ARA Review by Alan Zimm of In It Together

The ARA Review Exchange is a system in which authors review other authors' books, generlaly in exchange for getting their own book reviews by other authors. However, the person who reviews a author's book is not the same person whose book that author reviewed. This way, author reviews do not influence each other, such as by an author being inclined to reward a good review by deliving one in return or deliver a negative review as revenge.

Moderator: Official Reviewer Representatives

Forum rules
Authors and publishers are not able to post replies in the review topics.
Post Reply
Alan Zimm
In It Together VIP
Posts: 2
Joined: 01 Jul 2022, 13:49
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 0

ARA Review by Alan Zimm of In It Together

Post by Alan Zimm »

[Following is an OnlineBookClub.org ARA Review of the book, In It Together.]
Book Cover
1 out of 5 stars
Share This Review


Summary: this is a review of In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All, by “Eckhart Aurelius Hughes,” a pen name. “Aurelius,” translated from the Latin, is “the golden one.”
The dust cover is festooned with 37 comments marked as “Editorial Praise.” One labels the author a “philosophy genius.” The cover further declares, “#1 BEST SELLER.” I am disposed to see a high-quality product.
The author summarizes the book’s objectives: “This book seeks to (1) prove that [a] common uniting struggle for something exists, (2) explore and define that thing, and (3) present an effective strategy for working together in peace and love.” The book is written from a humanist, new age, post-modernist, love-conquers-all viewpoint, with foundational beliefs that are antithetical to Judeo-Christian principles.

Positive: the logic employed by Aurelius Hughes will provide many laugh-out-loud moments to brighten your day. He often made me smile, mostly in disbelief, sometimes in shock, always with a chuckle. Do not be deterred by the philosophy camouflage; the humor, though unintentional, is sublime. The experience is like discovering a “B” movie that is so bad it is funny.
In addition to the entertaining howlers, another positive is “Suggestion Ten: Do less, better.” All can endorse this proposition wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, Suggestion Ten evaded this book.

Negative: Hughes’ foundational ideas are dead wrong. For example, he states, “You will quicker find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow than find happiness through achieving goals and fulfilling desires” (p.4). He provides no evidence for this. Sociological studies (University of Southern California, and others) have found that “Happiness lies in the joy of achievement, the thrill of creative effort. The human spirit needs to accomplish, to achieve, to triumph to be happy.”
Throughout, the book peddles viewpoints without a factual evidentiary foundation. Flawed foundations lead to flawed philosophies.
Some of the views expressed are bizarre. For example, Aurelius states that all laws are “classist,” and that anyone who “endorses” use of force to enforce the law is a person who “would support rape” (p. 12). He does not recognize different types of laws. Natural Law, based on principles laid down by God, is the foundation of America’s representative democracy, and defies pejorative labels like “classist.” Such laws must be enforced in order to have a civilization. Laws not based on Godly principles are subject to political whims and might be “classist.” Natural Law transcends the author’s assertion that “love” is the solution to the wrongs of the world.
Aurelius states he is not going to say anything that readers do not know, but instead what readers don’t know they know. This is bewildering. How does one not know what one knows? To handle this conundrum, the very next sentence advises, “we just have to BE together.” How to “BE” is not defined. What does “BE” have to do with “know” and “not know”? Aurelius must hope that readers will accept such meaningless verbiage uncritically.
The author states that we are “each a god.” (p.197). This must send shivers up the spine of any Christian or Jewish believer.
There are many convoluted or impenetrable phrases masquerading as deep philosophical wisdom. “We can’t help starving children because we can’t even help ourselves.” We can’t save the world because “we are cruel to ourselves.” Such pseudo-philosophical non sequitur statements pervade the book. Will the world be saved if we are no longer “cruel to ourselves”? What if everyone is no longer cruel to themselves, but cruel to others? How does eliminating self-cruelty save the world, specifically? The book does not address such questions.
The author’s thoughts are muddled, confusing and illogical. The metaphors are ludicrous. He does not define his terms, while asserting that his undefined vocabulary is compatible with the entire spectrum of personal beliefs, to Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, and (by implication) psychopaths. The author must believe there is no such thing as a fundamentally evil person, contradicting Christian and Jewish doctrine. Current international research has found, across races and nationalities, that about seven percent of humanity have criminal tendencies, and two percent are incorrigibly, irredeemably evil. But to a golden one, “Whoever you are dear reader, I love you” (p.201).

Rating: I rate this book 1 out of 5 stars. 2 stars are not warranted because there is so much misleading content. A credulous reader would be led astray. The words claptrap, gibberish and nonsense ought to be included in the dust cover’s “Editorial Praise.”

Recommended Audience: those of my graduate students worried about the quality of their work. My message to them: “If this guy can get published, so can you.”

***
View In It Together on Bookshelves
Post Reply

Return to “ARA Reviews (Authors Reviewing Authors)”