Best world scenario

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

I'm not sure I believe in absolute subjectivity. This is a bit like being absolutely free. Personally I think we are subjective enough and free enough.
Personally I don't see a simple subjective on/off switch. I see a complicated self referential circular spectrum of subjective experience and objective experience. If there was no objective reality then there would be no subjective thought.
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Judaka »

That isn't an answer, this is much like the argument about evolution, there is little understanding that prerequisites exist to make positions appear reasonable and intelligent. You say you believe in a spectrum of subjectivity but you have never dealt with the arguments of validity as a concept, which is basically all you are describing, you don't have any methodology for deciding when things are subjective vs objective, you don't have any methodology for deciding what is objectively good "for YOU" or otherwise. Anyway I don't want to beat a dead horse, there is nothing left for me to say I haven't said already because I think you are bit out of your depth in this conversation about objectivity/subjectivity specifically, it appears to me that you want to state your opinion, have it accepted and then get out. That you think objective reality creating subjective thought gives it some portion of objectivity demonstrates that, just saying the same thing rather than dealing with the criticism or providing an explanation that makes sense.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Atreyu »

Eduk wrote:I'm not sure I believe in absolute subjectivity. This is a bit like being absolutely free. Personally I think we are subjective enough and free enough.
Personally I don't see a simple subjective on/off switch. I see a complicated self referential circular spectrum of subjective experience and objective experience. If there was no objective reality then there would be no subjective thought.
I agree and find it odd that people would argue against this.

Surely, our subjective experiences must indicate an objective reality, it's just that this reality is separated from us due to the fact that we cannot experience the world outside of the boundaries of the self.

Nothing seems more nonsensical to me than imagining a Universe in which nothing really exists....
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

you don't have any methodology for deciding what is objectively good "for YOU"
Well that's not true. For example I stated that being closer to the truth is, most of the time, preferable than being further from the truth. I mean that is the start of our disagreement, you seemed to claim that what people think is more important than reality, whereas I don't agree with that.
Also you keep missing a point I've made a few times. It matters not if I know what is objectively good for you, it matters not if you know, it matters not if anyone knows, it matters not if it can be known. None of those thing have any effect on what is good for you. If I know it's going to rain tomorrow or not, that won't change the weather.
you don't have any methodology for deciding when things are subjective vs objective
Apologies but I find that many things don't have simple answers. Categorization is notoriously difficult. For me things have an overlap, and exactly where that overlap is is difficult to define. Take conception for example, it is often portrayed as a single moment, binary, you have either conceived or you haven't. But in reality it is a complex process and there is much doubt as to whether it has or hasn't happened. This is basically how everything in the real world works.
To be honest. I think if you could describe the process for taking material matter and turning it conscious. Then maybe you could describe the process for taking an objective fact like a tree falling and a subjective experience like it was loud and scary. I personally am not ashamed to admit that I have absolutely zero understanding of how such a thing can happen. Until that process is explained the statements which categorize precisely are, in my opinion, likely wrong.

-- Updated October 2nd, 2017, 4:17 am to add the following --
you seemed to claim that what people think
Sorry misquoting you. That should read what people say, not what people think. Those being two very different things.
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Judaka »

For example I stated that being closer to the truth is, most of the time, preferable than being further from the truth. I mean that is the start of our disagreement, you seemed to claim that what people think is more important than reality, whereas I don't agree with that.
Stating that being closer to the truth is better is so far from a methodology it's fairly odd to hear it as a response, "most of the time it is good to be correct" was an unsubstantiated assertion you made that relied on basic common sense and examples such as "if you think you can fly, gravity will correct your thinking" and what my argument about "closeness to truth" has been from the start is that truth is not one dimensional. I find you rarely wish to deal with examples but explanations cause confusion, yet the prison example and the south African civil war example show instances where truth has many dimensions. Most things have both positive and negative aspects to them and the main exception to this are methodologies, essentially causality. Causality is indisputable, one dimensional and perhaps always beneficial to understand and for me, I have always argued under this understanding. So causality is unassailable, what about the goals in which we utilise causality? They are hardly unassailable, they are often wrong and utilising weak logic. The exception as I said, might be where a goal serves as a method to yet another goal and then seeing as causality itself is unassailable, we invalidate the method by attacking the goal.

So if I am to believe you, methods/causality have a relatively clear hierarchy when attempting to achieve a specific goal and that specific goal could be the objectively (uncontestable, 100% truthful) best option for me. So I have an objectively best method for the objectively best goal, a fairly interesting (and gross) concept. I have made my reasons for why I think it is nonsense clear, I do wonder now though, in a world where a spectrum of subjectivity/objectivity exists, what does "objectively best" even mean to you? The words have no meaning under a spectrum understanding from my perspective, so perhaps when you say "objectively best", I am misunderstanding what you mean by "objective", assuming you mean anything at all given how your theory completely dismantles the traditional definition of objectivity. Can you clarify what it is you mean?
It matters not if I know what is objectively good for you, it matters not if you know, it matters not if anyone knows, it matters not if it can be known. None of those thing have any effect on what is good for you. If I know it's going to rain tomorrow or not, that won't change the weather
.

The reason you need some kind of methodology or explanation is because without them aren't you just pulling all of this out of your behind? That it is objectively good for me should indicate to everyone that there is a clear, knowable answer. While I can say that the road I walk on is a composite of materials and that there is some objective answer to what they are and how much of the road they comprise without actually having any clue what that answer might be, the difference here is that I know this could be measured and I could have my answer and you know it as well, there is nothing contentious here.

Similarly things which we couldn't measure but have measured similar things in the past, we could say there is very likely an objective answer for. However if you were going to say, for example: "there is vast spiritual energy throughout the world, that I cannot say how it came to be nor show evidence of its existence, we can be certain it objectively exists and sustains all life on Earth" then naturally, this falls into a new category of "I have no evidence" and becomes essentially nonsense until proven otherwise.

So assuming things can be "objectively good" for people, that you know nothing about it means nothing - either there is an objectively indisputable reality about what is good for an individual or there isn't. However as far as claiming that it exists with no methodology or evidence, I thought you valued the scientific method and such, yet everyone of your assertions completely lacks it. I would love to hear some of your arguments made in this format but I don't think that you would be able to sustain them there, you are not even prepared to make these arguments in that form though with time, maybe you could make better ones that what you have now.
Apologies but I find that many things don't have simple answers. Categorization is notoriously difficult. For me things have an overlap, and exactly where that overlap is is difficult to define.
Categorisation is difficult therefore spectrums? What kind of lazy attitude is that? I am not asking for simple answers, I have in this debate admitted ignorance of some topics and simply asked for evidence to evaluate because I lack the knowledge or understanding to give comprehensive answers though I know enough to know your answer is wrong. So if you lack a comprehensive understanding of the topic as indeed you've admitted you have then I won't hold that against you. However here you make assertions whereas I merely denied the validity of yours, ought not your assertions provide some kind of explanation?

So your assertion "I see a complicated self referential circular spectrum of subjective experience and objective experience. If there was no objective reality then there would be no subjective thought."

It is obvious that without an objective reality, there would no thought as there would be no anything. So you see a complicated self referential circular spectrum of subjective experience and objective experience.

To me, this rest of the sentence does not even make sense.
1. What is objective experience? We use our five (or more) senses to experience and our mind interprets this, we can also imagine and think but this can all be incorrect very easily, it seems to me that "experience" is inherently subjective, do you have any explanation for what objective experience is?

2. Self-referential? This would seriously damage the credibility of the spectrum no? Is this just a way to avoid having to give explanations for how it works?

3. You say there is a spectrum, earlier you used used an explanation about music to show that everyone agrees about certain subjective truths and therefore spectrum. Objectivity has nothing to do with how we judge things, how we perceive things or any of that, those are all inherently subjective. Objectivity just means that we are talking about things that would exist without any subjective influence, demonstrable using methodology that lacks bias. It exists the way it exists regardless of what anybody says about it and subjectivity is the opposite, it is inherently bias and is true by virtue of an interpretation. How can two concepts work together in harmony? Something which is half provable without bias but half relies on bias?
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

Stating that being closer to the truth is better is so far from a methodology it's fairly odd to hear it as a response
Give me a general example where being further from the truth is always or mostly always better?
I presented this as evidence

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/437 ... 380824.pdf

You said that was non controversial?

Of course this only makes sense with the axiom that survival is 'good'. I already admitted this is an axiom. I already said everything I said doesn't follow unless this axiom is held. I already said that objectively relative to the universe then there is no evidence that survival is 'good'.

You are however not entirely 'free' to pick and choose your own axioms. For example you cannot just decide what to believe in a straight forward manner. I can't decide to believe I can fly for example. And I can't decide that my life has no value to myself.
yet the prison example and the south African civil war example show instances where truth has many dimensions.
Well I'm happy to talk about specific examples. Can you reiterate the prison example, I apologise but I forget the specifics and it's difficult to read back through each comment to find it again :)
I am misunderstanding what you mean by "objective", assuming you mean anything at all given how your theory completely dismantles the traditional definition of objectivity. Can you clarify what it is you mean?
In normal language objective means bias free and constrained to facts. In reality no one is bias free. So a human cannot be objective, they can only be more objective or less objective. So my meaning is the normal meaning.
What you are talking about is absolutely objective and absolutely subjective, which is something I'm not sure we can demonstrate. For example you can say your desk is objectively real and measure it. But what you mean is that in your subjective opinion the desk appears to be real.
For example you might eat some rotten meat and say it is disgusting. Scientifically there is no such thing as disgusting, there is no disgust particle. Although microbes can be identified and rotten meat can be measured. The brain can even by measured and the 'disgust' part of the brain can be seen to fire up. If the 'disgust' part of the brain was removed you could possibly still identify the meat as tasting rotten but it would no longer be disgusting.
For me disgusting can be clearly seen to a be a function of an objectively real thing (the brain). Also rotten meat can be identified in a lab. In this sense it is objectively real that you can experience disgust. But the experience is subjective of course. It is an interpretation of a real thing. It can be a better or worse interpretation.
That it is objectively good for me should indicate to everyone that there is a clear, knowable answer.
No this does not follow. For example gravity may exist objectively, but do I (or anyone) know what causes gravity?
It exists the way it exists regardless of what anybody says about it and subjectivity is the opposite, it is inherently bias and is true by virtue of an interpretation.
I still don't know how you get from everything is subjective to belief in an objective universe? One does not follow from the other. If all experience is subjective then there is no need for objective reality.

I already said that the mechanism to turn objective reality into subjective experience is unknown. The conclusion I draw from that is that I don't know. The proof I present to you is that there is no proof. If you provided me with proof of how objectivity becomes subjectivity then I would revise my position. Until that point I don't know where one starts and the other ends. I'm not being clever, I'm just saying I don't know. That is not a very strong position. You have decided that you do know, but I have not made the same decision.

In the end what practical difference does it make? What propositions based off of what I have said do you not agree with? I have made very little in the way of recommendations and mostly only reiterated that it is better to be closer to the truth than further away. I have linked some studies that support this. I have made a few examples. The examples you have made where you oppose the idea I disagree with.

If we imagined a case where there was no truth then my statement would still hold. It simply wouldn't apply to that case.
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Judaka »

You haven't dealt with any of the criticism but provided some of your own, I do hope you will take some time to explain away some of my criticism as well, anyway I will answer these concerns.
Give me a general example where being further from the truth is always or mostly always better?
I don't need to do that because as I already explained, that is not my position. There are few general rules that show falsehoods to be advantageous to lies and those few rules are diminished even further if I am forced into discussing life/death or evolution context. To revisit the prison sentence example, we have a 10 party advisory group giving their opinions on how harsh the punishment should be for a particular crime. Each member advises differently but none say anything untrue, instead they prioritise differently what is most important. Economic advantages, forgiveness to the criminal, protecting society, giving the aggrieved justice and so on. Now as to your "axiom" response, you have admitted that this is your subjective view and to me, that completely diminishes the "axiom" response as a legitimate counter-argument to the prison sentence example, now you are just adding yet another new yet equally truthful interpretation. It is true that we cannot believe as we wish, it is true people will usually desire to survive and proliferate and yet, that you have followed the truth to the best of your ability merely makes you an equal of the party members. You all follow the truth you find most compelling and yet all arrive at different answers and honestly this is an argument of alignment for me, it is true but something else comes before that. The notion of something being "objectively better" only makes sense when we are talking about causality - i.e being better "at" something and I thought you had agreed with this. If you haven't then that would make more sense because it appears self-evident that a subjective axiom is subjective, something better at achieving that axiom may be objectively better at doing so but it is a fairly meaningless distinction from the perspective of truth and objectivity. It only matters to those who believe in it, certainly I couldn't care less about whether anything I do fits your standards and you'd be a fool to feel any differently about mine.

If you do however recognise that something can only be objectively better "at" something and in no other context then it comes back to you making a might is right argument. It is not just about what spawns from free will or culture, even nature gives absolutely no credence to actions or thoughts it creates as being objective. You say objective is without bias and constrained to facts, I agree with this definition but "constrained to facts" means no interpretation. Here comes my frustration, there is blatant interpretation required in your arguments and I would have no problem with this if you weren't calling it objective. Your axiom and whatever it is you consider "good" or "best" are inherently subjective interpretations, there is no "good" or "best" as you well know. You say as much about "disgusting" and yet come to such conclusions in a different context, I am not sure what misunderstanding is taking place here.
You are however not entirely 'free' to pick and choose your own axioms. For example you cannot just decide what to believe in a straight forward manner. I can't decide to believe I can fly for example. And I can't decide that my life has no value to myself.
I wonder about that, clearly not on a whim but people have trained the mind to think a greal deal of things. Brainwashing exists and people are capable of deciding their life has no value, or even that they can fly. There are many examples of such things, just not of them happening by willpower alone. Leaving that aside, it does not matter what axiom I choose, I don't understand your argument here. It becomes more objective if my hormones or genetics encourage or force me to think a certain way?
No this does not follow. For example gravity may exist objectively, but do I (or anyone) know what causes gravity?
It may not be a known answer, but it is a knowable answer, there is something that causes gravity independent of our interpretations, a truth to be known. If this were the case for your view of "objectively good FOR one" then you would be saying that there is a knowable answer for I presume, every question to do with "what is good for one". We know this about gravity because it exists, you are saying you know neither the cause nor the effect of "objectively good for one". Isn't that a little absurd considering you are the one saying that it exists? You require neither the cause nor the effect? Is that how the scientific method works in your understanding? Well you seem to feel that I must provide the answers, I will do my best but as with nihilism and atheism, there is no easy answer that offers certainty, but it is difficult to argue that both sides possess equal credibility. Ultimately this debate depends entirely on our definitions, there is no actual thing as objectivity or subjectivity and so we debate terminology more than we do truth. Is something "objectively better", "subjectively better" or is the true answer that "better" is a meaningless term? The actual occurrence could be the same, i.e we are saved from dying to gravity by holding an opinion that it would not be the best thing for us to try to fly. The reason it is still worth debating despite that is because we are talking about how one should go about evaluating what is good. Should they seek some ultimate objective truth or try to find what for themselves, based on what they know to be true. The difference between our opinions has nothing to do with objectivity/subjectivity at all, it is about a philosophy of goals.
I still don't know how you get from everything is subjective to belief in an objective universe?
Did I say everything is subjective? If we think about subjectivity depending upon intelligent beings (which I strongly believe it does) then what would happen if all intelligent beings died? Would the Earth no longer circle around the sun? Would the entire universe explode into nothing? Would existence itself die out? My answer is no, my reasoning is that as far as I can tell intelligent beings are not involved in much of the known causality of the universe and yet the universe exists. When I say "objectively better" I am describing the word "better" as objectively true and nothing more, it is a trifling topic in comparison to whether or not the universe exists, not something I was attempting to discuss at all since I have actually said I believe in an objective universe many different times, in different ways and even reached agreements with you about what that means...
If all experience is subjective then there is no need for objective reality
You are speaking to a nihilist, my whole view is that there IS no need for objective reality, nor purpose or anything like that. I do not see any contradiction here with regards to saying all experience is subjective.
I already said that the mechanism to turn objective reality into subjective experience is unknown. The conclusion I draw from that is that I don't know. The proof I present to you is that there is no proof. If you provided me with proof of how objectivity becomes subjectivity then I would revise my position. Until that point I don't know where one starts and the other ends.
They are two different things, it's like asking how does a rock become a lamb, I have no idea how an objective truth could become subjective! Not without tearing apart the definition of objective. Objective means by your definition "bias free and constrained to facts" and I don't understand where you see a spectrum here. "BIAS FREE" means no bias at all, it is black and white - as soon as there is bias then by your own definition it's no longer objective and therefore must be subjective. You say it must be "constrained to facts" where is the spectrum here? Either it is constrained to facts or it isn't, the moment it is no longer constrained to facts then by your own definition, it is no longer objective. I don't see how there is anything more for me to say here, give me a revised definition that actually makes sense with your spectrum theory.
In the end what practical difference does it make? What propositions based off of what I have said do you not agree with? I have made very little in the way of recommendations and mostly only reiterated that it is better to be closer to the truth than further away
Like I said from the start, it's not that simple and I hope I've done a bit to explain what practical difference it makes. If you were actually correct here, it would hurt many other philosophies I have and therefore it is significant to me. These are topics that I formed opinions on many years ago, it is fun to revisit them like this and I have built a lot on them, it is not insignificant to me. However as I also said, I am not here to change the world one person at a time either, I hope to become more articulate and charismatic by debating like this, to have holes shown in my arguments and to have fun debating against people who share my interest in philosophy.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

You haven't dealt with any of the criticism but provided some of your own, I do hope you will take some time to explain away some of my criticism as well, anyway I will answer these concerns.
I apologise, there is a lot of criticism and it's hard to reply point by point. If you would prefer to make one criticism at a time it may be more productive.
we have a 10 party advisory group giving their opinions on how harsh the punishment should be for a particular crime. Each member advises differently but none say anything untrue, instead they prioritise differently what is most important. Economic advantages, forgiveness to the criminal, protecting society, giving the aggrieved justice and so on.
Let me try to explain again. If you take an individual X. That person has wants and needs. That person has a nature. That person can say things like I like this or I don't like that. They can be happy or unhappy. Content or discontent. This is factual that this person has this nature. There are events which would be good or bad relative to this nature. logically there is a 'best' event and a 'worst' event. Even if the 'best' and 'worst' are unknown they still logically exist.
Now this party of 10 people could all have very different natures. And they could all disagree with each other and be correct to do so. There is no 'correct' resolution to this. But there is a resolution. I mean don't get me wrong, there is no instant resolution or specific resolution, there is only an extreme long term resolution. Namely whatever survives survives. Natures which are more likely to lead to long term survival are more likely to lead to long term survival. This has nothing to do with 'right' or 'wrong', it just is.

Now in reality if course this process has been running for a long long time. Almost everything that humans can, largely, agree is moral supports long term survival. Which I why I declared that to be my axiom. I'm not saying that axiom is 'right' I'm just saying that it exists and is the most likely to exist.

Again in reality it is likely that all those ten random people share far far more than they don't share. It is highly likely that the proposals each one might make could be very divergent. Much more divergent than their nature. So in this context some of the proposals could well be 'better' than other proposals. Just to give one simple example I may propose something, it could be carried out, and then it could turn out I was mistaken. Again this has nothing to do with 'right' or 'wrong'. My point is just that for those ten there is likely a 'best' solution.
Economic advantages, forgiveness to the criminal, protecting society, giving the aggrieved justice
Let us say that one person argues shorter sentencing will lead to economic advantages. But then due to shorter sentencing their is increased crime.
Forgiveness to the criminal is not rewarded with reciprocity and a reformed character but instead with contempt and the belief that victims are mugs which deserve what is coming to them.
Longer sentences are meant to protect society but due to the longer sentencing criminals are desperate and much more likely to turn to extreme violence in a bid to do anything but get caught.
Justice results in forced labour camps which leads to mass violent riots.
I mean I can go on and on. I'm not pretending for one second that I have all or any of the answers to the above scenario. I'm just pointing out that what people want is unlikely to be the examples you've raised. It's more likely that people in that position have the goal of reducing future crime. This is a goal they can all share, even if they have wildly different ways to achieve said goal. But in theory, if not in practice, the result could be measured.

-- Updated October 9th, 2017, 10:31 am to add the following --
However as I also said, I am not here to change the world one person at a time either, I hope to become more articulate and charismatic by debating like this, to have holes shown in my arguments and to have fun debating against people who share my interest in philosophy.
I also find it fun :) But I'd be quite happy to change the world one person at a time :)
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Judaka »

Let me try to explain again. If you take an individual X. That person has wants and needs. That person has a nature. That person can say things like I like this or I don't like that. They can be happy or unhappy. Content or discontent. This is factual that this person has this nature.
Sure.
There are events which would be good or bad relative to this nature. logically there is a 'best' event and a 'worst' event. Even if the 'best' and 'worst' are unknown they still logically exist.
To understand my criticism of this point - which has been consistent throughout this discussion, you need to understand the difference between an argument of validity and objective truth, I have tried to explain this many times and I am not sure what your issue with it is. You don't want to explain how you decide any of this and you feel it is irrelevant yes? Logically it exists even though you can't demonstrate it or explain the process, logically it exists. For this to be an objective truth, interpretation cannot be a factor and yet interpretation is necessary in almost every aspect of your premises. Individual X has wants and needs yet clearly has limited resources, his wants and needs contradict each other by competing for these resources, this is important to remember.

We cannot even measure happiness without interpretation, is that not what your question of happy pig vs unhappy man is at least somewhat related to? Regardless, the simple questions such as bursts of happiness compared to consistent happiness or happiness as satisfaction versus happiness as pleasure. The event which creates the most happiness, may be the best event for someone who values happiness alone but certainly that in of itself is a personal decision. There are many things we want and need besides happiness and contentment, I find this all very difficult to deny. Let's explore the argument of if we said, taking all of these things into account, still there is a best event based on these preferences. We can rule out this being done by individual X immediately, not only (as you've said many times) does he not know what he wants or what will be best for him, but he isn't even aware of many possibilities which could very well be the "best event".
Yes but what I am saying is that in this scenario it is possible to be more right or more wrong. I experience my life, I am of the personal opinion that it is better to be an unhappy man than a happy pig, so therefore some goals are better than other goals to ME.
You contradict yourself though, you also talk about the dangers of self-diagnosis, about how people cannot know what is best for them because they lack omniscience and I completely agreed with that. You have already said all the right answers and since then it's just been me trying to hold you to them, and you trying to backpedal. So let's talk about predetermined reactions as well.

Now we need Individual X to have predetermined reactions to all stimulus, reason being that without this, we cannot know what is the best event since it is essential in saying what is the "best" event, his reaction to it. If something makes him happy or not, this is essential. The best event is known by the desired reaction, in other words - whether it gives him his subconsciously desired (he himself, cannot state it) or give him what he is most appreciative of after he has it? I don't know, another thing that requires interpretation. I suppose this includes whether he prefers short bursts or consistent exposure to whatever it is that "is best for him". Even after you've done all this, you've gotta say that "the best event" is the event that gives individual X whatever he subconsciously desires. When in actual fact, that is an interpretation of what "the best event" is to begin with, you decide that is what the best event is but there's nothing about that decision that makes it objectively true. The whole thing from start to finish, is completely absent of logic, this is an argument of validity that only makes sense with your personal interpretation.
But there is a resolution
Umm.. obviously there are resolutions, that is not relevant to my point. My point is that none of the interpretations are untrue, which makes adherence to truth useless in determining your own answer to the question. My point is that it's not as simple as some things being true and others false, my point is that interpretation
For example I stated that being closer to the truth is, most of the time, preferable than being further from the truth. I mean that is the start of our disagreement, you seemed to claim that what people think is more important than reality, whereas I don't agree with that.
What I have been saying is that truth with respect to methodology is invaluable, you have had a wide array of disagreeable views that misrepresent the status of subjective interpretation. You make subjective interpretations on what axioms are and are not more important as if to say "Yes, I really don't understand what interpretation means". I was glad you finally recognised that your views hinged upon a subjective axiom but instantly disappointed to see that you felt your axiom actually had credibility beyond the alternatives. Even now you talk about belittling the axioms of others, unintentionally using what are undeniably, your own subjective interpretations. These interpretations hold no inconsistencies, there is no argument to be made outside of interpretation. That is my point, it's not a question of fact or logic, it's a realm where interpretation presides and it answers to nothing.
It's more likely that people in that position have the goal of reducing future crime. This is a goal they can all share, even if they have wildly different ways to achieve said goal
These interpretations only make sense provided crime exists, naturally in this case, all of these people would want to reduce crime but that isn't relevant. So long as crime exists, we do not need to prioritise reducing crime at the expense of our other concerns. So we can still choose to give justice to the aggrieved for example, even while knowing that such an action is likely to increase crime overall. I wouldn't be overly keen on giving a slap on the wrist to serious criminals even if it were proven that it reduces crime to do so, what you've said does nothing to simplify the issue.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

Let's explore the argument of if we said, taking all of these things into account, still there is a best event based on these preferences. We can rule out this being done by individual X immediately, not only (as you've said many times) does he not know what he wants or what will be best for him, but he isn't even aware of many possibilities which could very well be the "best event".
Oh I get what you saying, it's just I draw different conclusions. Let us imagine the following.
1. We do not know ourselves what our own goal is, or should be (absolutely).
2. Even if we did know this goal we would not be able to measure if we had attained said goal (absolutely).
3. We especially cannot do the above for others.
4. We cannot define a 'simple' thing like happiness.
5. We cannot define 'good' or 'bad'.
6. etc etc etc

I think I pretty much agree with the majority of the bedrock of what you are saying. But despite that my whole world is built upon axioms that I cannot begin to prove I am still able to assign value and differentiate between 'better' and 'worse' things and function from a purely subjective viewpoint in an objective universe. I do not know how this is possible, I only know that it is. Now you seem to draw the conclusion that because of the above everything is simply a matter of interpretation, there is no better or worse interpretation and, vitally, objective reality has nothing to do with that interpretation. I am simply saying unknown is unknown and that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the water. We are all quite capable of operating in this world and will largely agree on a number of matters (we can all stop at red lights). Sure we don't have perfect knowledge, we have to accept that, but we do have some practical knowledge. Some actions are clearly 'better' than others. All I am saying is that it is possible to do 'better' or 'worse' according to your own nature and that reality is what everything is hanging from. In my world if you took away reality you would take away all subjective experience too. But in your world reality could be easily taken away and everything would be the same.

Again don't get me wrong. I'm pretty sure we are actually agreeing 90%, even on the bits we disagree on. Taking evolution as a blind watchmaker then you can see how we are able to somewhat accurately gauge reality (although not perfectly) but you can also see how we may make mistakes (profound ones). And there is no way to tell the mistakes apart from the accuracies. Philosophically there is no way to tell 'right' from 'wrong'. All I can do is make my best attempt. And the only thing which is 'testing' that attempt is reality (via living), which is itself not going to give linear results.

Interpretation is all we have. But interpretation is an imperfect tool.
So we can still choose to give justice to the aggrieved for example, even while knowing that such an action is likely to increase crime overall.
This is called cutting off your nose to spite your face. A lot of people do do that, but it's not often the 'best' course of action.
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Judaka »

But despite that my whole world is built upon axioms that I cannot begin to prove I am still able to assign value and differentiate between 'better' and 'worse' things and function from a purely subjective viewpoint in an objective universe
Aren't you able to do that because you possess imagination and figurative thinking? You are capable of thinking about things outside of what actually exists in objective reality, which is pretty much the whole point and what makes your following comments seem a bit silly. You have surmised my argument with acceptable accuracy, said that we shall imagine the following 5+ points and come to conclusions which completely contradict them. I wonder what it is you think we agree on... once again agreeing with all premises but arriving at a contradictory conclusion.
Now you seem to draw the conclusion that because of the above everything is simply a matter of interpretation, there is no better or worse interpretation and, vitally, objective reality has nothing to do with that interpretation.
This is an accurate summary of what I am saying, the only stipulation I would make is that I am purely talking in terms of "objective truth", clearly within subjective interpretation there are better and worse interpretations. Also clearly if an interpretation is supposed to achieve something, it now becomes a method and a method can be evaluated causally, in completely practical and undeniable terms. Once again, I have said all of this before at least once. Interpretation is also not separate from objective reality, after all interpretation requires something to interpret to begin with. We know that certain interpretations become more likely based on ones life experience, if someone is abused as a child then likelihoods of certain interpretations increase and so on. If we lived in a world where (x quality) was most important, then interpretations should shift to that understanding. Your own interpretation would be meaninglessly in a time period before evolution was discovered or in a reality where evolution never existed to begin with. You would have never come up with it and you would have some other axiom which guided your philosophy.
I am simply saying unknown is unknown and that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the water. We are all quite capable of operating in this world and will largely agree on a number of matters (we can all stop at red lights). Sure we don't have perfect knowledge, we have to accept that, but we do have some practical knowledge. Some actions are clearly 'better' than others.
What is unknown here? You will always be able to say "what if?" no matter how much information exists. However as far as this topic goes, there is not much that is unknown. It is as you have said in your 5 points, each point has insurmountable evidence behind it. What point do you feel does not have this? So long as you accept those points, then why would you refer to matters of interpretation as "knowledge? After all this time, you still don't understand what an interpretation is. You are once again, making arguments based on interpretations and trying to say that this demonstrates objective truth. You say:
Some actions are clearly 'better' than others.
They are clearly better IF you have goals and interpretations already put in place - if you evaluate an action's ability to achieve a desired outcome. "It is objectively true that crossing a red light is foolish if you wish to..." Yes, undoubtedly, you want to say though "It could be objectively true that crossing a red light is foolish" yet by the definition of foolish, bad, or whatever word you wanna use - surely it all depends on your interpretation. To excite yourself by doing something dangerous and rebellious, this seems like the perfect thing to do. You unwittingly evaluate actions based on your own interpretations and this is what you have done from the start. In order for you to understand this subject, you must be able to view causality without applying your own personal bias. Once you can do that, you will see that to add anything to causality, you must apply interpretation. Stopping in front of a red light means stopping in front of a red light, that is all. Causality does not judge you fool or not, does not say it is bad or good, that is all interpretation, you can not see the difference?
All I am saying is that it is possible to do 'better' or 'worse' according to your own nature and that reality is what everything is hanging from
As long as you accept whoever defines "better", "worse" and "nature" is a human, and does so with bias and subjectivity then I don't disagree. The problem is if you want to say that objectively some things are better or worse, wouldn't this just mean you disagree with your 5 points?
In my world if you took away reality you would take away all subjective experience too. But in your world reality could be easily taken away and everything would be the same.
I don't understand this comment.
And there is no way to tell the mistakes apart from the accuracies. Philosophically there is no way to tell 'right' from 'wrong'. All I can do is make my best attempt
You think "right" and "wrong" exist in the universe, yet deny that you believe in objective moral law? That is the literal definition of objective moral law, something you have so far been adamant you do not believe in.
So we can still choose to give justice to the aggrieved for example, even while knowing that such an action is likely to increase crime overall.

This is called cutting off your nose to spite your face. A lot of people do do that, but it's not often the 'best' course of action.
You say you cannot address all criticism, but of what I had to say, this quote is very far away from the main message which I suppose you chose to ignore. Nonetheless, this is you bringing your own interpretation into things and calling it "the best" and whatever else "not the best" isn't it? All it would mean is that I care more about the present than the future, more about justice than results or tradition over progress. Contemporary, western values (which have so far been almost identical to your own, which makes arguing you more interesting I'll admit) completely condemn all of those things but that doesn't mean there's no value to alternative ways of thinking. After all, it does just come down to your values and values as goals rather than methods exist in a realm where interpretation presides, unassailable as ill-founded knowledge or whatnot.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

"It could be objectively true that crossing a red light is foolish" yet by the definition of foolish, bad, or whatever word you wanna use - surely it all depends on your interpretation. To excite yourself by doing something dangerous and rebellious, this seems like the perfect thing to do. You unwittingly evaluate actions based on your own interpretations and this is what you have done from the start.
Ok so it would be nice to take specific examples. Then we can perhaps see how our two approaches differ.
I find it somewhat interesting that I feel there is less room for interpretation than you do but regarding punishing criminals my, on the surface, greater rigidity leads to more leniency than your superficially more lenient stance. This seems like somewhat of a paradox to me.
Anyway back to the red light.
1. If I personally ran a red light out of a wish for danger and rebellion then it is likely that this would not be the best option for me.
2. I would perhaps do better if I knew what I was rebelling and focused my efforts.
3. Again there are perhaps dangerous activities I can partake of which don't effect innocent lives.
4. If I was caught running a red light I may lose my licence, this would be annoying.
5. Worse case is that I get involved in an accident and either injure myself or others (or worse). Again clearly not a good choice for me.
6. Also we shouldn't ignore the fact that I don't want other people to run red lights so the best way for me to do this is to go with the convention. It is clearly safer if we all drive with certain conventions that we agree not to break.
7. If everyone ran reds lights then red lights would be pretty pointless and driving very dangerous. I may wish to have my rebellious and dangerous activities but I want those within certain rules. If there were no rules then it would be difficult to rebel against them.
So I would do better if I channeled some of those emotions into a more positive direction. My life would be better for me personally. Running a red light is more complex than it might seem on the surface. Is that something we can agree on?
Points 1 to 7 are likely true for you, I assume you don't want other people to run red lights. I assume you wouldn't want to do it yourself and injure yourself or others. This is key though in that it is theoretically possible for your nature to not agree with the above points. Perhaps pure chaos is your true desire. So in this instance I am agreeing with you that there is nothing to sort my opinion from yours objectively.
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Judaka »

Ok so it would be nice to take specific examples. Then we can perhaps see how our two approaches differ
Not sure what examples you are looking for, I am saying that physical truths exist such as actions, biology and so on - "reality exists" and from there we can observe causality - the processes within that physical world and then from there we can classify outcomes as "good" or "bad" and whatever other adjectives we choose. We agree that the physical world - reality, does not use such adjectives, I argue causality also, does not use these terms nor has the capacity to involve them in its processes or functionality. So these terms come from intelligent life, that means they are subjective. So you describe a physical reality "Stopping at a red light" and you describe causality "Losing a license" and "it being annoying" and then you say "So I would do better if I channeled some of those emotions into a more positive direction" and to me the gap between each thing is really clear. Clearly, for you - it is not. I don't understand why you do not see the gap or what part of my understanding you disagree with.
I find it somewhat interesting that I feel there is less room for interpretation than you do but regarding punishing criminals my, on the surface, greater rigidity leads to more leniency than your superficially more lenient stance. This seems like somewhat of a paradox to me
I don't know what you're talking about here, I don't recall having ever stated my own stance on punishing criminals, nor do I recall your stance on it.
I would perhaps do better if I knew what I was rebelling and focused my efforts.
Not necessarily, I think such a meaningless act of rebellion would be more about the feeling of rebelling than actually achieving something.
Again there are perhaps dangerous activities I can partake of which don't effect innocent lives.
This is your own value, there is no reason an individual needs to care about innocent lives.
If I was caught running a red light I may lose my licence, this would be annoying.
Annoying to you, perhaps not annoying to the individual. Even if it were annoying to the individual, perhaps annoyance is not viewed negatively - perhaps it feeds the negative emotions of rebelling and contempt the individual thrives off.
Worse case is that I get involved in an accident and either injure myself or others (or worse). Again clearly not a good choice for me.
Not all people choose not to do things based on the worst case scenario, I'd think someone who runs red lights is already a gambler and gets off on the fact there's a scary worse case, isn't that the whole point of taking a risk?
Also we shouldn't ignore the fact that I don't want other people to run red lights so the best way for me to do this is to go with the convention. It is clearly safer if we all drive with certain conventions that we agree not to break.
Okay but if we step back into reality, the individual running red lights isn't going to cause everyone else to do it, why would that be a factor in their decision making. Also perhaps they don't care about this possibility, if they cared about safety why would they run red lights in the first place?
If everyone ran reds lights then red lights would be pretty pointless and driving very dangerous. I may wish to have my rebellious and dangerous activities but I want those within certain rules. If there were no rules then it would be difficult to rebel against them.
Why must the individual care about maintaining the functionality of red lights? Why does the individual desire rules? Perhaps the individual is rebelling against rules to begin with? How are these not your interpretations, you literally talk about "what you want" as though pointing out these things demonstrates a necessity for the individual that undermines their actions. None of these things complicate the issue in the slightest, they are all things you are suggesting the individual "might" care about or perhaps more honestly you feel "should" care about. Then used either the possibility that the individual holds some of your views or your belief that the individual MUST hold some of these views to say "The individual would do better if he didn't run red lights" in what ought to be, an argument from you offering opposition to my "approach" that says there is no such thing as "objectively better FOR YOU", right?

Now this response is completely ignoring the fact that you made the rest of your post meaningless when you said:
So in this instance I am agreeing with you that there is nothing to sort my opinion from yours objectively.
How is your approach different then? You were able to rationalise to yourself that perhaps the individual wants pure chaos and that satisfies your view that indeed, some interpretations allow for seemingly absurd methods to accomplish something you can not argue against? I think what is amusing is that for you, this came down to whether or not you feel their interpretation is the best one for them or not (using your own interpretations) yet your entire argument is that certain goals are objectively better than others based on how their ability to satisfy our needs and wants even though the individual themselves won't (nor anyone else) have access to the knowledge of what they are. Despite that, an individual is able to decide that they desire chaos (something that would clearly lower standard of living by conventional measurements) and you accept that as their "wants and needs"? Your whole argument is that the individual has no say, there is an objectively best option for them - they are not even aware of what they want nor all the options. This was my understanding of your argument.

Objective truth aside, I would also contest the idea that somebody truly desired chaos - I would think there are some inconsistencies with this view. That they are not ready to sacrifice what would have to be sacrificed - that they would regret it if true chaos came to be. I would not say they are objectively wrong to want chaos - or that other options exist that are objectively better but I would still have negative feelings towards their view, I would believe their view would hurt them in the long run and they would probably regret wasting their time on such a naive desire. If you really think you can't objectively differentiate the value between valuing chaos over alternatives then aren't you on the wrong side of this debate?
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Eduk »

Like i said we agree on a lot.
You seem to have missed a lot of times I used I above. That meant me, not anyone else. I, being me, would not do well by my, mine, own character if I was to jump a red light just as an act of rebellion(on average).
Let me try to reiterate.
I have a nature. This is a fact. It cannot be absolutely measured but there is no necessity for absolutism. It is clear that burying me in sand would be bad accordingly to my nature. It is clear that if I drink a drink which burns my lips that I would not wish this. It is clear I would not like to work full time in a dead end job. It is clear I love my child and wife. And so on. The things which are clear range from banal to life changing. Not all things can be properly measured. But they do not need to be. My nature exists. My nature is real.
The question of am I, note I, better being a happy pig does not have an objective answer independent of me. But it does have an objective answer relative to me. I will factually be happier as a percentage chance.
I agree the point of life is not happiness. That is much too simplistic. After all it could be that you live life in a world which precludes such simple happiness. But we act so that we and our children and loved ones have a potential to live a happy life. It is complex. Not simply answered.
But interpretation does not change reality. Interpretation allows you to make the right choices to change reality.
For example many many people are unhappy and lying to themselves about how happy they are. I call it sweet grapes.
The primary function of life is to exist. Anything that goes against existing is almost certainly undesirable.
Unknown means unknown.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Best world scenario

Post by Judaka »

I have a nature. This is a fact.
A nature? What do you mean by this? You have inclinations? Habits? Biological needs? Psychological needs? Interests? Feelings for others, concepts, things, places? You have your philosophies and axioms, you have your self-image and your possessions. You wish to say that you simplify all of what you are into a single, organised thing and then claim you can say what is good and bad for that thing, while admitting you cannot describe the process, you cannot objectively say what is "good" and "bad" and you say that it simply "logically exists" and "it is a fact that "this is good for my nature". You say these things, as though it is a new point that makes my previous criticism redundant and that criticism does not need to be answered or explained. Perhaps that when you said this:
Oh I get what you saying, it's just I draw different conclusions. Let us imagine the following.
1. We do not know ourselves what our own goal is, or should be (absolutely).
2. Even if we did know this goal we would not be able to measure if we had attained said goal (absolutely).
3. We especially cannot do the above for others.
4. We cannot define a 'simple' thing like happiness.
5. We cannot define 'good' or 'bad'.
6. etc etc etc
You meant that it is in fact knowable, it would seem also that you are not in complete acceptance of the idea that you yourself do not know - seeing as this red light example in your own words, is you telling me what does and what doesn't fit into what ought and ought not be your goals. Perhaps you think; we cannot define happiness but that logically, it exists? We cannot define "good" or "bad" but that does not mean concrete definitions exist for these terms and they exist in the universe, like knowledge that has yet to have been acquired? If you in fact meant that literally "good" and "bad are inherently subjective, then you categorically deny the concept of something being "objectively good" and if you believe that our goals or what we ought to do can be understood only through subjective interpretation then you categorically deny the idea that "our nature" defines for us, unassailable (objectively true) goals by which our purpose and function is to abide.

If you truly believe there is no objective validity in that we want what we want - that it is subjective - then your examples of "not wishing to burn your lips" or "not wishing to work full time in a dead end job" are inherently subjective desires - not possessing even the slightest shred of objective validity seeing as it is an inherently subjective classification. Now let me clarify, I do not deny that you do not wish for such things, that there is a truth of your feelings that exists in reality, perhaps existing as some physical component of your brain in the form of a memory or an idea - it is complicated to say to what extent it exists in your brain as a physical, verifiable and existing thing. That physical existence itself however is not in question, I am not debating the existence of your subjective opinions, I believe since they have a causal relationship with physical reality and that their existence is undeniable, based on my own interpretation of how these things work. I have stated, that I believe in a physical reality and act and speak under the understanding that generally, what my senses interpret to exist - actually exists. My view of what and what does not exist, is largely the same as any atheist or likeminded person, not a particularly outlandish view on the subject.

I am categorically opposed to the notion that your nature provides you with an objectively good goal - or that what one ought to do with their free will can be objectively defined. Saying the primary function of life is to exist is obviously just your opinion, from goal to function, same rules apply.

Now I could understand why you might think "This is not really a worthwhile argument, I agree with you on all but this one point but mostly our views align" but to me what you are saying is extremely disagreeable because I highly value the ability to decide my own goals and values. I believe that rather than spending my life trying to chase after what others believe my goals should be, what I believe my goals should be or what seems logical for me to do - that I should instead change my goals and values in order to achieve results that I desire. Goals are nothing but tools, same as values, to occupy and entertain our minds, probably through evolution humans developed specific psychological desires that influence our thinking. Through nature and nurture, our nature is created and we gain the proclivities and dispositions, that I explained earlier in more detail - to me, this should be viewed as a chaotic, imperfect mess of random influences acquired without intelligence or plan, utility being a side factor in a context where decisions are not even made, things simply happen to us. To hold any degree of faithfulness to this confused mess you call our nature, for the sake of nothing and with the purpose of achieving nothing, I consider to be irrational. It is not something we can forsake, I understand that and I am not trying to be merely idealistic, I simply disagree that it deserves the respect you give it, I disagree with anyone who feels this thing should be offered the sanctuary of "objectivity". , it is an unintelligent, unthinking collection of things given to us by causal processes lacking a consistently profitable design.

Once again, I am not saying components of our nature have not been constructed from careful consideration, well intended habits and beliefs tuned through well used experience. I am not saying that evolution has not gifted us with nothing that should be of any use to us, although I think your view of "we exist that's amazing therefore we shouldn't underestimate what evolution gifted us" kind of thinking to be rather uninspired, a kind of blind faith that I despise. I believe everyone has contradicting desires, we have limited energy, limited resources, some are more conflicted than others to be sure but since we ourselves are solely responsible for what we prioritise, we should - rather than blind faith to anything. Prioritise, use our resources more wisely, eliminate contradictions, create realistic goals and aim for satisfaction - or whatever it is we prioritise. One can sacrifice pleasure for progress, sacrifice goals for contentment and change their habits to eliminate conflict. There is a causality involved with being a good husband, being good at your job, wise with your money, to being a good friend and having a view of these things which is most relevant to you. A good friend by whose definition? That should be decided based on what you want to achieve, not what is most true by some argument of validity we hear or create to make things easier. That causality is best served by carefully selected proclivities and dispositions, intelligently designed to achieve whatever you'd have them achieve - this is not something one will attain without change and adaptation - faithfulness to anything is a hindrance.

The perceived objectivity of things ruins the opportunity for many to think this way - the sacredness offered to dogma from the past, to the philosophies of others, to political alignments or scientific discoveries, is that not sad in your view? You, as most do, do not recognise how their pseudo (or literal) objective moral law betrays the real progress that could be achieved through causality-focused thinking, anything that is presented as unassailable is not only removed from reality but unlikely to measure up to causality-focused thinking in any measureable aspect. I recognise the temptation that some may have, to impose a view that in their view, creates the kind of world they wish to live in. A while back you commended me for not offering falsehoods to others, I personally hold no contempt for those who offer falsehoods but I do believe nobody should buy into them. I think it is not the world's peace that we bought with falsehoods but the world's madness, causality-focused thinking negates much (not all) of the worlds evil, people who do violence in the name of some absurd notion, with no foreseeable gain for themselves. Forms of entertainment derived from violence are high-risk, forms of violence done out of nationalism or religion, scarcely sound like good options from a causality-focused perspective, transient delusions of grandeur at the expense of your safety and freedom? Can that truly be a conclusion arrived at with causality-focused thinking? All of it can be by simply accepting your nature and justifying your action through your nature's objectivity.

Well I am not advocating this for the sake of eliminating violence from the world nor do I think it would, I just think by all measurements causality-focused thinking is superior. There is no "objectively good for you", there are goals and methods and telling me that either one of these cannot be interpreted and selected by the individual, for any reason, matters to me because of its relevance to this philosophy.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

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