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.
Post Reply
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 »

Steve3007 wrote: February 2nd, 2018, 7:41 am
Count Lucanor wrote:Remember, it's supposed to be subjective. If things arrived at the market with a preset value, so that you can "shop around", then it is no longer subjective, but objective, right? How does the market know what is the value people assign to things and why is that value relatively stable if it's created at the moment of purchase?
Maybe the 'S' in STV is not a good word? I don't know. I don't actually care much. In trying to work out whether I agree with it, I care more what this STV thing says in (slightly) more than one word.

Here's the start of the Wikipedia entry on STV:

I essentially agree with it (because it seems to me to be a tautology) but I think it's badly worded, which might make it misleading. I think it should say "the value of a good is not necessarily determined by any particular inherent property of the good, nor necessarily by the amount of labor necessary to produce the good."

In other words, we all make our own individual (subjective?) decision as to the value we place on a good but that doesn't mean those decisions are usually purely personal tastes with no reference to the outside world. Obviously the value that my company places on the goods that we sell isn't purely a matter of our personal taste. It explicitly takes into account such things as the cost of the labour that went into creating them. So in that case, labour is one factor leading to the valuation. If we didn't do that and we consistently (as opposed to as a "loss leader") tried to undercut our competitors by selling at below the cost of production we'd go bust. But it ain't necessarily so.

I could expend weeks of work on a painting and nobody would value it at all. A friend of mine did some work for the famous artist Damien Hirst (installing a large aquarium). During a break, Damien gave him a quick pencil sketch he'd done on a sheet of A4 paper. It was valued at £5000 (about US$7000). True story. Or so my friend says. He showed me the sketch. Nothing special, as far as I could see. Go figure.

Things don't arrive at market with a preset value. People bid for them. Their opening bid is not necessarily the actual value they place on the good/labour. Whether they're buying/selling labour or goods, it's what they think they might be able to get away with. In an ideal efficiently functioning market the final "strike price" converges on an objectively (or inter-subjectively?) existing "fair price" which is determined by the collective actions of all the players in the market. The more the player knows about the details of the particular market the closer his/her opening bid will be to the "fair price" for that market, because nobody wants to waste time making silly offers that will certainly be refused. That's what "shopping around" means.

So if we want an argument over sementics, perhaps we could play with the term "intersubjective"? Would that work better?
You're starting to see the holes in the STV. As you see, this theory focus on the individual decisions at the moment of purchase, leaving out the whole context of social institutions and practices where the individuals involved in a particular exchange have no influence. If there weren't preset values in the form of price, you wouldn't find price tags in the merchandise when you enter the store. In order for "subjective value" to be created at that moment, if it really were subjective, you would have to wait until the buyer makes the choice to find out what that value was. And even so, leaving the store, you wouldn't know what value that commodity will have in the next hour for another customer. Concepts like market, supply and demand, cost of labor, cost of production, etc., evidently clash with the concept of "subjective value".
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 »

Steve3007 wrote: February 2nd, 2018, 9:59 pm
Count Lucanor wrote:But it isn't. Not even biology. More like sociology.
I meant if economics was a science in the sense that it attempts to create models which purport to describe empirical observations and use patterns in those observations to predict future observations. If it was that then the various propositions of people who say they're talking about economics would be testable. But, if I remember rightly, our Frost seemed to say that it isn't such a thing. If it isn't such a thing then I struggle to understand how any of those propositions mean anything, I don't know much about sociology, but I assume that even that subject contains some kinds of testable propositions and theories, albeit inexact ones.
You're right. And one wonders...if the value relations in each exchange were so evident to the participants, as the subjectivists propose, why would we need economists.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

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.
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 2nd, 2018, 9:47 pm
Frost wrote: February 2nd, 2018, 11:37 am
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.
Please answer my question.
About finishing it in 4 hours instead of 8? The monetary profit is identical, but the psychic profit may be different. Now answer my questions :)
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 2nd, 2018, 9:44 pm
Steve3007 wrote: February 2nd, 2018, 10:19 am If economics was like physics...
But it isn't. Not even biology. More like sociology.
Not at all like sociology.
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 2nd, 2018, 11:04 pm If there weren't preset values in the form of price, you wouldn't find price tags in the merchandise when you enter the store. In order for "subjective value" to be created at that moment, if it really were subjective, you would have to wait until the buyer makes the choice to find out what that value was. And even so, leaving the store, you wouldn't know what value that commodity will have in the next hour for another customer. Concepts like market, supply and demand, cost of labor, cost of production, etc., evidently clash with the concept of "subjective value".
No, you're misrepresenting the subjective theory by conflating price with value. Prices are not a measure of value.
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 »

Steve3007 wrote: February 2nd, 2018, 9:59 pm I meant if economics was a science in the sense that it attempts to create models which purport to describe empirical observations and use patterns in those observations to predict future observations. If it was that then the various propositions of people who say they're talking about economics would be testable. But, if I remember rightly, our Frost seemed to say that it isn't such a thing. If it isn't such a thing then I struggle to understand how any of those propositions mean anything, I don't know much about sociology, but I assume that even that subject contains some kinds of testable propositions and theories, albeit inexact ones.
This is at the heart of the epistemological foundations of economics. Economics is an evoked logical system based on the structure of human action. We cannot have a priori knowledge about the physical world, but we can have a priori knowledge in the realm of human action due to our internal access to the phenomena, and it has consequences in the physical world because of action. Praxeology begins with the axiom that human action is purposeful, and from there is builds on the structure of savings, investment, etc.

Rather than providing a boring read, here are some simple YouTube videos with a really cute girl describing praxeology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoNU_-_ ... 593A261433

Hope you like :)
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 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.

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. The boom/bust cycle is quite literally caused by government intervention. There should be a strict separation of government and economy and strict enforcement of a 100% gold standard and 100% reserve banking with strict enforcement of private property rights. That's the way to "regulate" the market.
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 2nd, 2018, 11:09 pm
You're right. And one wonders...if the value relations in each exchange were so evident to the participants, as the subjectivists propose, why would we need economists.
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. If we went to a 100% gold standard and 100% reserve banking and a strict separation of government and economy, then there would be even far less need for economists.
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 2nd, 2018, 3:22 pm
You said that "Logical truths are subject to change, in fact they are arbitrary, because 'truth' in logic is simply a value."

If the logical truths of mathematics were just arbitrary and subject to change, there was no way they could make the calculations necessary to go to the moon. If math is arbitrary and subject to change, why is it that the solution to d = (1/2)gt^2 is always the same? I am really starting to wonder why I am arguing about such utter nonsense.
Remember, 'truth' in logic means something specific. It does not mean empirically true. And it applies to the terms, the bits usually represented by letters. They can be represented by letters because they are not statements of empirical fact; if I wrote 'Mary is a woman' that would be true or false depending on the biology of Mary, social ideas about sexuality, whatever. Whereas we can simply 'assume' 'M' is true - or false - (as understood in logic) because it just stands for 'any proposition that is either true or false.'

Nor is 'truth' in logic an affirmation that 'my logic is correct'. If we have correctly applied the rules of logic we instead say something is 'valid'. It is valid if we have correctly understood the logical connectives, like 'and', 'not' etc. It is not valid because our conclusion correctly represents some empirical fact.

Suppose I just write '10'. Then I write '-10'. Which is correct? It is a silly question because the 10 does not represent anything, so I am free to write either. I can then do a sum involving adding 5 to either of those numbers. My sum will be correct if I correctly understand the meaning of 'adding'. And if I do, then both answers will be equally correct. One of the answers will be 'positive' and one will be 'negative' but by 'negative' we do not mean 'false' in the sense of 'incorrect' or 'not a fact'. It is the same in logic. 'True' and 'false' are like positive and negative numbers in an entirely abstract calculation.
Me: Are you talking about 'What the Tortoise said to Achilles'? If so, you have really failed to grasp what that is about.

You then contradict yourself; if 'the validity of inferences is determined by their semantic content' (I'm not sure you understand 'semantic', then they wouldn't be 'independently valid'', would they? Their validity would be determined by the semantic content. And your favourite phrase 'epistemic objectivity' remains as impenetrable as ever.


Independent of the rules of inference which are generated as a result.
What is independent? As a result of what? I cannot make sense of that sentence.
The inference is not valid because of the rules, the rules describe the valid inference. This escapes the infinite regression of the Lewis Carroll paradox.
Again, that is simply unintelligible. Look at the Wicki article on 'What the Tortoise said to Achilles', the section titled 'Explanation'. The regression arises because the tortoise does not accept logic as a formal system; as something that is ultimately tautological. That the inference is 'valid' (note the word) simply because it conforms to the rules about what is valid.

As the Wicki article says: Within the system of propositional logic, no proposition or variable carries any semantic content. The moment any proposition or variable takes on semantic content, the problem arises again because semantic content runs outside the system. Thus, if the solution is to be said to work, then it is to be said to work solely within the given formal system, and not otherwise.

That is what I am addressing above, if you make the variables in logic mean something, i.e represent something outside the purely formal system of logic ('Mary is a woman'), then you no longer have a closed system, it is no longer tautological.

Regarding this, the reason I suggest you might have a problem with 'semantic' is that it is concerned with 'meaning' in ordinary language, meaning not only conveyed in the individual words themselves but in the structure of language. But that is not the case in logic. As I explain above, 'X' in a piece of logic does not mean anything. Unlike natural language, logic is simple and binary, T or F.
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:
Rights are indeed subject to logical analysis.
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. Framing the question of political life in terms of rights, with obligations being logically necessary to protect rights, is an impoverished view of political life.
You stated that you cannot establish causation period and now you are trying to change the subject.
Once again, you have lost hold of the threads of the argument. You say:
In such complex phenomena you cannot establish causation without praxeological analysis.


My response was that it cannot be established even with praxeological analysis (i.e. period). Where we differ is that you believe that we can establish causation a priori with praxeological analysis and I do not.
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.
You were trying to change the subject to ontology of mathematics to weasel your way out of your obviously false claim that mathematics and logic are "provisional" and "always changing."
This is getting tedious. I have explained in what sense mathematics and logic are provisional and changing. You have demonstrated your inability to understand what I said when you point out that 5x5=25 as if that were a counter-example. Bacon said that mathematics is the universal language of nature. It is a language we are still learning to speak, but it is not like learning an existing language. It is being shaped and formed everyday, that is, it is provisional and changing.

When you now ask:
… why is it that the solution to d = (1/2)gt^2 is always the same?
you are asking a question about the ontology of mathematics. It is not changing the subject, you are just slow getting up to speed on what the subject entails.
That d = (1/2) gt^2 is not going to be found to be wrong.
That somethings remain constant is not a refutation of change.
You're changing the subject. I said "Logical truths are not subject to change" and you're trying to change the subject by claiming that the application of those logical truths to the world is provisional.
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.
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 someone trespasses on your property …
I said nothing about someone trespassing on my property.
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.

You have failed to make the case that we cannot have a right against being offended because it is “epistemologically subjective”. The problem is not because of its subjective nature but rather because it is too broad, vague, and general.
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 »

Well if I was going to be praxeological Frost then I would say it was self evident that '12 rules for life's is the title of a self help book. Then I wouldn't need to bother to prove that.
Ok of interest. And I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself. I ask this question all the time, never got an answer yet.
But let us assume praxeological economic theory was the only economic theory, so what? I mean what kinds of things would change? You say government intervention is bad, is that the result of praxeological economic theory? Like Steve I've googled the term but can find nothing other than humans act therefore praxeology is self evidently true. I mean it's not enough for me to go on. I can make no decisions on what to change or what not to change.
If you are able please give one example of praxeological economic theory applied to the real world which is unique to praxeology. I'd ask for evidence to go along with that but I understand evidence is against the spirit of praxeology. Like you say I am happy to hear the argument first.
Unknown means unknown.
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, 6:43 am Remember, 'truth' in logic means something specific. It does not mean empirically true. And it applies to the terms, the bits usually represented by letters. They can be represented by letters because they are not statements of empirical fact; if I wrote 'Mary is a woman' that would be true or false depending on the biology of Mary, social ideas about sexuality, whatever. Whereas we can simply 'assume' 'M' is true - or false - (as understood in logic) because it just stands for 'any proposition that is either true or false.'

Nor is 'truth' in logic an affirmation that 'my logic is correct'. If we have correctly applied the rules of logic we instead say something is 'valid'. It is valid if we have correctly understood the logical connectives, like 'and', 'not' etc. It is not valid because our conclusion correctly represents some empirical fact.

Suppose I just write '10'. Then I write '-10'. Which is correct? It is a silly question because the 10 does not represent anything, so I am free to write either. I can then do a sum involving adding 5 to either of those numbers. My sum will be correct if I correctly understand the meaning of 'adding'. And if I do, then both answers will be equally correct. One of the answers will be 'positive' and one will be 'negative' but by 'negative' we do not mean 'false' in the sense of 'incorrect' or 'not a fact'. It is the same in logic. 'True' and 'false' are like positive and negative numbers in an entirely abstract calculation.
Yet logical truths do not change like you claim.
Londoner wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 6:43 am
The inference is not valid because of the rules, the rules describe the valid inference. This escapes the infinite regression of the Lewis Carroll paradox.
Again, that is simply unintelligible. Look at the Wicki article on 'What the Tortoise said to Achilles', the section titled 'Explanation'. The regression arises because the tortoise does not accept logic as a formal system; as something that is ultimately tautological. That the inference is 'valid' (note the word) simply because it conforms to the rules about what is valid.

As the Wicki article says: Within the system of propositional logic, no proposition or variable carries any semantic content. The moment any proposition or variable takes on semantic content, the problem arises again because semantic content runs outside the system. Thus, if the solution is to be said to work, then it is to be said to work solely within the given formal system, and not otherwise.

That is what I am addressing above, if you make the variables in logic mean something, i.e represent something outside the purely formal system of logic ('Mary is a woman'), then you no longer have a closed system, it is no longer tautological.

Regarding this, the reason I suggest you might have a problem with 'semantic' is that it is concerned with 'meaning' in ordinary language, meaning not only conveyed in the individual words themselves but in the structure of language. But that is not the case in logic. As I explain above, 'X' in a piece of logic does not mean anything. Unlike natural language, logic is simple and binary, T or F.
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.
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, 9:43 am Well if I was going to be praxeological Frost then I would say it was self evident that '12 rules for life's is the title of a self help book. Then I wouldn't need to bother to prove that.
Ok of interest. And I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself. I ask this question all the time, never got an answer yet.
But let us assume praxeological economic theory was the only economic theory, so what? I mean what kinds of things would change? You say government intervention is bad, is that the result of praxeological economic theory? Like Steve I've googled the term but can find nothing other than humans act therefore praxeology is self evidently true. I mean it's not enough for me to go on. I can make no decisions on what to change or what not to change.
If you are able please give one example of praxeological economic theory applied to the real world which is unique to praxeology. I'd ask for evidence to go along with that but I understand evidence is against the spirit of praxeology. Like you say I am happy to hear the argument first.
A tremendous amount would change. We would see the futility of so much of what government attempts to do, or rather not merely futility, but harm that occurs.

Praxeological economics is an entire system of economics. 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
User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 338
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

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

Post by SimpleGuy »

Frost wrote:The subjective theory of value is simply that each person makes their own valuation, based on ANY factors. They may value a transaction for selfish or altruistic reasons. They value cigarettes and alcohol or they may value broccoli. They can, quite literally, value anything in any way they choose. Whether or not they are rational is an entirely separate question.
Note that since the brexit this evaluation is sometimes not even under the control of the european union. Just think about the libor-rate. The London
Interbank offered rate, called libor,which is a reference for interest rates in international bank trade. So this is an exclusion of any participation of political influence, which shows the effectiveness of politics as well which has just nothing to say for really important decisions.
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