Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

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
thrasymachus
Posts: 520
Joined: March 7th, 2020, 11:21 am

Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by thrasymachus »

The trouble with materialist models of the world is that they don't like to hold themselves accountable for the implications of their position. For such a system can only be a localized conception of a material thing: there is a mountain, and here is a mountain, and the two (notwithstanding quantum entanglement, which certainly hasn't the content to make for a discussion about the matter discussed here) have no mutual intimation of their existence, that is, one mountain, a thing, is delimited physically so as not to allow it to "enter" into the other. They are, you might say, epistemologically altogether separate.
Of course, we don't speak of epistemology between mountains, but we do between people and mountains. I know that mountain there, is there, and has white peaks and a sloping northern side, and so on.

How is it that a materialist model allows for "knowledge" of that mountain to be possible? For such knowledge would require something more than material accounts can give.

No. I'm afraid we are bound to one form of idealism or another.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by Terrapin Station »

Huh?

I don't really get what this is saying:

"For such a system can only be a localized conception of a material thing:"

or this:

"there is a mountain, and here is a mountain, and the two . . . have no mutual intimation of their existence" (Mutual intimation???)

or this:

"that is, one mountain, a thing, is delimited physically so as not to allow it to 'enter' into the other." ("Enter" the other??? In what way?)

or this:

"They are, you might say, epistemologically altogether separate." (it seems like maybe you'd want to say that they're ontologically separate instead. No idea, really, what "epistemologically separate" would refer to.)

And then none of those unclear things seem to have anything to do with this question:

"How is it that a materialist model allows for 'knowledge' of that mountain to be possible?"

The answer there isn't anything unusual. You make observations, you reason about them, etc., and you wind up making statements of justified true belief.

Finally, this is a claim that you made no argument for: "For such knowledge would require something more than material accounts can give."
User avatar
thrasymachus
Posts: 520
Joined: March 7th, 2020, 11:21 am

Re: Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by thrasymachus »

Terrapin Station wrote
Huh?

I don't really get what this is saying:

"For such a system can only be a localized conception of a material thing:"

or this:

"there is a mountain, and here is a mountain, and the two . . . have no mutual intimation of their existence" (Mutual intimation???)

or this:

"that is, one mountain, a thing, is delimited physically so as not to allow it to 'enter' into the other." ("Enter" the other??? In what way?)

or this:

"They are, you might say, epistemologically altogether separate." (it seems like maybe you'd want to say that they're ontologically separate instead. No idea, really, what "epistemologically separate" would refer to.)

And then none of those unclear things seem to have anything to do with this question:

"How is it that a materialist model allows for 'knowledge' of that mountain to be possible?"

The answer there isn't anything unusual. You make observations, you reason about them, etc., and you wind up making statements of justified true belief.

Finally, this is a claim that you made no argument for: "For such knowledge would require something more than material accounts can give."
There is a pen on the table and I know this. But then, the pen is supposed to be out there, not me, but "it" entirely separate from me. Now, look at the materialist model, which is derived from observations of the world of things. Two things, say, entirely separate, just like me and my pen, yet how do these exhibit the properties that can explain the knowing relationship I have with my pen? After all, if I am a material thing, then the model of materiality must be such at I can derive from it my epistemological dealings with the pen.

The things, separate, me and the pen. How does that pen get in my head such that I actually perceive the pen rather than what is in my head? How does it epistemologically traverse space to get to me at all? Let's see, visual event: light rays are variously reflected and absorbed, and those reflected are, well they are NOT the object that reflects them. Nor is the eye where the light is received by rods and cones then down the optic nerve...I mean, this is elementary school science.

Knowledge is supposed to be knowledge OF the object. How does this actually get accomplished?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7096
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by Sculptor1 »

thrasymachus wrote: August 10th, 2020, 10:27 am The trouble with materialist models of the world is that they don't like to hold themselves accountable for the implications of their position. For such a system can only be a localized conception of a material thing: there is a mountain, and here is a mountain, and the two (notwithstanding quantum entanglement, which certainly hasn't the content to make for a discussion about the matter discussed here) have no mutual intimation of their existence, that is, one mountain, a thing, is delimited physically so as not to allow it to "enter" into the other. They are, you might say, epistemologically altogether separate.
Of course, we don't speak of epistemology between mountains, but we do between people and mountains. I know that mountain there, is there, and has white peaks and a sloping northern side, and so on.

How is it that a materialist model allows for "knowledge" of that mountain to be possible? For such knowledge would require something more than material accounts can give.

No. I'm afraid we are bound to one form of idealism or another.
Strawman.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7096
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by Sculptor1 »

Terrapin Station wrote: August 10th, 2020, 7:36 pm Huh?

I don't really get what this is saying:

"For such a system can only be a localized conception of a material thing:"

or this:

"there is a mountain, and here is a mountain, and the two . . . have no mutual intimation of their existence" (Mutual intimation???)

or this:

"that is, one mountain, a thing, is delimited physically so as not to allow it to 'enter' into the other." ("Enter" the other??? In what way?)

or this:

"They are, you might say, epistemologically altogether separate." (it seems like maybe you'd want to say that they're ontologically separate instead. No idea, really, what "epistemologically separate" would refer to.)

And then none of those unclear things seem to have anything to do with this question:

"How is it that a materialist model allows for 'knowledge' of that mountain to be possible?"

The answer there isn't anything unusual. You make observations, you reason about them, etc., and you wind up making statements of justified true belief.

Finally, this is a claim that you made no argument for: "For such knowledge would require something more than material accounts can give."
It's interesting when a materialist looks at some of their supposed descriptions they do not recognise them.
I'm not sure who he is criticising? Maybe a nominalist?
But there's no way that materialism is recognisable in the OP
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7096
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by Sculptor1 »

thrasymachus wrote: August 10th, 2020, 9:06 pm
The things, separate, me and the pen. How does that pen get in my head such that I actually perceive the pen rather than what is in my head?
Actually materialism has a pretty good explanation of that.

Let's hear yours - that is to say, your explanation that is not materialist of the same phenomenon.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by Belindi »

thrasymachus wrote: August 10th, 2020, 10:27 am The trouble with materialist models of the world is that they don't like to hold themselves accountable for the implications of their position. For such a system can only be a localized conception of a material thing: there is a mountain, and here is a mountain, and the two (notwithstanding quantum entanglement, which certainly hasn't the content to make for a discussion about the matter discussed here) have no mutual intimation of their existence, that is, one mountain, a thing, is delimited physically so as not to allow it to "enter" into the other. They are, you might say, epistemologically altogether separate.
Of course, we don't speak of epistemology between mountains, but we do between people and mountains. I know that mountain there, is there, and has white peaks and a sloping northern side, and so on.

How is it that a materialist model allows for "knowledge" of that mountain to be possible? For such knowledge would require something more than material accounts can give.

No. I'm afraid we are bound to one form of idealism or another.
Materialism and idealism are frames for inspecting where you find yourself here and now in the world. Each frame has its uses. It's useful to be able to distinguish between one mountain and another when you want to find your way to the mountain pass, as if the two mountains and the mountain pass really exist. It's also useful to be able to recognise optical illusions for what they are and so understand everything is not as it seems but may be mind stuff.

My preferred stance is therefore dual aspect monism.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by Terrapin Station »

thrasymachus wrote: August 10th, 2020, 9:06 pm
Terrapin Station wrote
Huh?

I don't really get what this is saying:

"For such a system can only be a localized conception of a material thing:"

or this:

"there is a mountain, and here is a mountain, and the two . . . have no mutual intimation of their existence" (Mutual intimation???)

or this:

"that is, one mountain, a thing, is delimited physically so as not to allow it to 'enter' into the other." ("Enter" the other??? In what way?)

or this:

"They are, you might say, epistemologically altogether separate." (it seems like maybe you'd want to say that they're ontologically separate instead. No idea, really, what "epistemologically separate" would refer to.)

And then none of those unclear things seem to have anything to do with this question:

"How is it that a materialist model allows for 'knowledge' of that mountain to be possible?"

The answer there isn't anything unusual. You make observations, you reason about them, etc., and you wind up making statements of justified true belief.

Finally, this is a claim that you made no argument for: "For such knowledge would require something more than material accounts can give."
There is a pen on the table and I know this. But then, the pen is supposed to be out there, not me, but "it" entirely separate from me. Now, look at the materialist model, which is derived from observations of the world of things. Two things, say, entirely separate, just like me and my pen, yet how do these exhibit the properties that can explain the knowing relationship I have with my pen? After all, if I am a material thing, then the model of materiality must be such at I can derive from it my epistemological dealings with the pen.

The things, separate, me and the pen. How does that pen get in my head such that I actually perceive the pen rather than what is in my head? How does it epistemologically traverse space to get to me at all? Let's see, visual event: light rays are variously reflected and absorbed, and those reflected are, well they are NOT the object that reflects them. Nor is the eye where the light is received by rods and cones then down the optic nerve...I mean, this is elementary school science.

Knowledge is supposed to be knowledge OF the object. How does this actually get accomplished?
I'm still not really following you. By the way, if it wasn't clear, I am a "materialist," though I prefer "physicalist," and naturally enough I'm a realist, too.

For one, your notion of "entirely separate" isn't that clear. Sometimes when people use terms like that it turns out that they're thinking of things as more or less being isolated from each other as if they were separated not only by vacuums but so there's no possibility of the things in question interacting or being intertwined in any way. So you'd need to clarify that. If you have in mind something like I'm describing, then I'd not say that any two things are "entirely separate" from each other.

Re the comment about perception, sure, the light waves are not identical to the pen, but they have a relationship to the pen, otherwise the whole notion of light waves reflected off the pen and received at your eyes, etc. wouldn't even make any sense.

It's not clear to me at all what you see as the problem there. It seems like you're thinking that the pen would have to literally be in you or be a part of you, but why you're thinking this I have no idea.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by Terrapin Station »

Belindi wrote: August 11th, 2020, 3:31 am
thrasymachus wrote: August 10th, 2020, 10:27 am The trouble with materialist models of the world is that they don't like to hold themselves accountable for the implications of their position. For such a system can only be a localized conception of a material thing: there is a mountain, and here is a mountain, and the two (notwithstanding quantum entanglement, which certainly hasn't the content to make for a discussion about the matter discussed here) have no mutual intimation of their existence, that is, one mountain, a thing, is delimited physically so as not to allow it to "enter" into the other. They are, you might say, epistemologically altogether separate.
Of course, we don't speak of epistemology between mountains, but we do between people and mountains. I know that mountain there, is there, and has white peaks and a sloping northern side, and so on.

How is it that a materialist model allows for "knowledge" of that mountain to be possible? For such knowledge would require something more than material accounts can give.

No. I'm afraid we are bound to one form of idealism or another.
Materialism and idealism are frames for inspecting where you find yourself here and now in the world. Each frame has its uses. It's useful to be able to distinguish between one mountain and another when you want to find your way to the mountain pass, as if the two mountains and the mountain pass really exist. It's also useful to be able to recognise optical illusions for what they are and so understand everything is not as it seems but may be mind stuff.

My preferred stance is therefore dual aspect monism.
In order to say there are optical illusions we can't be idealists, because we have to believe that:

(a) we have bodies, with eyes, that are situated in the world, where we receive visual data from things that are not identical to us,
(b) the visual data we receive can be interpreted incorrectly relative to what the source is really like in the external world, and
(c) we can know what the source is really like in the external world, so that we can know what we're getting wrong interpretively, which is necessary for the claim that we experienced an illusion in the first place.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by Belindi »

Terrapin Station wrote: August 11th, 2020, 6:49 am
Belindi wrote: August 11th, 2020, 3:31 am
Materialism and idealism are frames for inspecting where you find yourself here and now in the world. Each frame has its uses. It's useful to be able to distinguish between one mountain and another when you want to find your way to the mountain pass, as if the two mountains and the mountain pass really exist. It's also useful to be able to recognise optical illusions for what they are and so understand everything is not as it seems but may be mind stuff.

My preferred stance is therefore dual aspect monism.
In order to say there are optical illusions we can't be idealists, because we have to believe that:

(a) we have bodies, with eyes, that are situated in the world, where we receive visual data from things that are not identical to us,
(b) the visual data we receive can be interpreted incorrectly relative to what the source is really like in the external world, and
(c) we can know what the source is really like in the external world, so that we can know what we're getting wrong interpretively, which is necessary for the claim that we experienced an illusion in the first place.
But all of your a) b) and c) are subsumed under mind stuff. Idealism is such that mind creates all ideas and all sensations.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by RJG »

thrasymachus wrote:There is a pen on the table and I know this. But then, the pen is supposed to be out there, not me, but "it" entirely separate from me. Now, look at the materialist model, which is derived from observations of the world of things. Two things, say, entirely separate, just like me and my pen, yet how do these exhibit the properties that can explain the knowing relationship I have with my pen?
The experience of seeing a pen is certainly real, but the pen itself cannot be known to exist with certainty (...for it may be an illusion, dream, hallucination, etc).

We can only know what is in our head, not outside it. Our experiences are certainly real, but the realness of the 'things' (content) that we experience are anyone's guess.

thrasymachus wrote:I'm afraid we are bound to one form of idealism or another.
Not so. This does not mean that materialistic things like pens don't exist. It just means we can't directly experience them. (...we can only experience 'experiences'; the stuff in our head).


*****
Since the existence of non-materialistic objects (idealism) is logically impossible, then materialism is all that is truly real (truly exists). In other words, immaterial objects (such as "minds") don't/can't logically exist, therefore only physical material objects (physical bodies) can truly exist.


******
thrasymachus wrote:Knowledge is supposed to be knowledge OF the object. How does this actually get accomplished?
True knowledge is gained through 'objective' means (i.e. derived via logic/math), and not through 'subjective' means (i.e. derived experientially).

Subjective experiences (by themselves) are never trustworthy to yield true knowledge! ...we can't ever get objectivity through subjectivity!
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

thrasymachus wrote: August 10th, 2020, 10:27 am The trouble with materialist models of the world is that they don't like to hold themselves accountable for the implications of their position. For such a system can only be a localized conception of a material thing: there is a mountain, and here is a mountain, and the two (notwithstanding quantum entanglement, which certainly hasn't the content to make for a discussion about the matter discussed here) have no mutual intimation of their existence, that is, one mountain, a thing, is delimited physically so as not to allow it to "enter" into the other. They are, you might say, epistemologically altogether separate.
Of course, we don't speak of epistemology between mountains, but we do between people and mountains. I know that mountain there, is there, and has white peaks and a sloping northern side, and so on.

How is it that a materialist model allows for "knowledge" of that mountain to be possible? For such knowledge would require something more than material accounts can give.

No. I'm afraid we are bound to one form of idealism or another.
Apparently knowledge is a physical event. How would knowledge be possible without the physical brain?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by Terrapin Station »

Belindi wrote: August 11th, 2020, 7:43 am
Terrapin Station wrote: August 11th, 2020, 6:49 am

In order to say there are optical illusions we can't be idealists, because we have to believe that:

(a) we have bodies, with eyes, that are situated in the world, where we receive visual data from things that are not identical to us,
(b) the visual data we receive can be interpreted incorrectly relative to what the source is really like in the external world, and
(c) we can know what the source is really like in the external world, so that we can know what we're getting wrong interpretively, which is necessary for the claim that we experienced an illusion in the first place.
But all of your a) b) and c) are subsumed under mind stuff. Idealism is such that mind creates all ideas and all sensations.
"We have bodies" is different than "we have an illusion that we have bodies." I didn't say the latter. Believing that optical illusions can occur requires the former. Otherwise we're talking about an entirely different sort of phenomenon.

Likewise for (b).

Re (c), the notion that something is an illusion is incoherent if we're not positing that we perceived something to be different than it is or was, and we know what it was really like.
User avatar
thrasymachus
Posts: 520
Joined: March 7th, 2020, 11:21 am

Re: Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by thrasymachus »

Terrapin Station wrote
I'm still not really following you. By the way, if it wasn't clear, I am a "materialist," though I prefer "physicalist," and naturally enough I'm a realist, too.

For one, your notion of "entirely separate" isn't that clear. Sometimes when people use terms like that it turns out that they're thinking of things as more or less being isolated from each other as if they were separated not only by vacuums but so there's no possibility of the things in question interacting or being intertwined in any way. So you'd need to clarify that. If you have in mind something like I'm describing, then I'd not say that any two things are "entirely separate" from each other.

Re the comment about perception, sure, the light waves are not identical to the pen, but they have a relationship to the pen, otherwise the whole notion of light waves reflected off the pen and received at your eyes, etc. wouldn't even make any sense.

It's not clear to me at all what you see as the problem there. It seems like you're thinking that the pen would have to literally be in you or be a part of you, but why you're thinking this I have no idea.
How is it, to put it another way, that my "knowledge" of my pen is qualitatively different from the knowledge a bat has of a baseball? Yes, of course, the latter is infinitely less complex, but then complexity does not pull this rabbit out of the hat. When I say I know the pen, I am saying the pen is not entirely out there, beyond me, but somehow enters into my knowledge, and that whatever has contact with my physical system abides by the law of sufficient cause, and such causal accounts are supposed to be exhaustive, even given the minutia of, say, molecular collision (again, putting quantum entanglement aside, for now), in explaining the relation IN the causal exchange (bat's force, the ball's yielding). How does causality explain knowledge? In the physicalist model, we are bound to a physicalist's standards of behavior regarding physical things.

I am a physical thing, that is, my brain and all else is physical, but physicalist knowledge makes a stronger claim that this can provide for. Knowing my pen is on the table is supposed to be specifically about the pen and NOT the interceding causal processes that include light waves, air waves (sound), or, and it gets far worse here, neural systems of very causally complex operations, that bring the pen to perception. The pen never makes it perception, any more than the ball makes it to the bat.
User avatar
thrasymachus
Posts: 520
Joined: March 7th, 2020, 11:21 am

Re: Materialist, are you? Forget objective reality, then.

Post by thrasymachus »

Sculptor1 wrote
Strawman
Meaning I misrepresented the case to make it appear easily assailable. How so?
Actually materialism has a pretty good explanation of that.

Let's hear yours - that is to say, your explanation that is not materialist of the same phenomenon.
My position is clear: some form of idealism has to prevail. Details are pending on whether a physicalist account even gets off the ground. But the argument is, to me, simple in the extreme. Materialism/physicalism cannot provide conditions that make knowledge possible. Just tell me how this works in physicalist terms, and the argument is done. I will concede, but this is not going to happen.

Phenomenon? You mean, physical object. The same physical object? Given that IT is a material object and that I am as well, the consistency of its appearance is not at issue, if this is what you have in mind. But WHAT is it that is consistently appearing? How does a material object like myself know that the thing which is consistently appearing is the independent pen-thing, out there? It is the process of exchange that concerns me.
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