Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

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
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

RJG,

I asked this question already but I did not see your answer. If you answered it already I may have missed it. Either way, can you specify your answer to the following question: Are you using the word objective to mean something other than observer-independent? If so, what do you mean by the word objective?

Do you agree that directional orientation is not observer-independent? For instance, will one observer's right be another observer's left? Can one observer's right be another observer's forward?

Do you agree that directional orientation is not reference-frame-independent? For instance, is it true that from one reference frame the blue car is on the left but in another reference frame the blue car is on the right?


RJG wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 6:32 am
Scott wrote:For example, in regard to the 2D world in the OP, it is objectively true (i.e. true in an observer-independent and reference-frame-independent way) that the red car and the blue car are closer together than the red car and the green car. All would-be observers would agree on that fact; that fact is true in all would-be reference frames; and that fact is true without any observers or reference frames (or with our eyes closed).
Yes, but don't stop there. Not only do 1D relationships (distance between objects) objectively exist, but also 2D relationships.

In the 2D world in the OP (represented in the image), it is objectively (independent of human perception) true that:
  • 1. There exists a Red car and a Blue car.
    2. There exists a 1D relationship (distance line) from any reference point on the Red car to any reference point on the Blue car.
    3. There exists a 2D relationship (X-Y coordinates or polar (distance/angle)) from any reference point and axis on the Red car to any reference point on the Blue car.
Therefore, in this 2D world:
  • 1. Objects (Red and Blue car) exist independent of human perception; i.e. they objectively exist.
    2. 1D (distance) relationships exist independent of human perception; i.e. they objectively exist.
    3. 2D (X-Y or polar) relationships exist independent of human perception; i.e. they objectively exist.
...agreed?

To put it more simply -- in a 2D universe, if objects exist then the relationships (both 1D and 2D relationships) between these objects likewise exist.
Do I agree? Not exactly, because the 0D "reference point" and the "1D line" connecting two 0D "reference points" are mathematical constructions (i.e conceptual fictions) used to describe objective physical relationships, but they don't actually physically exist. 0D points don't actually exist; they are made-up to make reference frames. However, nonetheless, I think I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, which I think can also be said as follows: In classical physics, all observers will agree on the relative distance between two reference points, which means 'distance' is an objective, observer-independent, and reference-frame-independent measurement (in classical physics).

In other words, insofar as two observers agree on how to measure the distance between two real objects (e.g. what 2D border to treat as the surface of each object, and/or which point to treat as the center of each object), then their distance measurements will agree.

Generally and roughly speaking, it seems we agree on the above.

Scott wrote:In a 2D world, you can draw/imagine two perpendicular axises through any point, and you can label those two axises X and Y, but there infinite ways to draw them through any point and infinite points through which you could draw them. So even if the origin point is specified ,there are still infinite potential reference frames that could be created.
RJG wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 6:32 am Correct. But this doesn't mean that X-Y relationships do not "objectively" exist. All it means is that there is no "absolute" orientation of the X-Y axis. X-Y relationships exist nonetheless, at any and all orientations.
I am not sure what you mean by "X-Y relationships".

Perhaps, you are meaning to refer to the mathematical law that in unbent 2D space there exists for each 1D line a perpendicular 1D line. If so, I agree that that is a mathematical law, as objectively true as the fact that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is pi.

RJG wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 6:32 am These X-Y relationships (that we call "left/right - up/down") objectively exist between any and all reference points/axis's.
No. Three main things illustrate why that is false.

1. Through any reference point, infinite 1D lines could be drawn and any of those infinite drawn lines could be labeled as being an axis. Which of the infinite lines is selected out from the other infinite options to be treated as an axis in the reference frame is not observer-independent and is not reference-frame-independent.

2. Any 1D line drawn through a reference point specially selected out as an axis is equally entitled to be labeled as the Y axis or the X axis. In other words, any 1D line drawn through a reference point is equally able to be considered the leftness-rightness axis as the forwardness-backwardness axis. Whether the axis is assigned as being the leftness-rightness axis or forwardness-backwardness axis is not observer-independent and is not reference-frame-independent. Even if I draw a line on the image in the OP and tell you to treat that line as a reference line or axis for the reference frame, there is no way to say whether that 1D line is an X axis or a Y axis. Whether the line gets labeled as the X-axis or the Y-axis is not observer-independent and is not reference-frame-independent.

3. Even if you imagine a 0D point, and imagine a specific one of the infinite 1D lines through that 0D point as being an axis, and arbitrarily label that 1D axis as being the X-axis versus the Y-axis (and thus the other perpendicular line as being the Y-axis), you still have not created a full reference frame with which to use to determine left and right. In addition to arbitrarily labeling one of the arbitrarily selected 1D lines as the X or Y axis, you then need to also choose the positive direction on that axis (forward, backward, down, right, etc.), not just a line. Then you may have created a full reference frame in a 2D world. To illustrate, even if I draw two perpendicular lines on the image in the OP and tell you one of those two specific lines is the X-axis (the axis of left and right), and the other line is therefore the Y axis, and their intersection is the origin point of the would-be reference frame, I still even with all of that haven't provided a full reference frame from which for you to say whether the blue car is on the left or the right because you won't know which direction on the X-axis itself is left (negatively numbered) and which direction is right (positively numbered). That is not an observer-independent and reference-frame-independent choice. In other words, you need to specify a vector with directional oriental to get directional orientation and thereby have a created reference frame.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Sculptor1 wrote: May 2nd, 2021, 5:54 pm There is a very simple empirical experiement that utterly reduces this thread to meaningless verbage.

Simple put your shoes on the worng way and see how it feels.
By that fallacious logic, one can prove objective tastiness exists by eating their favorite ice cream, and seeing how delicious the ice cream tastes.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Sculptor1 »

Scott wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 2:28 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: May 2nd, 2021, 5:54 pm There is a very simple empirical experiement that utterly reduces this thread to meaningless verbage.

Simple put your shoes on the worng way and see how it feels.
By that fallacious logic, one can prove objective tastiness exists by eating their favorite ice cream, and seeing how delicious the ice cream tastes.
That's totally fallacious - this has nothing to do with ice creams of any subjective qualities.
This has to do with conrete objects which are ubiquitous throughout nature from electrons, molecules, and living things.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Sculptor1 wrote: May 2nd, 2021, 5:54 pm There is a very simple empirical experiement that utterly reduces this thread to meaningless verbage.

Simple put your shoes on the worng way and see how it feels.

[Emphasis added.]
Scott wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 2:28 pm By that fallacious logic, one can prove objective tastiness exists by eating their favorite ice cream, and seeing how delicious the ice cream tastes.
Sculptor1 wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 3:03 pm this has nothing to do with ice creams of any subjective qualities.
It seems you have committed the begging the question fallacy by asserting that "this" has nothing to do with anything subjective. You may have also contradicted yourself, depending on what you mean by the words "your", "wrong", "see", and "feels", all of which would typically indicate something that is clearly not observer-independent (i.e. objective).
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:...it is objectively (independent of human perception) true…
Scott wrote:Are you using the word objective to mean something other than observer-independent? If so, what do you mean by the word objective?
I think we both are using the same meaning of the word "objective". I think your "observer-independent" means the same as my "independent of human perceptions".

Scott wrote:Do you agree that directional orientation is not observer-independent?
No. Directional orientations objectively exist (independent of an observer). For example, look at your 2D picture at the beginning of the OP. There are an unlimited number of directions (both left and right) from an unlimited number of reference positions (one reference position from another reference position). And if you rotate the picture, there are still an unlimited number of directional orientations. The directional orientations may change depending on a specific reference point, but this "change" does not mean the leftness and rightness no longer objectively exist.

Scott wrote:For instance, will one observer's right be another observer's left? Can one observer's right be another observer's forward?
Yes, and this is what makes it 'relative' (non-absolute), but not non-objective. Absolute and objective have two different meanings. Directions (directional orientations; left-right) are 'relative' to the reference points. The reference points can be from objects themselves, and not necessarily from an observer's perspective.

Scott wrote:However, nonetheless, I think I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, which I think can also be said as follows: In classical physics, all observers will agree on the relative distance between two reference points, which means 'distance' is an objective, observer-independent, and reference-frame-independent measurement (in classical physics).

In other words, insofar as two observers agree on how to measure the distance between two real objects (e.g. what 2D border to treat as the surface of each object, and/or which point to treat as the center of each object), then their distance measurements will agree.

Generally and roughly speaking, it seems we agree on the above.
Yes, agreed. We both agree that "distance" between reference points on objects objectively exist.

So then, do you also agree there is a "distance" associated with the X component and a "distance" associated with the Y component of a 2D axis reference point on one object to another reference point on another object? In other words, if we agree one "distance" (aka hypotenuse) exists, then why not the two distances that make up the hypotenuse? It is a 2D world (your OP image) that we are talking about afterall.
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by -0+ »

RJG wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 10:29 am A 2D object/world could not exist without the two dimensions. Without the X (left-right) and the Y (up-down) dimensions, there could be no 2D objects or worlds.

P1. Without the 3 dimensions (X,Y,Z), 3D objects could not exist.
P2. 3D objects objectively exist.
C1. Therefore, the dimension X objectively exists.
P3. The dimension X = leftness-rightness.
C2. Therefore, Leftness-Rightness objectively exists.
There may be a problem with P3. Is leftness-rightness normally considered to be a primary dimension of objective 3D?

What is to stop "leftness-rightness" in P3 from being replaced by "rightness-wrongness" (it is not coincidental that 'right' has double meaning), "good-evil" ('sinister can mean 'left' or 'evil'), or "inferior-superior", and concluding that the replacement therefore objectively exists?

What is it about leftness-rightness that allows this to be plugged into P3, but not any of the suggested alternatives?

Is leftness-rightness a primary dimension of objective 3D space?

If not, can it be objectively (or logically) derived from one or more primary dimensions and/or any other things that are widely accepted to be objective? If yes, can anyone show how to derive this?

It appears that leftness-rightness is a side-effect (literally and figuratively) of establishing two other directions: frontward and upward. These 2 directions might best be represented by 1D vectors in two different dimensions, and the side effects are 1D vectors in the third dimension (left in one direction and right in the opposite). How to describe which directions are which (individually and relation to each other) and the process by which the left direction can be calculated?

How objective are frontward and upward directions upon which leftward and rightward are based? What if an object has no meaningful forward direction, or it does but this is the same as its upward direction?

Trees are 3D objects but they don't appear to have a left-right dimension, nor a front-back dimension.

It doesn't appear that 3D implies leftness-rightness objectively exists. However the opposite may be true: the ability to meaningfully tell leftness-rightness requires at least 3 dimensions?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Terrapin Station »

-0+ wrote: May 4th, 2021, 12:35 am What is to stop "leftness-rightness" in P3 from being replaced by "rightness-wrongness" (it is not coincidental that 'right' has double meaning), "good-evil" ('sinister can mean 'left' or 'evil'), or "inferior-superior", and concluding that the replacement therefore objectively exists?
Can you explain what an objective right/wrong or good/evil relation or property would amount to?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Sculptor1 »

Scott wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 3:23 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: May 2nd, 2021, 5:54 pm There is a very simple empirical experiement that utterly reduces this thread to meaningless verbage.

Simple put your shoes on the worng way and see how it feels.

[Emphasis added.]
Scott wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 2:28 pm By that fallacious logic, one can prove objective tastiness exists by eating their favorite ice cream, and seeing how delicious the ice cream tastes.
Sculptor1 wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 3:03 pm this has nothing to do with ice creams of any subjective qualities.
It seems you have committed the begging the question fallacy by asserting that "this" has nothing to do with anything subjective. You may have also contradicted yourself, depending on what you mean by the words "your", "wrong", "see", and "feels", all of which would typically indicate something that is clearly not observer-independent (i.e. objective).
You have not got a leg to stand on with this issue. If you would allow me to link the relevant scientific papers you would agree.
And attacking my use of language does not help you case.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Sculptor1 »

Scott wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 3:23 pm You may have also contradicted yourself, depending on what you mean by the words "your", "wrong", "see", and "feels", all of which would typically indicate something that is clearly not observer-independent (i.e. objective).
Often a thing that appears a fallacy is still correct.
If you were to step aside from your attack and actually perform the empirical experiement with your imagination you would find that there is something deeply wrong with having a left hand on your right arm and left hand on your right arm. "Seeing how you feel" indicates that something was deeply wrong. No matter how hard you tried you would find that having the hands in those places would not make sense.
I am inviting you to consider why this would be.
There is no way you could come away from such an experience without thinking there is something to handedness, which your sensational headline suggests is meaningless.

How do you explain left handed rope; chemical chirality; Electromagnetic Chirality?

What about Flemming's Left and Right hand rules for electromagnetic motion induction, relating to generators and motors?
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by RJG »

-0+ wrote:What is to stop "leftness-rightness" in P3 from being replaced by "rightness-wrongness"...
"Rightness-wrongness" is not one of the spatial dimensions that make up this universe (or 3D objects).
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by -0+ »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 7:24 am That it can be more "complex" to "objectively determine" leftness/rightness wouldn't suggest that it's not an objective relation.
Yes, more complex doesn't suggest it is not an objective relation, only that more work may be required to show that it is objective.
Terrapin Station wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 7:24 am Again, as I've said I don't know how many times in the thread now, but no one seems to either acknowledge or bother attempting to disagree with/forward objections to, there are some scenarios wherein an objective left/right wouldn't make sense. But there are a lot of scenarios wherein it rather doesn't make sense to say that there is no objective left/right. So it just depends on what scenario we're talking about.
Acknowledged ... And it also depends on where lines are drawn between "this makes sense" and "this doesn't makes sense", and between "this object has a meaningful frontward direction" and "this object doesn't"?

How much of this is subjective? Can what is subjective be easily separated from what is objective?
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by -0+ »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 4th, 2021, 4:36 am
-0+ wrote: May 4th, 2021, 12:35 am What is to stop "leftness-rightness" in P3 from being replaced by "rightness-wrongness" (it is not coincidental that 'right' has double meaning), "good-evil" ('sinister can mean 'left' or 'evil'), or "inferior-superior", and concluding that the replacement therefore objectively exists?
Can you explain what an objective right/wrong or good/evil relation or property would amount to?
What does an objective left/right relation or property amount to?

Putting rightness-wrongness into P3 is no more appropriate than putting leftness-rightness in there. How is it less appropriate?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Steve3007 »

-0+ wrote:Can what is subjective be easily separated from what is objective?
If we're talking about propositions, yes, I think so. Objective propositions are about objects (things out there). Subjective propositions are about subjects (things in here [points to head]). Objects are the things we propose to be in a realm called the real world which we propose to exist outside of our minds and to be accessible to our minds via our senses. We propose them to be the cause of that which is common between what those senses tell us. So objects and their properties that we propose to exist in that realm we implicitly propose to be sensible to an arbitrarily large number of other observers.

That doesn't mean we can say with certainty whether those propositions are true or whether those objects exist. That doesn't stop them from being objective. If I say "there's an elephant in my garden" that is certainly an objective proposition. That doesn't mean there's certainly an elephant in my garden.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:These X-Y relationships (that we call "left/right - up/down") objectively exist between any and all reference points/axis's.
Scott wrote:No. Three main things illustrate why that is false.

1. Through any reference point, infinite 1D lines could be drawn and any of those infinite drawn lines could be labeled as being an axis. Which of the infinite lines is selected out from the other infinite options to be treated as an axis in the reference frame is not observer-independent and is not reference-frame-independent.

2. Any 1D line drawn through a reference point specially selected out as an axis is equally entitled to be labeled as the Y axis or the X axis. In other words, any 1D line drawn through a reference point is equally able to be considered the leftness-rightness axis as the forwardness-backwardness axis. Whether the axis is assigned as being the leftness-rightness axis or forwardness-backwardness axis is not observer-independent and is not reference-frame-independent. Even if I draw a line on the image in the OP and tell you to treat that line as a reference line or axis for the reference frame, there is no way to say whether that 1D line is an X axis or a Y axis. Whether the line gets labeled as the X-axis or the Y-axis is not observer-independent and is not reference-frame-independent.

3. Even if you imagine a 0D point, and imagine a specific one of the infinite 1D lines through that 0D point as being an axis, and arbitrarily label that 1D axis as being the X-axis versus the Y-axis (and thus the other perpendicular line as being the Y-axis), you still have not created a full reference frame with which to use to determine left and right. In addition to arbitrarily labeling one of the arbitrarily selected 1D lines as the X or Y axis, you then need to also choose the positive direction on that axis (forward, backward, down, right, etc.), not just a line. Then you may have created a full reference frame in a 2D world. To illustrate, even if I draw two perpendicular lines on the image in the OP and tell you one of those two specific lines is the X-axis (the axis of left and right), and the other line is therefore the Y axis, and their intersection is the origin point of the would-be reference frame, I still even with all of that haven't provided a full reference frame from which for you to say whether the blue car is on the left or the right because you won't know which direction on the X-axis itself is left (negatively numbered) and which direction is right (positively numbered). That is not an observer-independent and reference-frame-independent choice. In other words, you need to specify a vector with directional oriental to get directional orientation and thereby have a created reference frame.
The X and Y axis could be drawn and orientated anywhere, just as 0D reference points could be placed anywhere. Since there is no-where where they can't be drawn or placed, there is therefore 'always' a distance and directional reference from each and every object (reference point/axis). These relationships objectively exist whether we humans are around to witness them or not.

Bottom-line: If objects exist, then so do their relationships (including distance and directional leftness-rightness; -X +X). And although these relationships are wholly 'relative' to the reference points/axis, they nonetheless 'objectively' exist.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Terrapin Station »

-0+ wrote: May 4th, 2021, 7:47 am
Terrapin Station wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 7:24 am That it can be more "complex" to "objectively determine" leftness/rightness wouldn't suggest that it's not an objective relation.
Yes, more complex doesn't suggest it is not an objective relation, only that more work may be required to show that it is objective.
Terrapin Station wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 7:24 am Again, as I've said I don't know how many times in the thread now, but no one seems to either acknowledge or bother attempting to disagree with/forward objections to, there are some scenarios wherein an objective left/right wouldn't make sense. But there are a lot of scenarios wherein it rather doesn't make sense to say that there is no objective left/right. So it just depends on what scenario we're talking about.
Acknowledged ... And it also depends on where lines are drawn between "this makes sense" and "this doesn't makes sense", and between "this object has a meaningful frontward direction" and "this object doesn't"?

How much of this is subjective? Can what is subjective be easily separated from what is objective?
It's not a "how much"--it's not some gray thing for each example. As I said, if we're talking about a distance relation, for example, the relation won't make any sense in a scenario where we're talking about a spatial singularity. There's nothing "gray" about that. It's just that in some scenarios, from some spatiotemporal reference points, any given relation won't obtain.

Subjective/objective are easily separated. It's simply a matter of whether we're talking about a phenomenon that only occurs in minds (as brains functioning in mental ways) or whether we're talking about a phenomenon that occurs external to brains functioning in mental ways.
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