּבּוּל וַיַּשְׁחֵת אֶת־כֻּלָּם׃”
‮‮לוקס‬ ‭17‬:‭15‬-‭27‬ תנ״ך ודליטש‬


“And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God. And he fell on his face at his feet, and gave him thanks, saying, He is my Savoir. And Jesus answered and said, Is not the tenth clean? And where is the seventh? Why should I not turn back to give glory to God, O little child? And he said unto him, Arise, and go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered and said unto them, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, Lo there! for, behold the kingdom of God is at hand unto you. And he said unto the disciples, The days come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. And if they shall say unto you, Behold, there is a mouth, go not after them, neither run after them: for as the lightning, that lighteth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall the Son of man be in his day: but first must he suffer much, and be ashamed in this generation: and as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they were given in marriage. “They were with men until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” Luke 17:15-27 New International Version (NIV)

One thing I can say with absolute certainty is that your book made me think. At times, my thoughts kept me more occupied than the reading itself. .... even if it was only to try to understand what you are saying.
Thank you for that.
I was an adventurous journey.

[Petrokley]

I 've only done the survey now but already posted a reply .

[Sarah Fisher_LP]

After reviewing the entire book "In It Together", I need to add some corrections to my original impression. It looks like the philosophy expressed here is not, strictly speaking, a form of Rousseauist thought, though it has numerous parallels with Rousseauist philosophy. The reference to Lancan's philosophy of the Other on page 72 did not escape me. Not to mention Rousseau is anti-science, and your references to belief in science "being circular and not beyond doubt" on page 43 are another parallel.

I believe this philosophy is called radical skepticism, aka the belief that we're all living in in a simulation. The idea is to let go the idea that anything around us is real in order to try to gain some kind of emotional control and get some kind of unity with all of the NPCs we've "created" in our own sim.

The problem with that philosophy is that it doesn't explain adversity, except to blame it on our tendencies to self-harm. This is consistent with Rousseauist thinking, because we're all our own moral authority and thus we can believe whatever religion we want to resolve our sim.

The problem is, I don't believe that I'm living in a simulation. If I don't believe in a simulation, my beliefs create my emotions, and thus my finest path to emotional satisfaction is actually accepting conflict with other real people, rather than trying to rationalize their needs away. My inability to help real people has nothing to do with my ability to self-harm, but rather because I'm a limited being with finite resources. This gives me more inner peace than believing something else.

Anyway, radical skepticism collides with Christianity right at Genesis 1:1:

"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth".

Later on, the Bible makes it clear that God is not me, namely when he appeared to Abraham and Moses. Likewise, God's existence (and by extension, the world's existence) predates my consciousness, which means that, according to Christianity, radical skepticism is false.

Connection with the Christian God is not always a function of tapping into a love for all human consciousness. Frequently it's grief over humanity's sin and it's damage, grief over personal sin, looking for self-correction. When I talk with God in prayer, I feel like I am directing God around to look at different fronts of a war, not like the other thing. The intensity is more of an action movie, not like some blanket love for humanity. I'm fighting human sin and a complex, adverse creation, and I love the war. I love the God who placed me in the war. I have inner peace in the midst of the war because I understand it and I trust the God who directs every turn of it.

"Indeed, as already said, there are many paths up the mountain."

Hughes, Eckhart Aurelius. In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All (p. 95). OnlineBookClub.org. Kindle Edition.

This is in direct collision with Jesus Christ, who said "I am the way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

"The torture, a falsehood. Even Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is within you.”4” (In It Together, Page 130)

This is a misquote. A proper translation is “The kingdom of heaven is in your midst” (Luke 17:21 NASB) which refers to the fact that Christ was in their midst and he was the kingdom of Heaven personified. A more accurate understanding is that the kingdom of Heaven is Christ’s church. It’s not within each individual, it’s the collective whole being transformed by the Holy Spirit.

I do not think there’s reconciliation with Christianity and what you’re saying. You cannot “unchain the earth from the sun” (Nietzche) and expect the Copernicans to be comfortable. Christianity demands to be true, and its demands for truth eat your argument like cockroaches eat grain. The doctrine of Christian exclusivity is opposed to your book.

Meanwhile, the spirit is satiated until it is threatened. I don’t think you know what it is like to live under the threat of poverty and death, every day another turn of an uncertain shadow. I don’t think you understand what it is like for the spirit to labor in the face of a relationship that is constantly threatening, to long for safety and rest from constant danger. There is the spiritual warfare which is known and handle-able in the power of Holy Spirit, and there is the warfare that is unknown that you can't respond to because it comes on unexpectedly. Inner peace comes not from absence of war, it comes from being able to respond to the war with a sufficient response to deal with it.

There is no unity except in Christ according to Christian teachings; and there is “There is no peace,” says my God, “for the wicked.” (Isaiah 57:21). Nobody who is sinful and who rejects Christ has peace; and "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

There are many other collisions with other philosophical worldviews that you are ignoring. I think that someone of a scientific worldview would have several issues with your statements about science, but Christianity is the biggest religious conflict that I see here.

[Surabhi Rani]

I agree with the basic philosophy and what the author has to say in the book 'In It Together.' There was nothing in the book that I disagree with. The book teaches a wholesome philosophy and its essence is sublime and coherent.