What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

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.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

LuckyR wrote: August 11th, 2022, 1:03 pm It is naive to think a successfully made argument will or should change another's view dramatically, rather incrementally...
Pattern-chaser wrote: August 12th, 2022, 5:28 am ...or even at all? Changing people's minds is a very different thing from presenting a soundly-founded argument. Ask Trump how we should do the former, but steer well clear of him if you want to know about the latter! 😉
...
Belindi wrote: August 12th, 2022, 7:23 am It's important to identify the persuader as a good or alternatively a bad source.
Does that even matter, I wonder? Persuasion generally works best on those who already agree with what is being proposed, and this means they will also consider the speaker to be a good source, regardless of whether they are or not. The persuasion, if it works, seems to include recognising the speaker as a reliable, "good", source. I do not argue in favour of this, I only recognise an empirical truth (I think).

An example: there is clear factual evidence that Boris Johnson is a liar, and other undesirable stuff. But my sister — deranged woman that she is (but she isn't stupid) — would vote to re-install him, or vote for him at a General Election. Incomprehensible, maybe, but apparently not uncommon.

Persuading humans (of anything) is extremely odd, and seems to have nothing to do with facts or truth.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by Ecurb »

"Right" means "agreeing with me". "Wrong" means "disagreeing with me".
value
Premium Member
Posts: 750
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by value »

JackDaydream wrote: August 11th, 2022, 10:37 am I am writing this thread because it does seem that on this forum people seem to approach philosophy with insistence on being right and seeing others who think differently as being wrong. I just got into discussions of this on the thread about what philosophy is 'offends you most?' I don't see philosophy as being merely about asserting being right. I see it about exploration and some fluidity, with a view to an ongoing quest for knowledge and understanding. I am wondering to what extent others feel this or not. I am not sure of clear objective answers, especially on the existence of God, the mind and body problem or aspects of ethics and politics.

Is the finding of answers possible objectively or is it about attachments to ideas? Are you prepared to admit that you are wrong and is it important to be right in the logic or assumptions of your approach to philosophy? To what extent is possible to be 'right' or certain in one's approach? Or, how does one live with the anguish of one's uncertainty?
Interesting question!

I would share your perspective. In my opinion philosophy is questionable.

It seems that you might be noticing the practising of dialectical logic. 🕮 Immanuel Kant mentioned the following about dialectical logic in his Critique of Pure Reason (Second Part—TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC - III - Of the Division of General Logic into Analytic and Dialectic.)

Different as are the significations in which the ancients used this term (dialectic) for a science or an art, we may safely infer, from their actual employment of it, that with them it was nothing else than a logic of illusion—a sophistical art for giving ignorance, nay, even intentional sophistries, the colouring of truth, in which the thoroughness of procedure which logic requires was imitated, and their topic employed to cloak the empty pretensions. Now it may be taken as a safe and useful warning, that general logic, considered as an organon, must always be a logic of illusion, that is, be dialectical, for, as it teaches us nothing whatever respecting the content of our cognitions, but merely the formal conditions of their accordance with the understanding, which do not relate to and are quite indifferent in respect of objects, any attempt to employ it as an instrument (organon) in order to extend and enlarge the range of our knowledge must end in mere prating; any one being able to maintain or oppose, with some appearance of truth, any single assertion whatever.

Such instruction is quite unbecoming the dignity of philosophy. For these reasons we have chosen to denominate this part of logic dialectic, in the sense of a critique of dialectical illusion, and we wish the term to be so understood in this place.

...

These sophistical assertions of dialectic open, as it were, a battle-field, where that side obtains the victory which has been permitted to make the attack, and he is compelled to yield who has been unfortunately obliged to stand on the defensive. And hence, champions of ability, whether on the right or on the wrong side, are certain to carry away the crown of victory, if they only take care to have the right to make the last attack, and are not obliged to sustain another onset from their opponent. We can easily believe that this arena has been often trampled by the feet of combatants, that many victories have been obtained on both sides, but that the last victory, decisive of the affair between the contending parties, was won by him who fought for the right, only if his adversary was forbidden to continue the tourney. As impartial umpires, we must lay aside entirely the consideration whether the combatants are fighting for the right or for the wrong side, for the true or for the false, and allow the combat to be first decided. Perhaps, after they have wearied more than injured each other, they will discover the nothingness of their cause of quarrel and part good friends.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Ecurb wrote: August 12th, 2022, 9:47 am "Right" means "agreeing with me". "Wrong" means "disagreeing with me".
There we go! The question posed by the topic, fully and completely answered. Nothing left to say. Move along now; nothing to see here.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by Ecurb »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 12th, 2022, 10:12 am
Ecurb wrote: August 12th, 2022, 9:47 am "Right" means "agreeing with me". "Wrong" means "disagreeing with me".
There we go! The question posed by the topic, fully and completely answered. Nothing left to say. Move along now; nothing to see here.
While flippant, my comment above is also what everyone believes. That's because if we recognize we are wrong about something, we change our stance. Nobody believes what he doesn't believe, or doesn't believe what he believes. We think we are right because otherwise we would change our opinion. (Of course reasonable people also recognize they MIGHT be wrong -- but if they think they are wrong they change their opinion.)
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by JackDaydream »

Belindi wrote: August 12th, 2022, 7:23 am
JackDaydream wrote: August 11th, 2022, 1:46 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: August 11th, 2022, 12:46 pm
JackDaydream wrote: August 11th, 2022, 12:15 pm I am not wishing for the word 'argumentive' to be removed from the forum.
Good. But it might benefit many of our discussions to indulge more in co-operative argumentation, instead of debate-like, point-scoring, adversarial argumentation…?

It is rather unfortunate that discussion of ideas may be almost a question of point scoring, or even about quantity of posts, as if so many make a position valid. It is linked to the art of persuasion and in life the continual bombardment of messages in the media probably plays a large influence, especially on a subliminal level.
It's important to identify the persuader as a good or alternatively a bad source. Pessimists are more likely than optimists to identify bad sources.
Persuasion and the nature of sources is extremely important. It is possible to see bad sources, seeing poor quality of evidence and arguments. Sometimes, this is done in such a fierce and critical way, and coming to overriding conclusions and dismissing ideas on the basis of flaws, which may even be superficial. Critical analysis may be approached by seeing both the good and bad aspects of sources as a way of being in depth. As far as persuasion goes it depends partly who is being persuaded. Some may be persuaded on the basis of poor logic whereas others may not accept arguments as easily. This is where mindset comes in, especially with the receptivity of the audience. Persuasion is an aspect of philosophical argument but it is so bound up with the nature of communication as well.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by JackDaydream »

value wrote: August 12th, 2022, 9:54 am
JackDaydream wrote: August 11th, 2022, 10:37 am I am writing this thread because it does seem that on this forum people seem to approach philosophy with insistence on being right and seeing others who think differently as being wrong. I just got into discussions of this on the thread about what philosophy is 'offends you most?' I don't see philosophy as being merely about asserting being right. I see it about exploration and some fluidity, with a view to an ongoing quest for knowledge and understanding. I am wondering to what extent others feel this or not. I am not sure of clear objective answers, especially on the existence of God, the mind and body problem or aspects of ethics and politics.

Is the finding of answers possible objectively or is it about attachments to ideas? Are you prepared to admit that you are wrong and is it important to be right in the logic or assumptions of your approach to philosophy? To what extent is possible to be 'right' or certain in one's approach? Or, how does one live with the anguish of one's uncertainty?
Interesting question!

I would share your perspective. In my opinion philosophy is questionable.

It seems that you might be noticing the practising of dialectical logic. 🕮 Immanuel Kant mentioned the following about dialectical logic in his Critique of Pure Reason (Second Part—TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC - III - Of the Division of General Logic into Analytic and Dialectic.)

Different as are the significations in which the ancients used this term (dialectic) for a science or an art, we may safely infer, from their actual employment of it, that with them it was nothing else than a logic of illusion—a sophistical art for giving ignorance, nay, even intentional sophistries, the colouring of truth, in which the thoroughness of procedure which logic requires was imitated, and their topic employed to cloak the empty pretensions. Now it may be taken as a safe and useful warning, that general logic, considered as an organon, must always be a logic of illusion, that is, be dialectical, for, as it teaches us nothing whatever respecting the content of our cognitions, but merely the formal conditions of their accordance with the understanding, which do not relate to and are quite indifferent in respect of objects, any attempt to employ it as an instrument (organon) in order to extend and enlarge the range of our knowledge must end in mere prating; any one being able to maintain or oppose, with some appearance of truth, any single assertion whatever.

Such instruction is quite unbecoming the dignity of philosophy. For these reasons we have chosen to denominate this part of logic dialectic, in the sense of a critique of dialectical illusion, and we wish the term to be so understood in this place.

...

These sophistical assertions of dialectic open, as it were, a battle-field, where that side obtains the victory which has been permitted to make the attack, and he is compelled to yield who has been unfortunately obliged to stand on the defensive. And hence, champions of ability, whether on the right or on the wrong side, are certain to carry away the crown of victory, if they only take care to have the right to make the last attack, and are not obliged to sustain another onset from their opponent. We can easily believe that this arena has been often trampled by the feet of combatants, that many victories have been obtained on both sides, but that the last victory, decisive of the affair between the contending parties, was won by him who fought for the right, only if his adversary was forbidden to continue the tourney. As impartial umpires, we must lay aside entirely the consideration whether the combatants are fighting for the right or for the wrong side, for the true or for the false, and allow the combat to be first decided. Perhaps, after they have wearied more than injured each other, they will discover the nothingness of their cause of quarrel and part good friends.
Kant's ideas about rationality are useful, especially in relation to the division which he makes by a priori reason and empirical epistemology. It seems that the empirical has become more favoured gradually. This is made complicated by the way in which reason is balanced alongside it with evidence or lack of it being incorporated into thinking, including science. Also, emotional aspects may come into play and this may be where it goes into fierce opposition and, here, it may be that some can win philosophy arguments, or think that they have won because they have put others' ideas down. However, it is likely that others can see this in the more objective and may be in an independent position to see false logic and bad arguments. In a way, Kant's idea of transcendental logic is a useful aspect for thinking. Also, the discipline of critical thinking is also useful and, hopefully, can be applied and in such a way as to make rationality stand out above mere force in exploring the nature of philosophy argument, or the genuine attempt to come to sound judgements. But, it can be hard to attain clarity when many loud voices claim attention and claim to be right, making clarity of thought such an overwhelming maze of confusion. It may be difficult for people to agree and, of course, agreement is not essential and, often, may not be possible in many aspects of thought, which is why philosophy is so extremely hard, involving subjective and objective ways of seeing. The areas of the intersubjective are negotiable but the boundaries are extremely fluid and changing constantly.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by JackDaydream »

Ecurb wrote: August 12th, 2022, 9:47 am "Right" means "agreeing with me". "Wrong" means "disagreeing with me".
In a way, most people do think that they are right and others are wrong because subjective bias is so strong. Going beyond intellectual pride may be needed in order to examine one's ideas and listen carefully to what others say. Such a way of listening to other views is central to critical thinking and analysis, and it remains a hard task to be able to stand back from one's own basic assumptions and perspective and hear others' viewpoints.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by Ecurb »

JackDaydream wrote: August 12th, 2022, 11:27 am

In a way, most people do think that they are right and others are wrong because subjective bias is so strong. Going beyond intellectual pride may be needed in order to examine one's ideas and listen carefully to what others say. Such a way of listening to other views is central to critical thinking and analysis, and it remains a hard task to be able to stand back from one's own basic assumptions and perspective and hear others' viewpoints.
No. They think they are right because if they didn't, they would change their opinion. The most open-minded people in the world think they are right. Indeed, it's logially impossible to think otherwise. Believing something to be true that one does not believe to be true is a logical contradiction.
philg42
Premium Member
Posts: 8
Joined: August 12th, 2022, 5:31 am

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by philg42 »

Perhaps the idea of right or wrong in philosophy is whether a particular philosophical idea is internally consistent rather than correct or incorrect, or maybe morally right or wrong. Or whether an interpretation of a philosophical idea uses strategies which do not do justice to the original writer's actual work, deliberately or otherwise. For me, 'right' is useful in moving things on and 'wrong' the opposite. Which may not be true for someone else, of course.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by JackDaydream »

Ecurb wrote: August 12th, 2022, 12:06 pm
JackDaydream wrote: August 12th, 2022, 11:27 am

In a way, most people do think that they are right and others are wrong because subjective bias is so strong. Going beyond intellectual pride may be needed in order to examine one's ideas and listen carefully to what others say. Such a way of listening to other views is central to critical thinking and analysis, and it remains a hard task to be able to stand back from one's own basic assumptions and perspective and hear others' viewpoints.
No. They think they are right because if they didn't, they would change their opinion. The most open-minded people in the world think they are right. Indeed, it's logially impossible to think otherwise. Believing something to be true that one does not believe to be true is a logical contradiction.
There may be different degrees of certainty of belief. Some are more fixed than others. For example, I am certain that the account of creation is not literally true. I know people who think that it is literally true and are opposed to even questioning it. This comes down partly to credibility of authorities as sources. As a child I took the Bible as an ultimate reference and when a teacher at school taught the ideas of evolution I was stunned and horrified. It was only later on that I was able to look at it with 'an open mind'.

Generally, it can be asked what an open mind is it is unlikely that anyone is completely open minded because that might end up with no sense of any knowledge at all. At any moment, it is likely that most people have some clear beliefs or convictions. I know that I do have certtain ideas about ways which I think that are acceptable to treat others and such ideas are often as strong as ones about the nature of reality. In thinking about personal values there may be a delicate balance between an open mind and flexibility. Some issues, like oppression or bullying others may cause emotional outrage and it may here that the concept of an open mind is problematic and not really possible. There may be aspects of belief and knowledge which are more fixed and aspects which are more flexible. It involves the core structures of one's knowledge, with some being central as the framework. It may be easier to alter the more peripheral ideas than the underlying worldview..To change it all is likely to almost turn the inner structure upside down and inside out, it being so radical in depth.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by LuckyR »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 12th, 2022, 5:28 am
LuckyR wrote: August 11th, 2022, 1:03 pm It is naive to think a successfully made argument will or should change another's view dramatically, rather incrementally...
...or even at all? Changing people's minds is a very different thing from presenting a soundly-founded argument. Ask Trump how we should do the former, but steer well clear of him if you want to know about the latter! 😉
I am describing open-mindedness, you are describing close-mindedness.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by LuckyR »

philg42 wrote: August 12th, 2022, 12:25 pm Perhaps the idea of right or wrong in philosophy is whether a particular philosophical idea is internally consistent rather than correct or incorrect, or maybe morally right or wrong. Or whether an interpretation of a philosophical idea uses strategies which do not do justice to the original writer's actual work, deliberately or otherwise. For me, 'right' is useful in moving things on and 'wrong' the opposite. Which may not be true for someone else, of course.
I look at this issue very differently. Specifically, IMO any philosophy is only as good (right) as its ability to function in Real World situations. This is going to vary given what the goals are of any given individual. Therefore "relevant" is closer to the correct meaning than "right".
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by JackDaydream »

philg42 wrote: August 12th, 2022, 12:25 pm Perhaps the idea of right or wrong in philosophy is whether a particular philosophical idea is internally consistent rather than correct or incorrect, or maybe morally right or wrong. Or whether an interpretation of a philosophical idea uses strategies which do not do justice to the original writer's actual work, deliberately or otherwise. For me, 'right' is useful in moving things on and 'wrong' the opposite. Which may not be true for someone else, of course.
I guess that the idea of right and wrong are loaded in a certain way, going back to all kinds of black and white thinking and binary thinking. Internal consistency is probably useful for thinking of ways in which ideas, and logical thought patterns are considered. It does come down to the nature of thinking and one particular book which I have found helpful is, 'Thinking Fast and Slow', by Daniel Kahnemann(2011), in which he explores different aspects of thinking and judgement. He speaks, in particular, of the difference between the immediacy of intuition and the more careful deliberation, slower thinking of analysis.

He also speaks of the nature of the way in which people think in terms of expertise, and lack of it. The entire way in which knowledge is analysed, interpreted and evaluated raises so much in understanding the nature of the thinking processes. This includes the nature of biases, which may be unconscious blindspots.

Part of the issue which I see is that while ideas are based on logic in many aspects of life there is such a complex crossover between reason and emotion, especially in the realm of values. While rationality and critical reason are the tools of philosophy it may be that the emotional aspects lying behind reason play such a significant role, especially in the area of morality. Even beyond moral issues, into conceptions of reality emotional dispositions and what one wishes to believe psychologically, may be extremely significant. It is hard to know whether rationality or emotions have the bigger sway and influence. This is the area which is probably the centre of internal consistency, and may be played out in the wider arena of philosophy debate with other people's arguments and ideas. It may be an aspect of individual and social life which is apart from logic and possibly rationality is built around it . It is hard to know if the skeleton of philosophies proceeds from logic or whether the fles of it is the core body of emotional values. Or, perhaps the division is so intricate and fragile, making it extremely difficult to disentangle the two components.
User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 1403
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

Post by The Beast »

It is noble to go against mental attitudes and not the individual. We could make a Menippean satire and the muses of ‘the Consolatio’ will come to our calling. In this manner I will tell lady Philosophy my thoughts on the vagaries of Fortune, the moral government of the Universe and the dilemma of free will. The master and the greater comforter of weary minds goes at it again with deep thoughts as I zealously requested them. Lady Philosophy’s guitar is set forth a bright song about what rullos keep safe the immense Universe, bending and tying each and all with cords that cannot be loosed. Since she was all revealing I asked: What is the greatest good? “Happiness is the greatest good and it correlates with divinity” and Jack Isn’t this true. And how can we be happy and achieve divinity? It is in the logical pursue of my clan of augurs to make divination a science. “I came to know that human reasoning cannot attain to the act of insight which divine foreknowledge is” It is the coexistence of free will and determinism. Let’s assume that foreknowledge exists but imposes no necessity upon things then free will should be left intact. Let it be… Let it be. There will be an answer...
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