Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

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
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by JackDaydream »

Carter Blunt wrote: March 5th, 2023, 6:53 pm
JackDaydream wrote: March 4th, 2023, 10:35 am
Bahman wrote: March 4th, 2023, 10:18 am Life was possible so its appearance was only a matter of time.
The question may be whether there was ever a time before life existed at all. Here, I am thinking of more cyclical pictures. Even if life emerged in this universe in the form of the big bang, that doesn't rule out the possibility of many previous births and deaths of universes prior to the existence of this one, in a cyclical picture of eternity.
Time is just a measurement of motion, so there still has to be a first motion, no matter how far back you go. If you're saying our big bang was part of a cycle of infinite big bangs, does the universe play out the exact same way every time, looping back in on itself in some kind of paradox where the ending is the beginning? Or is there a FIRST big bang?
Your query about whether any previous cycles would have involved a big bang, and the existence of an initial one, is the problem which I have always seen with cyclical pictures. It is like looking at a circle which probably needs to begin with an actual point initially. As far as I see it, most cyclical pictures are idealist essentially, although I wonder if there may be a more complex indeed, in some form of quantum enfoldment of potential prior to manifestation, but it is rather perplexing, even with a linear model.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by JackDaydream »

Count Lucanor wrote: March 6th, 2023, 8:11 am
JackDaydream wrote: March 4th, 2023, 10:30 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: March 4th, 2023, 9:43 am I think perhaps that the conditions here were appropriate for life, so life emerged? Just that? 🤔
It depends what you mean by conditions,; were they simply material ones? Usually, the idea of emergence is linked to a materialist understanding of consciousness, with the assumption that consciousness was a later development. That is in contrast to the perspective of consciousness being a prerequisite. However, my own perspective involves the Jungian understanding of the unconscious as the source. But, it still leaves the question as to whether there is some underlying consciousness, as potential, in the unconscious prior to emergence.
It’s more than an assumption. The fact is that the world can exist without consciousness, but consciousness has never been found disembodied. Whatever one may speculate on the nature, origins and development of these things, this fact cannot be ignored.
The idea of disembodied consciousness is problematic, and would involve spirits of some kind. It would depend on what spirit is, or some underlying spiritual force, such as recognised in panpsychism. The other possibility may be of the unconscious, or as Jung described, the collective unconscious, as a source from which all consciousness comes from and returns to as a blending process of merging with the eternal.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by JackDaydream »

Bahman wrote: March 5th, 2023, 11:26 am
JackDaydream wrote: March 4th, 2023, 6:04 pm
Bahman wrote: March 4th, 2023, 12:18 pm
JackDaydream wrote: March 4th, 2023, 10:35 am
The question may be whether there was ever a time before life existed at all.
Sure there was a period between the Big Bang and the moment that the universe cool down enough to allow any form of life. In the starting, there was only light. Then the universe got colder and this allowed the appearance of matter in form of elementary particles. There was a period when there were only stars. You need heavy elements for life and for that you need supernova. You could then have planets made of heavy elements. And life could appear on a planet if the planet has the appropriate conditions.
JackDaydream wrote: March 4th, 2023, 10:35 am Here, I am thinking of more cyclical pictures. Even if life emerged in this universe in the form of the big bang, that doesn't rule out the possibility of many previous births and deaths of universes prior to the existence of this one, in a cyclical picture of eternity.
I don't think that the cyclic universe is a correct model since it deals with an infinite past. Nevertheless, even if the model was true any form of life gets destroyed during the collapse of the universe so the proper condition for life has to become available again.
While I have do think that 'big bang' theory may be one of the most accurate theories, it is so hard to see the entire spectrum of eternity and infinity because it is beyond known boundaries. It is almost impossible to know whether the linear or the cyclical is the larger pattern because there appears to an interplay of both in the patterns in nature, just like the interplay between mind and matter. Also, we in this universe and its laws of nature and dimensions of reality, so it is hard to know how fixed these are. There is no reason to believe that this is the only universe, especially in the light of the quantum model or portrait of the multiverse.
Sure I cannot rule out the multiverse idea so other forms of life are possible. I can conceive other universes with different laws of nature, different elementary particles, and different sorts of life.
Part of the problem with the idea of the multiverse is that it a fuzzy i conceptual picture of the fluidity of perception, mainly be backed up with various aspects of quantum theory. What seems to have happened is that in the light of the new physics ushered in by Einstein 'reality' has become less solid. Relativity has made both time and space relative, with the result of making so much about ongoing relationships between variables, rather than the more previous mechanistic view of space-time as constants. Change is going on constantly and the various perspectives may be the basis of the whole idea of the multiverse, and all ideas of developments, such as evolutionary progression and survival of the fittest are human interpretation.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by Count Lucanor »

JackDaydream wrote: March 6th, 2023, 11:42 am
Count Lucanor wrote: March 6th, 2023, 8:11 am
JackDaydream wrote: March 4th, 2023, 10:30 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: March 4th, 2023, 9:43 am I think perhaps that the conditions here were appropriate for life, so life emerged? Just that? 🤔
It depends what you mean by conditions,; were they simply material ones? Usually, the idea of emergence is linked to a materialist understanding of consciousness, with the assumption that consciousness was a later development. That is in contrast to the perspective of consciousness being a prerequisite. However, my own perspective involves the Jungian understanding of the unconscious as the source. But, it still leaves the question as to whether there is some underlying consciousness, as potential, in the unconscious prior to emergence.
It’s more than an assumption. The fact is that the world can exist without consciousness, but consciousness has never been found disembodied. Whatever one may speculate on the nature, origins and development of these things, this fact cannot be ignored.
The idea of disembodied consciousness is problematic, and would involve spirits of some kind. It would depend on what spirit is, or some underlying spiritual force, such as recognised in panpsychism. The other possibility may be of the unconscious, or as Jung described, the collective unconscious, as a source from which all consciousness comes from and returns to as a blending process of merging with the eternal.
Yes, disembodied consciousness is problematic. Idealism is problematic. Materialism is not.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by JackDaydream »

Count Lucanor wrote: March 6th, 2023, 11:08 pm
JackDaydream wrote: March 6th, 2023, 11:42 am
Count Lucanor wrote: March 6th, 2023, 8:11 am
JackDaydream wrote: March 4th, 2023, 10:30 am

It depends what you mean by conditions,; were they simply material ones? Usually, the idea of emergence is linked to a materialist understanding of consciousness, with the assumption that consciousness was a later development. That is in contrast to the perspective of consciousness being a prerequisite. However, my own perspective involves the Jungian understanding of the unconscious as the source. But, it still leaves the question as to whether there is some underlying consciousness, as potential, in the unconscious prior to emergence.
It’s more than an assumption. The fact is that the world can exist without consciousness, but consciousness has never been found disembodied. Whatever one may speculate on the nature, origins and development of these things, this fact cannot be ignored.
The idea of disembodied consciousness is problematic, and would involve spirits of some kind. It would depend on what spirit is, or some underlying spiritual force, such as recognised in panpsychism. The other possibility may be of the unconscious, or as Jung described, the collective unconscious, as a source from which all consciousness comes from and returns to as a blending process of merging with the eternal.
Yes, disembodied consciousness is problematic. Idealism is problematic. Materialism is not.
Materialism is far less problematic than idealism because idealism involves speculative imagination. Of course, there is a potential problem of reductionism, if it is seen too concretely. Nevertheless, the nature of disembodied consciousness raises a lot of questions, especially in some discussions of immortality and what it could entail. In querying the nature of disembodied consciousness, thinkers from the phenomenological perspective have raised important understanding of the way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by Count Lucanor »

JackDaydream wrote: March 7th, 2023, 2:16 pm
Materialism is far less problematic than idealism because idealism involves speculative imagination. Of course, there is a potential problem of reductionism, if it is seen too concretely. Nevertheless, the nature of disembodied consciousness raises a lot of questions, especially in some discussions of immortality and what it could entail. In querying the nature of disembodied consciousness, thinkers from the phenomenological perspective have raised important understanding of the way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life.
That's a contradicting statement. Thinkers from the phenomenological perspective may have raised interesting, imaginative speculations, but nevertheless, useless for an understanding of the the real way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life, given that assumption that there's a distinction between mind and body.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by JackDaydream »

Count Lucanor wrote: March 7th, 2023, 8:53 pm
JackDaydream wrote: March 7th, 2023, 2:16 pm
Materialism is far less problematic than idealism because idealism involves speculative imagination. Of course, there is a potential problem of reductionism, if it is seen too concretely. Nevertheless, the nature of disembodied consciousness raises a lot of questions, especially in some discussions of immortality and what it could entail. In querying the nature of disembodied consciousness, thinkers from the phenomenological perspective have raised important understanding of the way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life.
That's a contradicting statement. Thinkers from the phenomenological perspective may have raised interesting, imaginative speculations, but nevertheless, useless for an understanding of the the real way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life, given that assumption that there's a distinction between mind and body.
My understanding is that the phenomenonologists raise the way in which seeing mind and body as separate is problematic in many respects. This is parallel to Gilbert Ryle's argument in 'The Concept of Mind' that dualism, especially the idea of the 'ghost in the machine' is a category error of trying to separate mind and body, rather than the two being complementary perspectives of the inner and outer.

Of course, it is complex because life as we know it is dependent on a body. That may the standard medical definition of life, especially when declaring a person as alive, dependent mostly on breath. Probably, where it gets a bit more complicated is in relation to whether consciousness begins and ends at this point in a definitive way and what constitutes the spark of life as the animating factor.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by Count Lucanor »

JackDaydream wrote: March 8th, 2023, 9:16 am
Of course, it is complex because life as we know it is dependent on a body. That may the standard medical definition of life, especially when declaring a person as alive, dependent mostly on breath. Probably, where it gets a bit more complicated is in relation to whether consciousness begins and ends at this point in a definitive way and what constitutes the spark of life as the animating factor.
Since there's no evidence of disembodied consciousness, if consciousness and the organic life of bodies always appear together, I can't see where it gets complicated. It's actually pretty straightforward.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Count Lucanor wrote: March 7th, 2023, 8:53 pm Thinkers from the phenomenological perspective may have raised interesting, imaginative speculations, but nevertheless, useless for an understanding of the real way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life, given that assumption that there's a distinction between mind and body.
I think you've zeroed-in on an important aspect of this discussion. For myself, I feel inclined to reconsider the basic assumptions at work here. For example, why are we wondering about "the real way in which mind and body come together", instead of starting from the (alternative) assumption that both are one, an undivided (and maybe indivisible) thing? In other words, when we ask why they came together, I ask in return why we think they were ever apart? [N.B. I'm discussing the status quo, not the emergence of mind, which presumably happened farther back down our evolutionary chain.]

I think you capture some of this in your final words. I think that mind and body are distinct — we can recognise one or the other — and tell one from the other — without difficulty. But are they "distinct" in the sense of being independent, in a way that would justify us considering them in isolation from each other?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by JackDaydream »

Count Lucanor wrote: March 6th, 2023, 11:08 pm
JackDaydream wrote: March 6th, 2023, 11:42 am
Count Lucanor wrote: March 6th, 2023, 8:11 am
JackDaydream wrote: March 4th, 2023, 10:30 am

It depends what you mean by conditions,; were they simply material ones? Usually, the idea of emergence is linked to a materialist understanding of consciousness, with the assumption that consciousness was a later development. That is in contrast to the perspective of consciousness being a prerequisite. However, my own perspective involves the Jungian understanding of the unconscious as the source. But, it still leaves the question as to whether there is some underlying consciousness, as potential, in the unconscious prior to emergence.
It’s more than an assumption. The fact is that the world can exist without consciousness, but consciousness has never been found disembodied. Whatever one may speculate on the nature, origins and development of these things, this fact cannot be ignored.
The idea of disembodied consciousness is problematic, and would involve spirits of some kind. It would depend on what spirit is, or some underlying spiritual force, such as recognised in panpsychism. The other possibility may be of the unconscious, or as Jung described, the collective unconscious, as a source from which all consciousness comes from and returns to as a blending process of merging with the eternal.
Yes, disembodied consciousness is problematic. Idealism is problematic. Materialism is not.
I can see your point of view and the problematic nature of idealism in comparison with materialism is something which I have been thinking about in various threads. I can see why materialism is the most simple solution but I am not convinced that it captures everything as it does not seem to capture the essence of the lifeforce itself. For example, at birth and death the animating factor starts and ends. It may come down to breath on the basic physical level but what is involved in the process is complex.

It may be systems based but the question is whether there is any underlying non physical aspects involved. In particular, in the navigation of motivation and purpose in each life there is will, which is psychological. The basis of psychological motivation definitely involve physical aspects but it it can be asked is that all there is? So, the idea of the "ghost in the machine' may pose a problem of dualism but to deny the 'ghost' at all may be too reductionist, with the material being seen as all and everything.

In addition, the other aspect of this, regarding disembodied consciousness is the nature of artificial intelligence. Of course, such intelligence is non sentient but not disconnected from machines, digital devices and transmission of information. However, the processes go beyond the physical, raising the question is information physical or non physical? This is important in thinking about consciousness and asking what exactly is 'mind'?
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by JackDaydream »

Pattern-chaser wrote: March 9th, 2023, 9:20 am
Count Lucanor wrote: March 7th, 2023, 8:53 pm Thinkers from the phenomenological perspective may have raised interesting, imaginative speculations, but nevertheless, useless for an understanding of the real way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life, given that assumption that there's a distinction between mind and body.
I think you've zeroed-in on an important aspect of this discussion. For myself, I feel inclined to reconsider the basic assumptions at work here. For example, why are we wondering about "the real way in which mind and body come together", instead of starting from the (alternative) assumption that both are one, an undivided (and maybe indivisible) thing? In other words, when we ask why they came together, I ask in return why we think they were ever apart? [N.B. I'm discussing the status quo, not the emergence of mind, which presumably happened farther back down our evolutionary chain.]

I think you capture some of this in your final words. I think that mind and body are distinct — we can recognise one or the other — and tell one from the other — without difficulty. But are they "distinct" in the sense of being independent, in a way that would justify us considering them in isolation from each other?
Your interpretation Count Lucanor's reply is important, raising the issue as to what extent mind and body are one or separate. This does go back to Descartes and , as far as I am aware he did wish to see them as two aspects but interlinked. This led to two different pathways of thinking, one being the emphasis on the empirical and mechanistic understanding of the human being and, the other, as a focus on inner reality, especially the idea of the soul.

This paradox has been prevalent in different understandings. In particular, the emphasis on the mechanistic aspects was a basis for the Cartesian-Newtonian model. On the other hand, the emphasis on the 'soul' or 'ghost in the machine' was a basis for the perpetuation of the idea of consciousness as a separate reality, which may have enabled a perspective of the existence of the 'soul' as an independent reality, going back to Plato and his basis for the idea of immortality.

My own thinking is concerned about how the nature of 'mind' and 'life' itself can be understood in the ongoing perspectives, including quantum physics models, in which 'reality' is less 'solid'. It raises deep questions in which the physical is the basic structure of development of life but the quantum understandings, which are various models, are not materialistic essentially, such as that conveyed in the idea of the multiverse.
User avatar
davidclark
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: March 9th, 2023, 1:12 pm

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by davidclark »

Life may have originated from complex chemical reactions that occurred on Earth billions of years ago. These reactions, which were driven by energy from the sun and other sources, may have gradually led to the formation of self-replicating molecules that eventually evolved into the first living organisms. The processes of evolution may have occurred because of natural selection, online class takers idea that organisms that are better adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and reproduce. Over time, this leads to the development of new species and the diversification of life on Earth.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Pattern-chaser wrote: March 9th, 2023, 9:20 am
Count Lucanor wrote: March 7th, 2023, 8:53 pm Thinkers from the phenomenological perspective may have raised interesting, imaginative speculations, but nevertheless, useless for an understanding of the real way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life, given that assumption that there's a distinction between mind and body.
I think you've zeroed-in on an important aspect of this discussion. For myself, I feel inclined to reconsider the basic assumptions at work here. For example, why are we wondering about "the real way in which mind and body come together", instead of starting from the (alternative) assumption that both are one, an undivided (and maybe indivisible) thing? In other words, when we ask why they came together, I ask in return why we think they were ever apart? [N.B. I'm discussing the status quo, not the emergence of mind, which presumably happened farther back down our evolutionary chain.]

I think you capture some of this in your final words. I think that mind and body are distinct — we can recognise one or the other — and tell one from the other — without difficulty. But are they "distinct" in the sense of being independent, in a way that would justify us considering them in isolation from each other?
I am not a dualist myself and I think the common distinction between mind and body only depicts different aspects of the same thing. It's not a body with a mind, but a mindful body. Mind is what the brain does, and not even just the brain, but the entire central nervous system and perhaps the whole organism with its sensations.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by Count Lucanor »

JackDaydream wrote: March 9th, 2023, 11:46 am I can see your point of view and the problematic nature of idealism in comparison with materialism is something which I have been thinking about in various threads. I can see why materialism is the most simple solution but I am not convinced that it captures everything as it does not seem to capture the essence of the lifeforce itself. For example, at birth and death the animating factor starts and ends. It may come down to breath on the basic physical level but what is involved in the process is complex.

It may be systems based but the question is whether there is any underlying non physical aspects involved. In particular, in the navigation of motivation and purpose in each life there is will, which is psychological. The basis of psychological motivation definitely involve physical aspects but it it can be asked is that all there is? So, the idea of the "ghost in the machine' may pose a problem of dualism but to deny the 'ghost' at all may be too reductionist, with the material being seen as all and everything.

In addition, the other aspect of this, regarding disembodied consciousness is the nature of artificial intelligence. Of course, such intelligence is non sentient but not disconnected from machines, digital devices and transmission of information. However, the processes go beyond the physical, raising the question is information physical or non physical? This is important in thinking about consciousness and asking what exactly is 'mind'?
Physical does not mean hard, tangible, bodily things, even though the concept encompasses them too. Electromagnetic forces are physical, too. There are states, modes and relational properties of the physical that can only be described with abstractions, but even if we refer to them as "non-physical", they are not implying a cancellation of material monism, which is what materalism is. There are no known processes that "go beyond the physical". "Lifeforce", "animating factor", "ghost", these are all terms that recognize the existence of living processes that are ultimately physical, but are not reducible to it because they are emergent.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?

Post by JackDaydream »

davidclark wrote: March 9th, 2023, 1:34 pm Life may have originated from complex chemical reactions that occurred on Earth billions of years ago. These reactions, which were driven by energy from the sun and other sources, may have gradually led to the formation of self-replicating molecules that eventually evolved into the first living organisms. The processes of evolution may have occurred because of natural selection, online class takers idea that organisms that are better adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and reproduce. Over time, this leads to the development of new species and the diversification of life on Earth.
I agree with what you are saying and the only aspect which I do wonder about is natural selection itself because it is like an 'invisible hand' behind the scenes. It could have been something that evolved, or emerged but it does seem to suggest some inherent consciousness as the source of life itself.
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