To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

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
Protagoras
Posts: 37
Joined: July 10th, 2021, 5:46 am

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by Protagoras »

AverageBozo wrote: August 4th, 2021, 1:10 pm
Protagoras wrote: August 4th, 2021, 10:44 am
Those that think government are there for the citizens best interests are infantile.
Government should exist for the sake of its citizens’ best interests, but anyone who believes that that is actually the case is ignorant.

As such, governments should only enact laws that proscribe the exercise of freedom. Anyone who believes that is blind to what is actually going on.

The heart of the matter is that one person’s freedom is capable of infringing on another’s.

It is through political maneuvering that freedoms are ranked so that one freedom is allowed to triumph over another.
It is through class gerrymandering that one freedom is ranked over another.
The government is a class,with its own interests absolutely uppermost.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by Nick_A »

AverageBozo wrote: August 4th, 2021, 12:54 pm
Nick_A wrote: August 4th, 2021, 10:08 am Chewybrian
Certainly, many laws restrict freedom for the alleged greater good. But, perhaps not all of them should be viewed in that light. It gets a bit silly to try to argue that freeing slaves is a restriction of freedom.
What is the "alleged greater good?" Who decides if it is greater than the ideal of truth and justice? Which is more important for humanity; the natural impulse for freedom or the goal of the alleged greater good?
The greater good is whatever is good for the greater number of people, not whatever good has a greater value than another in itself. It is patently impossible to determine which good has the greater value of two goods, but it is possible to measure the number of people who benefit from one good or another.

I think everyone here accepts that truth and justice are good and can be (at least a part of) the greater good. At least that appears to me to be the case for (most of) those who are arguing against you, as well as for you, I’d say.

The point is that there’s no need for anyone to pit truth and justice against the greater good.
Does Marx describe the greater good? Does it oppose truth and justice?
Marx believes a totalitarian state is a necessity in the beginning stages until a classless society is achieved; he is indifferent to limitations on the power of the government because he knows society will not willingly change their ways for the greater good (Marx and Engels, 1969). Marx recognizes the desire for society to change and his structure for the future is clearly outlined in his works. A socialist system will teach people to be selfless and lead to destruction of class distinctions. The main goal is to reduce the unequal distribution of wealth achieved through exploitation of the workers by the bourgeois class.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
AverageBozo
Posts: 502
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by AverageBozo »

Protagoras wrote: August 4th, 2021, 1:15 pm
AverageBozo wrote: August 4th, 2021, 1:10 pm
Protagoras wrote: August 4th, 2021, 10:44 am
Those that think government are there for the citizens best interests are infantile.
Government should exist for the sake of its citizens’ best interests, but anyone who believes that that is actually the case is ignorant.

As such, governments should only enact laws that proscribe the exercise of freedom. Anyone who believes that is blind to what is actually going on.

The heart of the matter is that one person’s freedom is capable of infringing on another’s.

It is through political maneuvering that freedoms are ranked so that one freedom is allowed to triumph over another.
It is through class gerrymandering that one freedom is ranked over another.
The government is a class,with its own interests absolutely uppermost.
Indeed.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1591
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by chewybrian »

Nick_A wrote: August 4th, 2021, 12:32 pm
chewybrian wrote: August 4th, 2021, 11:13 am
Nick_A wrote: August 4th, 2021, 10:08 am Chewybrian
Certainly, many laws restrict freedom for the alleged greater good. But, perhaps not all of them should be viewed in that light. It gets a bit silly to try to argue that freeing slaves is a restriction of freedom.
What is the "alleged greater good?" Who decides if it is greater than the ideal of truth and justice? Which is more important for humanity; the natural impulse for freedom or the goal of the alleged greater good?
What is the greater good? We never really know for sure, but we have our best guesses. We think that the interstate highway system is probably safer and more efficient and effective than a patchwork of private roads. We think that your right to drive drunk is not as valuable as the right of others to be safe from the danger of your drunk driving.

We decide at the ballot box, in the newspapers, on the streets, and in other, often less ethical ways.

What is the bs idea of truth and justice shining through in a system of anarchy wrapped in the flag of 'freedom'? Your freedom has to account for the freedom of others, and a balance must be struck. You can smoke all you want, but you can't impose your second-hand smoke on others. You can drink all you want, but you can't drive drunk. If we are not sure that your sacrifice serves some greater good, then the default position should be to let you do whatever pleases you. However, there must be limits to safeguard others. If you like to drive fast, go to the racetrack. If you want to share the highway with others, there are limits.

This is all pretty straightforward for most people. It only sounds harsh if you have some Ayn Rand garbage ideas about the truth and beauty of stomping about the world without a drop of empathy or understanding for others.
Your heart is in the right place. Would you be willing to be a part of a discussion free of negativity, on the value of political parties based on Simone Weil's book: ON THE ABOLITION OF ALL POLITICAL PARTIES? If the discussion contains good ideas, I would submit it to the American Weil Society as part of a yearly colloquy. The question is if there is an alternative to the duality of governmental laws and anarchy that makes freedom possible? The AWS has many brilliant scholars from different countries and some would be willing to comment. It may inspire some college students in the future, to discuss and write a collective response as an effort to save thinking from opinion.

Truth, Justice, and Public Good: Simone Weil on Political Manipulation, the Dangers of “For” and “Against,” and How to Save Thinking from Opinion.
That's not really my hobby horse, and I don't think I could add much insight to a discussion like that, thought I might watch with interest and chime in if something struck me. I'm more interested in psychology, self-help, self improvement, and such. For me, philosophy is a personal journey to inner peace or self-respect; it's not about science or politics for me. If I would ever have something of value to say to college students, I doubt it would be about politics.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by Sy Borg »

Protagoras wrote: August 4th, 2021, 10:41 am
Sy Borg wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 6:50 pm
Protagoras wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 6:05 pm
Sy Borg wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 5:53 pm For Trumpian Americans, a failure to rebel against governments in all things is seen as weakness - unless The Don makes the policy, in which case they see obedience as a patriotic duty.

The obsession with masks today is, as Ecurb implies, extremely trivial-minded and naive. The irony is that we are being exploited by a toxic combination of governments and multinationals (especially Big Fossil Fuels, Big Mining, Big Weapons, Big Pharma and Big Sensationalist Media). Trumpian attack dogs are are key plank to help stoke up societal divisions. They are doing a fine job, with help from Russian and Chinese trolls.

Thanks to Trumpian reactionaries, the little people are distracted by constant fights about trivialities like masks, gender and sexuality. This clears the way for their exploiters to decouple from the tax system without anyone much noticing, leaving the burden to those who can't afford it.
Yes,but does ecurb admit the toxicity of govt and big business?
Why do people not think academia, science and epidemiologists are also not exploiting people?
I expect that he figures that the toxicity of Big Media, Big Resources, Big Banking, Big Weapons and and Big Government are already well-known. While all institutions are tainted, the ones you list are amongst the most trustworthy. Not entirely so, sure, but generally more honest.

You can tell by the pay grades. The money involved, the more a field will be tainted, eg. real estate, cars. There's no money in being an academic or a scientist. A Principal Research Scientist with PhDs and decades of experience can earn less than young accountants and lawyers, and far less than young merchant bankers. Rule of thumb: the more beautiful and desirable an occupation, the more people who want to do it, and that drives payment down.

Meanwhile, the powers-that-be gain nothing from mask wearing. Quite the opposite, because it thwarts facial recognition technology. The smartest insurgents to assault the Capitol last year wore masks (as opposed to Viking helmets). Not long ago, it was illegal to walk into a bank with one's face covered, now it's law.

This is not due to sinister mechanisations - aside from the CCP allowing the Wuhan coronavirus to spread around the world while they were already shutting down their internal borders - but that's another story. No, mask wearing is simply about disease control. I'm hearing that vaccinated people can still be infectious with the Delta strain, even if the vaccine dampens their COVID symptoms. Interesting times.

Another issue that is rarely spoken about is administrative cost-cutting and regulative apathy. For instance, it's easier to force all dog owners to walk their dog on a leash, even if their dog is old, lazy, socialised, well-trained and has all the aggression and prey drive of a soap bubble.

It's easier to outlaw drugs and let addicts destroy themselves than to register addicts and help them lead productive lives (and it provides tremendous income for private prison operators). Of course, the cost of the war on drugs to societies is incalculable. A massive, corrupt failure, supported by Big Alcohol and Clubs and Pubs alliances.

It's easier to demand that elderly people on the dole whom have become unemployable to apply for a certain number of jobs each week or risk loss of payment. Again, it's simpler to lump everyone into a single basket that to assess individual cases.

And it's easier to tell everyone to wear masks outdoors than to specify more targeted policies. Often, what is thought of as as sinister in government is actually more lazy and inconsiderate.
Why are you making a distinction between big pharma,government and science?
Who do you think directs and funds scientific research?
Science is a tool. Big Pharma is a dominant industrial bloc that influences government decisions by way of its wealth and influence.

Science - specifically parts of biochemistry - is just one tool that is not only used by used by Big Pharma, but most areas of society, including environmentalism.
Protagoras
Posts: 37
Joined: July 10th, 2021, 5:46 am

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by Protagoras »

Sy Borg wrote: August 4th, 2021, 4:35 pm
Protagoras wrote: August 4th, 2021, 10:41 am
Sy Borg wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 6:50 pm
Protagoras wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 6:05 pm

Yes,but does ecurb admit the toxicity of govt and big business?
Why do people not think academia, science and epidemiologists are also not exploiting people?
I expect that he figures that the toxicity of Big Media, Big Resources, Big Banking, Big Weapons and and Big Government are already well-known. While all institutions are tainted, the ones you list are amongst the most trustworthy. Not entirely so, sure, but generally more honest.

You can tell by the pay grades. The money involved, the more a field will be tainted, eg. real estate, cars. There's no money in being an academic or a scientist. A Principal Research Scientist with PhDs and decades of experience can earn less than young accountants and lawyers, and far less than young merchant bankers. Rule of thumb: the more beautiful and desirable an occupation, the more people who want to do it, and that drives payment down.

Meanwhile, the powers-that-be gain nothing from mask wearing. Quite the opposite, because it thwarts facial recognition technology. The smartest insurgents to assault the Capitol last year wore masks (as opposed to Viking helmets). Not long ago, it was illegal to walk into a bank with one's face covered, now it's law.

This is not due to sinister mechanisations - aside from the CCP allowing the Wuhan coronavirus to spread around the world while they were already shutting down their internal borders - but that's another story. No, mask wearing is simply about disease control. I'm hearing that vaccinated people can still be infectious with the Delta strain, even if the vaccine dampens their COVID symptoms. Interesting times.

Another issue that is rarely spoken about is administrative cost-cutting and regulative apathy. For instance, it's easier to force all dog owners to walk their dog on a leash, even if their dog is old, lazy, socialised, well-trained and has all the aggression and prey drive of a soap bubble.

It's easier to outlaw drugs and let addicts destroy themselves than to register addicts and help them lead productive lives (and it provides tremendous income for private prison operators). Of course, the cost of the war on drugs to societies is incalculable. A massive, corrupt failure, supported by Big Alcohol and Clubs and Pubs alliances.

It's easier to demand that elderly people on the dole whom have become unemployable to apply for a certain number of jobs each week or risk loss of payment. Again, it's simpler to lump everyone into a single basket that to assess individual cases.

And it's easier to tell everyone to wear masks outdoors than to specify more targeted policies. Often, what is thought of as as sinister in government is actually more lazy and inconsiderate.
Why are you making a distinction between big pharma,government and science?
Who do you think directs and funds scientific research?
Science is a tool. Big Pharma is a dominant industrial bloc that influences government decisions by way of its wealth and influence.

Science - specifically parts of biochemistry - is just one tool that is not only used by used by Big Pharma, but most areas of society, including environmentalism.
And? Science is used,funded and disseminated by the corrupt toxic governments,Big pharma and the media.
I don't see how you think it escapes corruption from moneyed interests.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by Tegularius »

Steve3007 wrote: August 4th, 2021, 7:32 amIn the UK, there's a right-wing newspaper columnist called Peter Hitchens who has, throughout the pandemic, been using his column in the Daily Mail to make dire predictions that the anti-pandemic measures instigated by our Conservative government, under the leadership of the instinctively libertarian PM Boris Johnson, are a slippery slope to dictatorship and slavery.
Why do so many people have this urge to politize that which is thoroughly immune to any kind of politization? I think much of it is due to personal ambition used as a ploy to gain power or accomplish certain political ends by any means available. Anti-pandemic measures - we only have a few - are applied the world over against an infection which, at this time, appears quite capable of holding its own against our best ability to control it. Forcing a pandemic into a political arena only makes it more powerful. The influential who do it publically have their own agenda which relates soley to power. Peter Hitchens is such a person whose neural allotment seems to have been a victim of the excess given to his late brother.
Steve3007 wrote: August 4th, 2021, 7:32 am(Since that dictatorship hasn't yet materialized I don't know how he's going to spin that. He'll probably take the line that his warnings were what prevented it).
Yeah! ...and a lot of people will believe it too!
Steve3007 wrote: August 4th, 2021, 7:32 amObviously this is absurd and that extreme a view is very rare. But my impression is that in the US, though that extreme a view is still a minority, it's not as rare, because of the strong vein of opinion on the political right in the US which opposes, with violence if necessary, almost all central government action. Exemplified by the previous president who saw it as his role to actively undermine the actions of government in numerous ways, including encouraging, from the start, people to ignore any attempts to impose any restrictions on behaviour. (I'm thinking in particular of those "freedom for..." tweets near the beginning of the pandemic last year).
You're right! It's not so rare at all considering how many Republicans, including the GOP itself, still endorse Trump and claims of a fraudulent election. A country still so influenced by a disgusting demented maggot like Trump and family is in serious danger of decline. The Constitution is what created the U.S. and its government. If the government, so established, cannot or fails to rule according to its mandate, The Constitution becomes ineffective possibly to be rewritten changing the country as a whole and almost certainly not for the better.
Steve3007 wrote: August 4th, 2021, 7:32 amI think it's pandemics like this which highlight that particular type of political divide because of the way that they forcefully show us what we already knew: that we all breathe the same air and that the libertarian ideal of freely acting individuals, who can choose to be completely independent of others, is more complicated than some libertarians would have us believe. We are more interdependent, and more dependent on "commons" which no individual player in the market of life has an interest in unilaterally maintaining, than they would have us believe.
Nothing wrong with being libertarian; it's a way to balance out or confront the imbalances inherent in most governments; the society they rule or the advantages of its most privileged elites. Libertarianism should be considered fundamental to collective well-being but not to the point of liberating oneself from the central office of holding the country together which can only be done by the rule of law - not by its abrogation or derogation.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by Leontiskos »

Tegularius wrote: August 5th, 2021, 12:02 am
Steve3007 wrote: August 4th, 2021, 7:32 amIn the UK, there's a right-wing newspaper columnist called Peter Hitchens who has, throughout the pandemic, been using his column in the Daily Mail to make dire predictions that the anti-pandemic measures instigated by our Conservative government, under the leadership of the instinctively libertarian PM Boris Johnson, are a slippery slope to dictatorship and slavery.
Why do so many people have this urge to politize that which is thoroughly immune to any kind of politization?
But the pandemic is not immune to politicization. That is another erroneous extreme, and this isn't an exclusively conservative claim. Indeed, there are currently U.S. liberal media outlets that are criticizing the Left for their politicization. For example:
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by Tegularius »

Leontiskos wrote: August 5th, 2021, 12:12 am
Tegularius wrote: August 5th, 2021, 12:02 am
Steve3007 wrote: August 4th, 2021, 7:32 amIn the UK, there's a right-wing newspaper columnist called Peter Hitchens who has, throughout the pandemic, been using his column in the Daily Mail to make dire predictions that the anti-pandemic measures instigated by our Conservative government, under the leadership of the instinctively libertarian PM Boris Johnson, are a slippery slope to dictatorship and slavery.
Why do so many people have this urge to politize that which is thoroughly immune to any kind of politization?
But the pandemic is not immune to politicization. That is another erroneous extreme, and this isn't an exclusively conservative claim. Indeed, there are currently U.S. liberal media outlets that are criticizing the Left for their politicization. For example:
...but it should be is the point! A pandemic has only ONE goal; to infect as many as possible. It doesn't care whether you're right or left, young or old, liberal or conservative or some media member who purposely distorts information. There is no reason to politicize it; only to defeat or at least control it. Causing a pandemic to be a political problem with corresponding agendas hinders its containment, offering the opportunity to create further variants. Managing a pandemic at its face-value without throwing politics into it is essential for its defeat. Politics has become a lot dirtier and much more dangerous intruding where it doesn't belong.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
Protagoras
Posts: 37
Joined: July 10th, 2021, 5:46 am

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by Protagoras »

The whole pandemic including the response is a political event.
People have no sense of irony or double standards when they say the government which is by its intrinsic nature political shouldn't be political about the plandemic!
Might as well ask a lion to not eat meat.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by Steve3007 »

Tegularius wrote:Why do so many people have this urge to politize that which is thoroughly immune to any kind of politization?...
It depends how you use the word "politize" or "politicize". Politics generally is, of course, about the way people in a society interact with each other. So in that sense everything that involves having to decide on public policy is political. But when people talk about politicizing an issue, as you're doing here, they're usually talking specifically about the ulterior aims of power and tribal loyalty. But personally I'm not a big fan of the vague "they're all corrupt, power-obsessed, baby-eating monsters" style of political "analysis", that seems to be very common. (I'm not saying you're indulging in it. I'm just observing how common it is here and elsewhere). I leave that for the guys putting the world to rights while propping up the bar in the local pub.

I understand reasonably well why some of the more rational people on the libertarian right tend to object to solutions to problems which involve coordinated government action, and why this tends to politically link apparently diverse issues such as climate change and covid. I just disagree with them. But I guess this is all increasingly off-topic so I'll leave it there.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by Tegularius »

Steve3007 wrote: August 5th, 2021, 4:53 am
Tegularius wrote:Why do so many people have this urge to politize that which is thoroughly immune to any kind of politization?...
It depends how you use the word "politize" or "politicize".
Here in the U.S. and Canada there is much talk about politicization - that word being specifically used - to describe the battle against covid as a matter of human rights. These "rights" are meant to supersede most of the rules, most often requests, required to control the outbreak and now it's reported we are very likely going to experience a 4th wave based on the D-variant. The daily covid count is already increasing and getting very serious once more but many people still refuse to get vaccinated, wear masks or practice distancing in public because it's claimed to be an infringement of their human rights...a political stance dangerous to everyone as has already become obvious. When fighting an enemy that can easily kill you, rights, however you define them, are no-longer a priority. But that's just my view.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7066
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Protagoras wrote: August 5th, 2021, 4:12 am The whole pandemic including the response is a political event.
True, but then so is most things.
More importantly it is a significant social and biological event.
It's not a "plandemic" or a mirage.
People have no sense of irony or double standards when they say the government which is by its intrinsic nature political shouldn't be political about the plandemic!
Might as well ask a lion to not eat meat.
The people get what they deserve. If they do not like their politicians then they would do well to get involved and stop complaining.
Last edited by Sculptor1 on August 5th, 2021, 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Protagoras
Posts: 37
Joined: July 10th, 2021, 5:46 am

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by Protagoras »

Tegularius wrote: August 5th, 2021, 5:59 am
Steve3007 wrote: August 5th, 2021, 4:53 am
Tegularius wrote:Why do so many people have this urge to politize that which is thoroughly immune to any kind of politization?...
It depends how you use the word "politize" or "politicize".
Here in the U.S. and Canada there is much talk about politicization - that word being specifically used - to describe the battle against covid as a matter of human rights. These "rights" are meant to supersede most of the rules, most often requests, required to control the outbreak and now it's reported we are very likely going to experience a 4th wave based on the D-variant. The daily covid count is already increasing and getting very serious once more but many people still refuse to get vaccinated, wear masks or practice distancing in public because it's claimed to be an infringement of their human rights...a political stance dangerous to everyone as has already become obvious. When fighting an enemy that can easily kill you, rights, however you define them, are no-longer a priority. But that's just my view.

This is a symptom of the scapegoat mentality.
Always must blame someone rather than he real culprits.
The plandemic originates with governments and the paranoia of people.
Imagine oppressing people because of the flu.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

Post by Steve3007 »

Tegularius wrote:Here in the U.S. and Canada there is much talk about politicization - that word being specifically used - to describe the battle against covid as a matter of human rights. ...
...The daily covid count is already increasing and getting very serious once more but many people still refuse to get vaccinated, wear masks or practice distancing in public because it's claimed to be an infringement of their human rights....
Yes, I know. Some people take that attitude in the UK too, but generally a lower proportion of the population because (it seems to me) of the relatively strong strand of libertarian ideals in North America, and in particular the US. Although you obviously know more about that from direct experience than me. That's why I brought up that particular type of political view. I'm not entirely against it, but as I said in an earlier post I think it over-simplifies the extent to which we are interdependent, and that interdependence - the fact that we breathe the same air - is vividly illustrated by a crisis like this.
When fighting an enemy that can easily kill you, rights, however you define them, are no-longer a priority. But that's just my view.
My view is that rights are still a useful concept but that choices often have to be made between conflicting rights. The person who asserts their right not to take any personal steps against covid ignores the fact that their mere presence in the vicinity of other people has an affect on those people. The ideal that we're all individuals who have the right to be left alone to do as we please so long as we don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same often ignores this and simplistically treats people as if they live in separate little bubbles, and as if so long as we don't actively attack other people we're not adversely affecting them.
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