All stories are true

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.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: All stories are true

Post by Steve3007 »

Pattern-chaser wrote:Just how many things that (we think) would be impossible in our universe could be possible in a different universe?
I guess it would depend what we mean by "impossible". If we mean self-contradictory (for example a universe in which George Washington both is and is not the first US president) then I'd say it's incoherent to propose the existence of such a universe. If we mean to propose universes where single things are different then we're proposing the existence of universes to which the principle of causality doesn't apply. (For example a universe where John Hancock is first US president but everything else is the same. Or a universe in which my name is not Steve, but everything else is the same). Not quite as impossible as a universe that is self-contradictory, but still an odd one.

The least odd possibility is universes in which all the same empirically observed principles (e.g. causality) and laws of physics which we've discovered to apply here apply there, but things just evolved differently for one reason or another. So in a universe like that, if John Hancock were first US president it would go along with an immense number of other things, both before and after that time, that would also be different. So much so that we certainly wouldn't exist as we do now. World history would be utterly different.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: All stories are true

Post by Steve3007 »

Pattern-chaser wrote:This topic is offered as an entertaining challenge to our own certainties, and gives us a chance to consider, among other things, just what is impossible, and what is just, er, unexpected, but could actually be possible if we just think about it a bit. Many comments offered here seem to say that because X is impossible (as far as we know) in this universe, it must be impossible in other universes where the rules, laws and constants are not the same as here. This chain of reasoning, at least, reaches beyond what we know and understand, and asserts that which (we think) should be true.
If we decide not to carry over any of the rules, laws, principles and constants that we've found to be applicable here then anything is possible, including self-contradictory things. In that extreme scenario, we can contemplate the existence of universes in which everyone who ever lived both is and is not the first US president. We can contemplate literally anything. So to say anything coherent we'd have to decide to carry across at least something. My previous post was a brief discussion of some of the classes of principles and laws that we might decide to apply.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: All stories are true

Post by RJG »

Pattern-chaser wrote:If there are an infinite number of worlds, then there is a world where any given story is reified.
If the given story is actually possible, then this could be true within an infinite reality.

Pattern-chaser wrote:So although a story is created and presented as fictional entertainment, it will actually happen somewhere, sometime.
But not all fictional entertainment is actually possible.

Pattern-chaser wrote:But what do you think? Could this apparently ridiculous idea, that all stories are reified somewhere, be valid?
I suspect that it is more likely that the same old stories are just replayed (reified) an infinite number of times throughout this never-beginning/ending infinite reality.


***********
Pattern-chaser wrote:Just how many things that (we think) would be impossible in our universe could be possible in a different universe?
The answer to the above question hinges on our decision to respond rationally or non-rationally.

-- If we wish to "make sense" (subscribe to logic; respond rationally), then it is impossible for the "impossible to be possible" anywhere. The impossibility of X=~X is the basis of our rationality/reasoning (i.e. our ability to "make sense").

-- If we wish to NOT "make sense" (i.e. abandon logic; respond non-rationally), then anything, including the impossible, could be possible.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: All stories are true

Post by Consul »

RJG wrote: July 14th, 2021, 6:17 am
Pattern-chaser wrote:If there are an infinite number of worlds, then there is a world where any given story is reified.
If the given story is actually possible, then this could be true within an infinite reality.
Pattern-chaser wrote:So although a story is created and presented as fictional entertainment, it will actually happen somewhere, sometime.
But not all fictional entertainment is actually possible.
Interestingly, Saul Kripke argues that fictional or mythical creatures such as unicorns are impossible objects, ones which don't exist in any (metaphysically) possible world: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/poss ... jects/#Uni

QUOTE>
"I shall try to give a brief explanation of the strange view of unicorns advocated in the text. There were two theses: first a metaphysical thesis that no counterfactual situation is properly describable as one in which there would have been unicorns; second, an epistemological thesis that an archeological discovery that there were animals with all the features attributed to unicorns in the appropriate myth would not in and of itself constitute proof that there were unicorns.

As to the metaphysical thesis, the argument basically is the following. Just as tigers are an actual species, so the unicorns are a mythical species. Now tigers, as I argue in the third lecture, cannot be defined simply in terms of their appearance; it is possible that there should have been a different species with all the external appearances of tigers but which had a different internal structure and therefore was not the species of tigers. We may be misled into thinking otherwise by the fact that actually no such 'fool's tigers' exist, so that in practice external appearance is sufficient to identify the species. Now there is no actual species of unicorns, and regarding the several distinct hypothetical species, with different internal structures (some reptilic, some mammalian, some amphibious), which would have the external appearances postulated to hold of unicorns in the myth of the unicorn, one cannot say which of these distinct mythical species would have been the unicorns. If we suppose, as I do, that the unicorns of the myth were supposed to be a particular species, but that the myth provides insufficient information about their internal structure to determine a unique species, then there is no actual or possible species of which we can say that it would have been the species of unicorns.

The epistemological thesis is more easily argued. If a story is found describing a substance with the physical appearance of gold, one cannot conclude on this basis that it is talking about gold; it may be talking about 'fools' gold'. What substance is being discussed must be determined as in the case of proper names: by the historical connection of the story with a certain substance. When the connection is traced, it may well turn out that the substance dealt with was gold, 'fools' gold', or something else. Similarly, the mere discovery of animals with the properties attributed to unicorns in the myth would by no means show that these were the animals the myth was about: perhaps the myth was spun out of whole cloth, and the fact that animals with the same appearance actually existed was mere coincidence. In that case, we cannot say that the unicorns of the myth really existed; we must also establish a historical connection that shows that the myth is about these animals.

I hold similar views regarding fictional proper names. The mere discovery that there was indeed a detective with exploits like those of Sherlock Holmes would not show that Conan Doyle was writing about this man; it is theoretically possible, though in practice fantastically unlikely, that Doyle was writing pure fiction with only a coincidental resemblance to the actual man. (See the characteristic disclaimer: 'The characters in this work are fictional, and any resemblance to anyone, living or dead, is purely coincidental.') Similarly, I hold the metaphysical view that, granted that there is no Sherlock Holmes, one cannot say of any possible person that he would have been Sherlock Holmes, had he existed. Several distinct possible people, and even actual ones such as Darwin or Jack the Ripper, might have performed the exploits of Holmes, but there is none of whom we can say that he would have been Holmes had he performed these exploits. For if so, which one? I thus could no longer write, as I once did, that 'Holmes does not exist, but in other states of affairs, he would have existed.' (…) The quoted assertion gives the erroneous impression that a fictional name such as 'Holmes' names a particular possible-but-not-actual individual."

(Kripke, Saul A. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980. pp. 156-58)

"I should mention, especially in light of the fact that Putnam emphasized these cases, my views about imaginary substances, as, for example, a magic elixir or unicorns. There, too, I would hold that one cannot intelligibly say, as is usually said in the literature, that though there are in fact no unicorns, unicorns might have existed. Why do I say that we cannot say this? Well, unicorns in the myth are supposed to refer to a certain species, a certain natural kind of animals. The term ‘tiger’ does not just mean ‘any old animal that is yellow in color with black stripes’. An animal, whether existing in fact or only counterfactually, even though it looked just like a tiger on the outside, would not, if it were a reptile on the inside, be a tiger, as I have emphasized (Kripke 1980:119–21, and elsewhere). Similarly, of course, something with a different chemical composition from water would not be water. Hence the statement ‘water is H2O’ is a necessary truth.

If one is referring to an actual animal, one may of course pick it out by what Putnam calls a ‘stereotype’ (Putnam 1975a), without knowing what its internal structure is or how to differentiate it from other bogus things like fool’s gold or fool’s tiger. David Lewis once mentioned marsupial tigers to me, which might come along. One need not be able to make the differentiation as a layperson, and one may leave it up to the scientists, who may take a long time to do so, but we can still refer to tigers. That is because tigers are around; we have historical causal connections to them in the real world by virtue of which we can refer to them. Those properties that determine their essence can be discovered empirically later; when they are discovered, we can say which possible (or actual) animals resembling tigers wouldn’t have been (or are not) tigers.

The same thing, I say, holds of unicorns. If the story about unicorns had really been true, then of course the animals would really be around and we could refer to them and discover their internal structure later. But suppose the story is completely false, that there is no connection with any actual animal. Then one should not say that ‘unicorn’ in this story simply means (let’s say this is all the story tells us) ‘that animal which looks like a horse and has a single horn’. One should not say that ‘unicorn’ simply means any old animal like that because then it would not be a pretended name of a species. In fact, one might well discover a new fragment of the story that explains how sometimes people were misled by animals that looked just like unicorns and mistook them for unicorns. These fool’s unicorns commanded a high price on the market until their internal structure was discovered. The story, however, does not specify the differences in internal structure. ‘Unicorn’ is supposed to be the name of a particular species. We are given a partial identification of them; there are other criteria that would pick them out from fool’s unicorns, but we are not told what these criteria are. Nor can we say ‘Well, let’s wait for the biologists to find out’, because biologists cannot find anything out about unicorns. Thus of no possible animal can we say that it would have been a unicorn. One can merely say that it would look the way unicorns are supposed to. If a possible world contained two very different species, both fully conforming to the aforementioned story, one could not say which of them would have been unicorns.

Speaking of the actual world, I want similarly to say that a mere discovery that there were animals that answered entirely to whatever the myth says about unicorns would not, in and of itself, constitute a discovery that unicorns really existed. The connection, unlikely though this may be, could be purely coincidental. In fact the myth may say, ‘The species mentioned in this myth is mythical, and any resemblance to any species extant or extinct is purely coincidental’. Let us suppose it does in fact say this. This shows that what one needs is not merely the fact that the animals in the unmodified myth satisfy everything that unicorns are supposed to satisfy, but that the myth was about them, that the myth was saying these things about them because the people had some historical and actual connection with them.

There are, then, two distinct theses here. First, we could find out that unicorns actually existed, but to find this out we would not just have to find out that certain animals have the properties mentioned in the myth. We would have to discover a real connection between the species and the myth—at least in the case of a species that is highly biologically unspecified. If a precise biological specification of it were given, the answer might be different. A complete description of the internal structure (and perhaps a specification of its place on the evolutionary tree, genetic inheritance, and the like) might lead us to say, ‘By accident it turns out that there is a species exactly like that’. But that is not what usually goes on in stories and myths. Moreover, the way I have been putting it may be too epistemic. I am not really talking about what we could ‘find out’. I am giving requirements for it to be true that unicorns actually existed, contrary to what we normally think. However, were the specifications precise in the terms that I have just mentioned, then, if a kind meeting these specifications (structure, position on the evolutionary tree, etc.) actually existed, the story might arguably be true, and genuine propositions about the kind in question might be expressed, even in the (unlikely) case that the connection is purely coincidental."

(Kripke, Saul. "Vacuous Names and Fictional Entities." In Philosophical Troubles: Collected Papers, Volume 1. 52-74. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. pp. 65-7)
<QUOTE
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: All stories are true

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote:Just how many things that (we think) would be impossible in our universe could be possible in a different universe?
RJG wrote: July 14th, 2021, 6:17 am The answer to the above question hinges on our decision to respond rationally or non-rationally.

-- If we wish to "make sense" (subscribe to logic; respond rationally), then it is impossible for the "impossible to be possible" anywhere. The impossibility of X=~X is the basis of our rationality/reasoning (i.e. our ability to "make sense").

-- If we wish to NOT "make sense" (i.e. abandon logic; respond non-rationally), then anything, including the impossible, could be possible.
This topic asks - among other things - that you (we) consider the possibility of other worlds or universes where things are different from the world/universe in which we live. Your response seems to be that you will consider these differences, but only if they are the same as what we're used to; I.e. that they are not different at all.

The dichotomy that you present is a false one. We are not faced with a binary choice between doing it your way, or doing it wrongly. It seems that, to you, "making sense" means only what you think it means. A universe that is different in some way(s) might not "make sense" to us, whose only experience is of the small corner of our own universe that we have explored. Why do you think that it should?

I don't know if a universe can or could exist without (say) cause and effect. And because I don't know, and because this topic is intentionally speculative, not substantive, I think it inappropriate to assert that such a universe is impossible. Maybe it is ... and maybe it isn't. We don't know, and so our response to this should not be to assert impossibility, just to make ourselves feel more comfortable. That would not be rational, a quality you seem to value highly.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: All stories are true

Post by Consul »

RJG wrote: July 14th, 2021, 6:17 am-- If we wish to "make sense" (subscribe to logic; respond rationally), then it is impossible for the "impossible to be possible" anywhere. The impossibility of X=~X is the basis of our rationality/reasoning (i.e. our ability to "make sense").
-- If we wish to NOT "make sense" (i.e. abandon logic; respond non-rationally), then anything, including the impossible, could be possible.
There is no possible world where the impossible is possible, but the impossible is possible in impossible worlds. What does this mean? It means that there are impossible worlds where the impossible is actual, with actuality entailing possibility. This contradicts the other modal principle that impossibility entails nonactuality, but it doesn't matter here, since we're talking about actuality in an impossible world. (I'm not expecting anyone to seriously believe in impossible worlds.)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: All stories are true

Post by Consul »

Steve3007 wrote: July 14th, 2021, 5:09 am
Pattern-chaser wrote:Just how many things that (we think) would be impossible in our universe could be possible in a different universe?
I guess it would depend what we mean by "impossible". If we mean self-contradictory (for example a universe in which George Washington both is and is not the first US president) then I'd say it's incoherent to propose the existence of such a universe.
We need to distinguish between formal, i.e. merely/purely logical, possibility and real possibility. To say (the truth of) a proposition or statement is formally possible is to say that it isn't a logical contradiction of the form p & ~p/Fa & ~Fa, and that it doesn't imply a logical contradiction either. Logical or formal possibility is necessary for ontological or real possibility, but I don't think it's also sufficient for it. For example, it's formally possible but really impossible that my parents are mice. There is no ontologically possible world where I exist and my parents are mice.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: All stories are true

Post by Consul »

Steve3007 wrote: July 14th, 2021, 5:22 am…We can contemplate literally anything.
Right. The impossible is not unthinkable or unsayable. The possible and the impossible are both representable (verbally or pictorially).
For example, here's a depiction of an impossible object:

Image

Penrose triangle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_triangle
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: All stories are true

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Consul wrote: July 14th, 2021, 1:51 pm
Steve3007 wrote: July 14th, 2021, 5:22 am…We can contemplate literally anything.
Right. The impossible is not unthinkable or unsayable. The possible and the impossible are both representable (verbally or pictorially).
For example, here's a depiction of an impossible object:

Image

Penrose triangle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_triangle
I don't think it's a depiction of an impossible object, I think it's a tricky picture that exploits the imperfections of human vision. Such an object cannot be depicted, except by trickery, I suspect.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: All stories are true

Post by Consul »

Pattern-chaser wrote: July 14th, 2021, 4:03 pm
Consul wrote: July 14th, 2021, 1:51 pmImage

Penrose triangle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_triangle
I don't think it's a depiction of an impossible object, I think it's a tricky picture that exploits the imperfections of human vision. Such an object cannot be depicted, except by trickery, I suspect.
Of course, there's trickery involved—optical illusion—, so it's an illusory 2D picture of an impossible 3D object.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: All stories are true

Post by Pattern-chaser »

I think there are degrees of 'impossible' objects. Triangles with four sides, and stuff like that, is self-contradictory; their very descriptions are self-contradictory. If we can't even describe the thing, it is hardly surprising that the thing we can't describe also can't exist.

But there are other things that might be impossible here, in our world/universe, that could be possible in another world/universe, one that works differently from ours. To pre-judge these huge unknowns, and place constraints on what we know are 'impossible', is unjustified. This topic is too speculative to place such constraints in place when we know so little of what we are discussing. We're talking of possibilities only. It would be rash of anyone to assert the actual existence of such things, and it also diverts attention from an otherwise interesting speculation.

Isn't it interesting to just consider possibilities, to wonder what might be in place(s) where things are so different from our own experience?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: All stories are true

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:But not all fictional entertainment is actually possible.
Consul wrote:Interestingly, Saul Kripke argues that fictional or mythical creatures such as unicorns are impossible objects, ones which don't exist in any (metaphysically) possible world:
When I say "actually possible", I mean "logically possible". Unicorns (and flying pigs) are actually possible.

Logically impossible things are those things that take the form X=~X (e.g. square circles, married bachelors) or the form X<X (e.g. the beginning of time [i.e. a time before all time], an expanding universe [i.e. a space outside of all space]).

Pattern-chaser wrote:This topic asks - among other things - that you (we) consider the possibility of other worlds or universes where things are different from the world/universe in which we live. Your response seems to be that you will consider these differences, but only if they are the same as what we're used to; I.e. that they are not different at all.
Not so. For example, the existence of unicorns and flying pigs don't exist in my world, but they are logically possible and therefore may exist in another world.

To know if something is logically possible --- ask yourself if you can imagine (in your mind) such a thing. If you can then it is logically possible. I can imagine unicorns and flying pigs, therefore they are logically possible.

To know if something is logically impossible --- ask yourself if you can imagine (in your mind) such a thing. If not, then it is logically impossible. I can't imagine a square circle or a married bachelor, therefore these mental (and physical) contradictions are logically impossible.

Pattern-chaser wrote:The dichotomy that you present is a false one. We are not faced with a binary choice between doing it your way, or doing it wrongly.
The dichotomy is 'reasoning rationally' or 'reasoning irrationally'. If we reason rationally, then not everything is possible. If we reason irrationally, then anything and everything is possible.

The method of reasoning will determine our answer. -- I just choose to reason rationally (logically), and therefore not all things are possible, ...no matter where it is located!
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: All stories are true

Post by Pattern-chaser »

RJG wrote: July 15th, 2021, 8:14 am To know if something is logically impossible --- ask yourself if you can imagine (in your mind) such a thing. If not, then it is logically impossible. I can't imagine a square circle or a married bachelor, therefore these mental (and physical) contradictions are logically impossible.
I think this, and other examples offered, are contradictions (as you say), not 'impossibilities'. To claim anything for a contradiction gives it consideration of which it is not worthy. "Impossible" is not the appropriate label, IMO. They are merely contradictions.


Pattern-chaser wrote:The dichotomy that you present is a false one. We are not faced with a binary choice between doing it your way, or doing it wrongly.
RJG wrote: July 15th, 2021, 8:14 am The dichotomy is 'reasoning rationally' or 'reasoning irrationally'. If we reason rationally, then not everything is possible. If we reason irrationally, then anything and everything is possible.

The method of reasoning will determine our answer. -- I just choose to reason rationally (logically), and therefore not all things are possible, ...no matter where it is located!
In such a speculative context, I choose simply to reason, using whatever tools or perspectives seem helpful, useful or valuable. Logic is one of those tools, but there are times and circumstances where it is an inappropriate tool. Considering the possibilities in an infinity of universes might just be such a circumstance?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: All stories are true

Post by RJG »

Pattern-chaser wrote:I think this, and other examples offered, are contradictions (as you say), not 'impossibilities'. To claim anything for a contradiction gives it consideration of which it is not worthy. "Impossible" is not the appropriate label, IMO. They are merely contradictions.
It seems to me that ALL contradictions ultimately take the form of X=~X (e.g. married bachelor) or X<X (e.g. the set of all sets). Therefore, ALL contradictions are also logical impossibilities.

RJG wrote:The dichotomy is 'reasoning rationally' or 'reasoning irrationally'. If we reason rationally, then not everything is possible. If we reason irrationally, then anything and everything is possible.

The method of reasoning will determine our answer. -- I just choose to reason rationally (logically), and therefore not all things are possible, ...no matter where it is located!
Pattern-chaser wrote:In such a speculative context, I choose simply to reason, using whatever tools or perspectives seem helpful, useful or valuable.
We can either reason rationally or irrationally (non-rationally). That's it. Nothing more. All tools/perspectives fit into one of these two categories.

Pattern-chaser wrote:Logic is one of those tools…
Logic is the ONLY tool and means by which we humans can "make sense" (find truth). Not only is logic our innate and only means to rationality, but logic is impossible to invalidate (to deny that it gives us truth).

- For any rational; logical argument that tries to defeat/invalidate logic, only defeats itself (the argument itself). It cuts off the very legs upon which it makes its stand. In other words, if we argue that logic is invalid, then we are invalidating our own argument.

- And for any irrational; illogical argument that tries to defeat/invalidate logic, it convinces nobody and defeats nothing.

Pattern-chaser wrote:...but there are times and circumstances where it is an inappropriate tool. Considering the possibilities in an infinity of universes might just be such a circumstance?
If logic is our ONLY means to rationality, then where/how could it be "inappropriate"? It is the BEST (and ONLY!) tool we've got! --- And what is "inappropriate" (or non-logical) about an infinite reality?
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: All stories are true

Post by Pattern-chaser »

RJG wrote: July 15th, 2021, 12:00 pm Logic is the ONLY tool and means by which we humans can "make sense" (find truth).
Then your perspective is probably a little too rigid for what I am trying to consider here. I see no point in pursuing this any further: we have reached the point of clarity-of-disagreement. 😉👍
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
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