Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Frost »

Fooloso4 wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 9:32 am All kinds of things are subject to logical analysis. A logical analysis of rights does not give us the large picture of what rights are. To do this requires historical fieldwork.
It requires ontological analysis.
Fooloso4 wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 9:32 am
I don't have to understand or predict "unintended and unforeseen consequences" in order to establish this causation.


We are talking about causation in a complex system such as an economy, not one isolated effect of one action. In the real world causal chains are not isolated events.
I never said they are. When you increase the money supply, which is inflation, you will cause, ceteris paribus, higher prices. Whether or not prices actually go up is subject to all sorts of other factors, but that does not change the causation.
Fooloso4 wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 9:32 am At each step I have tried to point you back from your theoretical hovel to the real world . A central question all along has been how applicable the theories you are expounding are. Logical truths are formal truths. As such they do not tell us anything about the world. Your faith in an a priori understanding of human action is nothing more than faith unless you can demonstrate that your alleged a priori knowledge is predictive of human action and therefore predictive of actual economic systems.
Praxeology involves logical truths that are a priori applicable to the real world due to the ontology of human action. Because they are logical truths, they do not change, and because of the nature of human action we are not going to discover some new domain of human action in a different dimension or in massive gravitational fields. The predictions are made all the time in economics. What evidence would satisfy you?
Fooloso4 wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 9:32 am
No, these are not epistemically subjective at all. If a person attacks you, there is nothing epistemically subjective about assault and battery.
In the example given you were not attacked, but you feared you would be and acted. Such fear is subjective.
If you shoot someone because you are merely afraid, you are guilty of assault or murder if the person dies.
Fooloso4 wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 9:32 am
Under the law, you cannot justifiably shoot someone because you think they might do something to you, which would be epistemically subjective.
It happens all the time. Most cases involving shootings by police officers hinge on just this. As with stand your ground it is a matter of a perceived threat.
This is nonsense. The fact that people do shoot because they were merely afraid does not mean that it is justifiable as I claimed. If you shoot someone merely because you were afraid you go to jail. This is pretty damned simple. There has to be some sort of epistemically objective element that provided justification for shooting the person.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Eduk »

I can actually provide a textbook that is freely available online and you can read to your heart's content:

https://mises.org/system/tdf/Man%2C%20E ... e=document
That's lovely. I don't really have the time to read a whole text book. For example I could in some small way describe Quantum Theory. You could then ask me for one example of anything that QM does that is unique to QM (plus in the case of QM you CAN ask for empirical evidence). I would then link this https://www-thphys.physics.ox.ac.uk/peo ... ney/qb.pdf and no one would be any the wiser. Or I could link this https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... m-physics/ which provides a layman's introduction and recommendations for further reading (not I'm not saying the scientific american article is perfect by the way).

Are you able to
please give one example of praxeological economic theory applied to the real world which is unique to praxeology.
Even if you recommended a page number in the textbook you previously linked at least I would have a starting point.
Unknown means unknown.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Londoner »

Frost wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 11:18 am Yet logical truths do not change like you claim.


If you still do not understand what 'truth' means within logic after all my careful explanations I cannot help you further.
The rules of logic are not rules of logic because "it conforms to the rules of what is valid." That is the paradox. The rules of logic are derived from independently valid inferences, whose validity is a result of their semantic content. I am not saying that the syntactic form of modus ponens requires semantics, but that the validity of it is not grounded in logic but rather in semantically valid inferences.
First 'semantically valid instance' doesn't mean what you think it means.

If the rules of logic were 'derived from independently valid inferences' we would need a separate set of rules to show that these inferences were valid...

'...whose validity is a result of their semantic content'.In that case we need a separate set of rules to say why a particular 'semantic content' makes things valid.

So we haven't 'grounded' anything.

Every system has to ultimately rest on some set of axioms. These axioms cannot be validated by the system they support. And if we propose a different validation, then that just reintroduces the problem as we have to validate the validation.

...An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down."
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Frost »

Eduk wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 12:09 pm
please give one example of praxeological economic theory applied to the real world which is unique to praxeology.
Even if you recommended a page number in the textbook you previously linked at least I would have a starting point.
You're right, I should have provided some sort of guidance. I do, however, recommend starting from the beginning. You can't jump into the middle because there will not be an understanding of the basis from which all elements are derived.

One example of praxeological economics derives from the nature of economic exchange and the nature of money as a medium of exchange, which is that an increase in the quantity of money will, ceteris paribus, result in higher prices. Mainstream economics defines inflation as the increase in prices, but it is an increase in the money supply that is inflation and results in higher prices. However, due to the complex nature of market economics, this does not guarantee that the prices actually do increase, but in such a case, without the inflation the prices would have dropped. This is the problem with empirical attempts at economics. They attempt to study the systemic fall out of the Intentional causation involved in individual economic transactions as if it were physics, which is obviously erroneous.
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Frost »

Londoner wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 12:47 pm
The rules of logic are not rules of logic because "it conforms to the rules of what is valid." That is the paradox. The rules of logic are derived from independently valid inferences, whose validity is a result of their semantic content. I am not saying that the syntactic form of modus ponens requires semantics, but that the validity of it is not grounded in logic but rather in semantically valid inferences.
First 'semantically valid instance' doesn't mean what you think it means.

If the rules of logic were 'derived from independently valid inferences' we would need a separate set of rules to show that these inferences were valid...

'...whose validity is a result of their semantic content'.In that case we need a separate set of rules to say why a particular 'semantic content' makes things valid.

So we haven't 'grounded' anything.

Every system has to ultimately rest on some set of axioms. These axioms cannot be validated by the system they support. And if we propose a different validation, then that just reintroduces the problem as we have to validate the validation.

...An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down."
Amazing we could ever get to the point of establishing logical systems if we didn't have the capability of first recognizing valid inferences.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Sy Borg »

Frost wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 1:19 am
Greta wrote: February 2nd, 2018, 11:52 pm There was much learning from the hard lessons of the Great Depression. The west has (so far) not allowed their economies to since run away to the same extent by implementing much more rigorous (and experienced) steering controls. Still, like most professionals, current economists will surely pass the baton to AI.

As with weather forecasting and medicine, economies are extremely complex systems with what appear to be significant amounts of chaos creating unpredictability. However, at least some of that chaos may be unpacked much more quickly with AI than without.
AI cannot solve the problems. Economics does not deal with quantifiable variables. Economics is qualitative in its laws, not quantitative.
Where is your evidence that advanced AI will be as limited as a simple calculator, only capable of quantitative calculation? You just made that up. The point of AI is to be more advanced than humans. An AI lawyer, "Ross", recently took a position in a legal practice. Why do you seem to believe that economics is so much more difficult than law and thus impossible for AI?
Greta wrote:And no, you don't seem to have a grasp on the history of the Depression. The economy didn't "run away," but rather there was a boom/bust cycle that resulted from the Federal Reserve attempting to manipulate the economy and business credit expansion that really distorts the capital goods industries.
What is a boom or a bust but a runaway effect? Obviously.

The libertarian denialism that you have repeated that the Great Depression was caused by government interference in economies is not only wrong, but backwards. This is why steering controls have since avoided further runaway effects, limiting the severity of boom/bust cycles.

Much of the problem was a general loss of confidence and shrinking of economies after the big crash, exacerbated by a lack of insurance for bank deposits, which inhibited subsequent bank behaviours. The only problematic regulation was (very Trumpian-style) regulation - tariffs. The Smoot-Hawley tariff applied to European goods by the US resulted in retaliatory tariffs, inhibiting the world economy and that certainly did not help.
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Frost »

Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 4:55 pm Where is your evidence that advanced AI will be as limited as a simple calculator, only capable of quantitative calculation?
It's kind of in the definition of computation.
Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 4:55 pm What is a boom or a bust but a runaway effect? Obviously. How could you not be aware of that? Why make these pointless, time-wasting quibbles that just make you appear naive?
Runaway implies something that gets out of control or some amplification of positive feedback, neither of which occur in a boom/bust cycle. It is a matter of malinvestment, particularly in capital goods industries, which results from business credit expansion by introducing distortions into the market through a decreased ability to make economic calculations.
Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 4:55 pm Your parrotting of misleading libertarian mythology is not helpful. The libertarian denialism that you have repeated that the Great Depression was caused by government interference in economies is not only wrong, but backwards. This is why steering controls have since avoided further runaway effects, limiting the severity of boom/bust cycles.
Complete nonsense. They create boom and bust cycles through business loan credit expansion which distorts the ability to make economic calculation and results in malinvestment that eventually becomes evident.
Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 4:55 pm Much of the problem was a general loss of confidence and shrinking of economies after the big crash, exacerbated by a lack of insurance for bank deposits, which inhibited subsequent bank behaviours. The only problematic regulation was (very Trumpian-style) regulation - tariffs. The Smoot-Hawley tariff applied to European goods by the US resulted in retaliatory tariffs, inhibiting the world economy and that certainly did not help.
You're right that the Smoot-Hawley tariff really harmed the recovery, but you're off on the causation which I've already explained. The loss of confidence is why there are bank runs in the first place which results in banks going out of business, and certainly after all this, people will not have confidence, but that's not the cause of the problems. The causes are from inflationary monetary policy, especially with the Federal Reserve in place. Amazing that with the "control" of the Fed imposed in 1913 soon after there were major economic crashes in 1921, if I am not mistaken, and of course 1929. So much for "steering controls." The control is the problem.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Fooloso4 »

Frost:
What evidence would satisfy you?
An economy whose policies are guided by a priori knowledge of human behavior and that you are able to predict the status of that economy five, ten, or fifty years from now.

Or an economy whose policies are guided by a priori knowledge of human behavior that consistently performs better than every other economy.
The fact that people do shoot because they were merely afraid does not mean that it is justifiable as I claimed.
As a matter of law in some cases it is justified. That is why George Zimmerman went free. It is why many police officers have gone free, even when the evidence seems to have been against them. The fact is, as you feared, there is no epistemically objective element that provides justification. We have no way of determining whether there was actual danger. It is reasonable to assume that in at least some cases there is real danger and so we cannot prohibit people from defending themselves when they believe they are in danger. The best we can do regarding justification is to look at the evidence and decide whether the response was reasonable and appropriate in that situation.
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Frost »

Fooloso4 wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 5:51 pm
What evidence would satisfy you?
An economy whose policies are guided by a priori knowledge of human behavior and that you are able to predict the status of that economy five, ten, or fifty years from now.

Or an economy whose policies are guided by a priori knowledge of human behavior that consistently performs better than every other economy.
Economic theory cannot predict the status of the economy in 5, 10, or 50 years, so you're making it impossible. That's not what economics does. The mainstream soothe sayers may think so, but that's why they're full of it.

And an economy guided by praxeological economics is not going to be "guided by a priori knowledge of human behavior." There is no guiding! That's the point!
Fooloso4 wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 5:51 pm As a matter of law in some cases it is justified. That is why George Zimmerman went free. It is why many police officers have gone free, even when the evidence seems to have been against them. The fact is, as you feared, there is no epistemically objective element that provides justification. We have no way of determining whether there was actual danger. It is reasonable to assume that in at least some cases there is real danger and so we cannot prohibit people from defending themselves when they believe they are in danger. The best we can do regarding justification is to look at the evidence and decide whether the response was reasonable and appropriate in that situation.
I'm not about to get into the details of legal cases but if someone got off from murder for simply saying that "I felt afraid" without any epistemically objective basis, like thinking he was reaching for a weapon, he made a sudden move in a threatening situation, etc., then the ruling is wrong. You can't justifiably shoot someone merely for being afraid. Whether or not we can determine who is telling the truth is a different story, but the point is that just seeing someone and being afraid is not justification for shooting them. That's murder.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Fooloso4 »

Frost:
Whether or not we can determine who is telling the truth is a different story …
No, that IS the story. We cannot determine who is telling the truth. That is why I said: The fact is, as you feared, there is no epistemically objective element that provides justification.
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Frost »

Fooloso4 wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 6:40 pm
Whether or not we can determine who is telling the truth is a different story …
No, that IS the story. We cannot determine who is telling the truth. That is why I said: The fact is, as you feared, there is no epistemically objective element that provides justification.
Whether or not someone is telling the truth presupposes that we are dealing with assertive illocutionary acts, or in other words,that there is a fact of the matter that he made a quick move for something, but determining the truth of that claim may be difficult or impossible. With a body cam, one could possibly view it and determine that he never made a quick move as claimed. In other words, there is an assertion about actual states of affairs in the world. Attempting to determine the accuracy of that claim presupposes that there is something that can be determined in an epistemically objective manner.

What I am getting out of this thread is that apparently we can put people in jail because they offended someone and it's okay to shoot people merely because you were afraid of them. So when I'm walking down the street and I am heading towards a guy that looks disreputable, I have a valid reason for shooting him because I know for a fact that men of his particular profile have a much higher violent crime rate and that is a valid reason for being afraid and therefore of shooting him! There is no need for any actual epistemically objective act on his part because I was afraid, damn it!
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Count Lucanor »

Frost wrote:About finishing it in 4 hours instead of 8? The monetary profit is identical, but the psychic profit may be different.
Why would the psychic profit would be different? All of the elements that were present and made the exchange possible the first time, have remained the same. What element has been added to the equation?
Frost wrote:So how did the kid determine $20 was worth mowing the lawn? How did the adult determine to pay the kid $20 vs. mowing it himself? Did they first compare it to the value of coffee beans? Or did they perform a survey of other kids that mow lawns? Why is it assumed that $20 is a "fair value"? Who determines this? I'm not following how each person actually decided to make the transaction.
Because this transaction occurs in a social network, where there are producers of the same commodities and there's competition among them. So both the association of lawn mowers and the rest of traders inside that society know from the sum of previous experiences what's the average fair value (the socially necessary labour) of mowing the lawn or producing coffee beans. They have not taken out a calculator to do the math or made surveys, but trade itself, through repeated transactions of different commodities, has established in that society the appropriate exchange ratios of those products and services.
Frost wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote: But it isn't. Not even biology. More like sociology.
Not at all like sociology.
I disagree. Economics deal with human actions and Sociology looks at the same in the broadest sense. You cannot study a society's economy if you have not looked into its structures, their relationships, their history.
Frost wrote: No, you're misrepresenting the subjective theory by conflating price with value. Prices are not a measure of value.
Are they a measure, an expression of something? What is it?
Frost wrote: Your question is ambiguous. In a way, you're right. We don't need the vast majority of economists we have today and most of them just cause trouble. On the other hand, economists are needed to go through the complex chains of praxeological reasoning needed for analysis.
"Complex chains of praxeological reasoning" sounds a lot like the stuff people ignored (because they are outside their sphere of knowledge and influence) when making transactions. When advocating for the subjective theory of value, these things didn't matter for the people involved in the exchange, and yet, now they seem important. What prevents these people participating in the transactions from doing their own "praxeological reasoning" of the general praxeological reasoning in society, at the time of purchase?
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Count Lucanor »

Count Lucanor wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 7:24 pm
Frost wrote:About finishing it in 4 hours instead of 8? The monetary profit is identical, but the psychic profit may be different.
Why would the psychic profit would be different? All of the elements that were present and made the exchange possible the first time, have remained the same. What element has been added to the equation?
And one more thing: isn't "psychic profit" tied to monetary profit? And why is the one releasing the money not calculating his/her monetary wins or losses, and just the "psychic profit"?
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Frost »

Count Lucanor wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 7:24 pm Why would the psychic profit would be different? All of the elements that were present and made the exchange possible the first time, have remained the same. What element has been added to the equation?
Time..... The kid may get a larger psychic profit from making the same money in half the time.
Count Lucanor wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 7:24 pm
Because this transaction occurs in a social network, where there are producers of the same commodities and there's competition among them. So both the association of lawn mowers and the rest of traders inside that society know from the sum of previous experiences what's the average fair value (the socially necessary labour) of mowing the lawn or producing coffee beans. They have not taken out a calculator to do the math or made surveys, but trade itself, through repeated transactions of different commodities, has established in that society the appropriate exchange ratios of those products and services.
Dude, I'm talking about a single exchange where a kid went to the door of a guy and offered him $20 to mow his lawn. How is what you said supposed to enter the dynamics of the exchange? Can you describe that in detail as I described the valuation process in this situation?
Count Lucanor wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 7:24 pm I disagree. Economics deal with human actions and Sociology looks at the same in the broadest sense. You cannot study a society's economy if you have not looked into its structures, their relationships, their history.
Economics is praxeological, sociology is empirical. Totally different.
Count Lucanor wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 7:24 pm Are they a measure, an expression of something? What is it?
No. Money is a medium of exchange and has its own value for people. If there is a market for the good, the price will tend toward an equillibrium reflecting the supply and demand schedules of sellers and buyers. However, each individual must make their own valuations whether or not that price is worth it to them. If they value the product more than the money price, they will make the exchange, and vice versa.
Count Lucanor wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 7:24 pm "Complex chains of praxeological reasoning" sounds a lot like the stuff people ignored (because they are outside their sphere of knowledge and influence) when making transactions. When advocating for the subjective theory of value, these things didn't matter for the people involved in the exchange, and yet, now they seem important. What prevents these people participating in the transactions from doing their own "praxeological reasoning" of the general praxeological reasoning in society, at the time of purchase?
It is irrelevant for typical exchanges. However, if you want to know the consequences of an economic policy, then complex chains are necessary to analyze the consequences.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Sy Borg »

Frost wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 5:11 pm
Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 4:55 pm Where is your evidence that advanced AI will be as limited as a simple calculator, only capable of quantitative calculation?
It's kind of in the definition of computation.
Not at all. Learning machines are rapidly being refined, and refining themselves.
Frost wrote:
Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 4:55 pmWhat is a boom or a bust but a runaway effect? Obviously. How could you not be aware of that? Why make these pointless, time-wasting quibbles that just make you appear naive?
Runaway implies something that gets out of control or some amplification of positive feedback, neither of which occur in a boom/bust cycle.
Nonsense! Each boom and bust is itself a runaway effect - an uncontrolled run that occurs over the period of time.

A runaway effect as you describe it is endless, and must end with the destruction of a society. This is a catastrophic runaway effect.

If you would like to save yourself much time and filter out unreal possibilities, you might want to consider Feynman's observations here about the difference between mathematical abstractions and reality as it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZZPF9rXzes

Frost wrote:
Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 4:55 pmThis is why steering controls have since avoided further runaway effects, limiting the severity of boom/bust cycles.
Complete nonsense.
Basically you are denying that the work of all reserve banks - the steering controls - since the Great depression has achieved anything.

Where is your evidence for this claim?
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021