Logic is it's own fallacy.

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

Do you believe mankind to be upon the pinnacle of thought? Or that the ideas that most people believe to be irrefutable are probably just the best that we have for now?

There are, and will always be, higher plains of awerness and knowledge.
9
50%
We are at, or nearing, the pinnacle.
0
No votes
I do not believe soley in either but believe that there may be higher plains of knowledge that we cannot yet begin to comphrehend.
7
39%
I do not believe soley in either but believe that some of the conclusions we have reached are ultimate and have little more room to grow.
2
11%
 
Total votes: 18

User avatar
ChaoticMindSays
Posts: 253
Joined: August 28th, 2009, 8:52 am

Logic is it's own fallacy.

Post by ChaoticMindSays »

Why do we value empirical evidence so highly? It is the only means we have to objectively disqualify scenarios. BUT I believe there to be more to the idea of empirical evidence than we give credit to.

We believe what we see. We need scientific proof to believe right?
Well what about the word of thousand and thousand and sometimes even millions of people over tens, sometimes hundreds, of generations? I don't believe that millions of people believe in something for thousands of years for no reason. I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power. THAT is illogical.
Persecrates
Posts: 220
Joined: July 6th, 2010, 2:15 pm

Re: Logic is it's own fallacy.

Post by Persecrates »

ChaoticMindSays wrote:Why do we value empirical evidence so highly? It is the only means we have to objectively disqualify scenarios.
No, we can disqualify scenarios, prove theories/hypotheses to be false (disprove them) by the use of logic.
BUT I believe there to be more to the idea of empirical evidence than we give credit to.
We believe what we see. We need scientific proof to believe right?
Well what about the word of thousand and thousand and sometimes even millions of people over tens, sometimes hundreds, of generations? I don't believe that millions of people believe in something for thousands of years for no reason.


For no reason of course not, but without proof yes.
Don't forget that desires (and fears) are very powerful incentives for one's beliefs.
We desire so much for something to be true that we believe it is.
But desire and beliefs have nothing to do with actual existence and/or the nature of this 'existence'/the believed phenomenon (not the acual one).
I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power. THAT is illogical.
What is logical is that if you fear death r cannot accept the possibility (not fact) that we stop existing after our death, you will believe in an afterlife.

What is logical is that if you have a belief in the concepts of justice and injustice, you will compare your belief with a tangible reality (countless injustices happen) and you will try to make sense of it by creating/believing in some sort of Higher Judge that will punish the wicked and reward the the righteous.

What is logical is that if you desire for 'life' to have a purpose, you will believe in 'something' that gives you this purpose, something 'bigger', 'higher' than you or your existence.
...

What is logical is that if you place your desires above what you can objectively logically and/or rationally prove, you will end up believing anything that satisfy your desires... Regardless of the validity/justification for them.

That's why psychoanalysis is so important. To understand why we believe this or this.
And that's why the logic method as well as the empirical validation of logical conclusion are important because they can help determine what is wishful thinking and what can be true (not necessarily is).
Actually, it should allow you to determine what isn't true.

We don't need to pretend to know (believe in) something which there is no proof for (or against), the fact that so many people do so is due to their fear of uncertainty, the unknown.
There are so many things we don't know, let's don't pretend we do.
Let's concentrate on what we know doesn't exist or is false, it would be more productive.

We can make hypotheses on what could be, that we can.
But it's only hypotheses/theories, not truths/knowledge.

If we didn't emotionnally invest in beliefs, we wouldn't have to defend them as if our life depended on them. We wouldn't have to fight over them either...

As for your poll, why do you add the word 'always' in your first question?
There are, and will always be, higher plains of awerness and knowledge.
We are far to know everything that is false, but it doesn't mean that some beings/species will never do so. They could finally know all there is to know... It could take billions of years but it doesn't mean it's 'unattainable'.
User avatar
Alun
Posts: 1118
Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post by Alun »

I think you're overextending the term 'logic.' The point of reasoning is to appeal to something that is both applicable to all people and not simply the force of majority rule. In this sense, it is antithetical to the constitutive aim of logic to appeal to the popularity of a belief as evidence of its truth.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
Persecrates
Posts: 220
Joined: July 6th, 2010, 2:15 pm

Post by Persecrates »

Alun wrote:I think you're overextending the term 'logic.' The point of reasoning is to appeal to something that is both applicable to all people and not simply the force of majority rule. In this sense, it is antithetical to the constitutive aim of logic to appeal to the popularity of a belief as evidence of its truth.
Alun's right it's called the ad populum (ad numerum in this case) fallacy.
It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
User avatar
pjkeeley
Posts: 695
Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am

Post by pjkeeley »

ChaoticMindSays wrote:Well what about the word of thousand and thousand and sometimes even millions of people over tens, sometimes hundreds, of generations? I don't believe that millions of people believe in something for thousands of years for no reason. I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power.
Philosophy isn't concerned with how many people believed what and for how long (the fallacy of argumentum ad populum). It is concerned only with the logical merits of belief. There may be truths which defy logic, as you claim, but if that is the case then philosophy is also defied by them. Philosophy ends at truths that can be verified only by intuitions.
User avatar
ChaoticMindSays
Posts: 253
Joined: August 28th, 2009, 8:52 am

Post by ChaoticMindSays »

Persecrates said,
No, we can disqualify scenarios, prove theories/hypotheses to be false (disprove them) by the use of logic.
I see empirical evidence as being a function of logic. SO the two are almost interchangeable. Forgive me for my mis-communication.
For no reason of course not, but without proof yes.
Don't forget that desires (and fears) are very powerful incentives for one's beliefs.
We desire so much for something to be true that we believe it is.
But desire and beliefs have nothing to do with actual existence and/or the nature of this 'existence'/the believed phenomenon (not the acual one).
I believe desire to have quite a bit to do with the nature of our reality. Proof isn't the issue here, it is the question why?. I don't believe that Nearly every culture that has ever existed all just happened to believe in a 'God' because it is logical for people to be afraid of death. Not all people are afraid of death, not all cultures are afraid of death.
What is logical is that if you desire for 'life' to have a purpose, you will believe in 'something' that gives you this purpose, something 'bigger', 'higher' than you or your existence.
I agree, we make our own purpose. But I also believe that that purpose is more than just our desire. It is made tangible by our desire, the purpose is real.
What is logical is that if you place your desires above what you can objectively logically and/or rationally prove, you will end up believing anything that satisfy your desires... Regardless of the validity/justification for them.
I disagree, just because you desire something does not mean you automatically allow yourself to believe in said thing.
We don't need to pretend to know (believe in) something which there is no proof for (or against), the fact that so many people do so is due to their fear of uncertainty, the unknown.
You pretend to believe that you know that "the fact that so many people do so is due to their fear of uncertainty, the unknown.", Maybe it is because of your fear of the unknown? :wink:
We are far to know everything that is false, but it doesn't mean that some beings/species will never do so. They could finally know all there is to know... It could take billions of years but it doesn't mean it's 'unattainable'.


I included always because, in my opinion, it is unattainable.


Alun said,
I think you're overextending the term 'logic.' The point of reasoning is to appeal to something that is both applicable to all people and not simply the force of majority rule. In this sense, it is antithetical to the constitutive aim of logic to appeal to the popularity of a belief as evidence of its truth.
I know this and am not saying that it should be by 'the force of majority rule', just that because billions and billions of people have believed in God that that means, logically, that there may very likely be something more to the idea of God than what our human logic may be able to reveal.
I think that peoples fanatic belief in something is extremely powerful. I'm not saying that because this __ many people believe in christianity that it must be real, I am saying that because, from the dawn of humanity, nearly every human has believed in a God that there is definitely some weight in the idea. I believe that this weight should put it equal to logic, reason, empirical evidence, whatever you want to call it. I just don't believe logic to be the ultimate that so many people give their faith to.

Pjkeeley said,
Philosophy isn't concerned with how many people believed what and for how long (the fallacy of argumentum ad populum). It is concerned only with the logical merits of belief. There may be truths which defy logic, as you claim, but if that is the case then philosophy is also defied by them. Philosophy ends at truths that can be verified only by intuitions.
Nonsense, philosophy is concerned with everything and was built by truths that can only be made by intuition. (metaphysics) We think ahead, we make ideas, whether they be true or not, and then we use logic to fill in the pieces and prove them as we go. That is why philosophy is important, it gives us the target for which we aim. Of course this does not mean that philosophy does not pertain to things that we already know, such as in ethics. I believe metaphysics to be the target creating tool of which I speak.

Persecrates also said,
Alun's right it's called the ad populum (ad numerum in this case) fallacy.
It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
This is not what I am saying, exactly, it is a... much simpler and altered(to the point of having a completely different meaning) version of what I am implying.
I believe that peoples beliefs effect the things which their beliefs pertain to. So it is not _____ must be true because so many people believe in it. It is So many people believe in _____ that they have an effect upon it.
I see logic as a box. It is structure, hard concrete and reed bars. And everyone lives inside of the box not realizing that there is more outside of the box. They can make the box bigger, change it's besign, but if a hole appears it is a 'logical fallacy'. And sometimes these holes are bad, but sometimes these holes are necessary so that we may build upon our box, and extend an arm out into the unknown.
User avatar
Alun
Posts: 1118
Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post by Alun »

ChaoticMindSays,

I may have let your thread title color my reading of your opening post. I agree that logical thinking and empirical evidence are not the sole arbiters of truth. In fact, there is no guarantee that they are tied to external truths. And of course there are plenty of personal truths which empirical and logical thinking have little hope of fully grasping.

However, it remains that logical and empirical thinking are the only reliable ways of communicating without loss of information to subjective bias, which is what makes them so valuable. Certainly, personal truths are often best explored without them, but there is little use in pressing upon others your understanding of subjective truth.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
Eveready
Banned
Posts: 348
Joined: June 19th, 2010, 10:30 pm

Post by Eveready »

Nonsense, philosophy is concerned with everything and was built by truths that can only be made by intuition. (metaphysics) We think ahead, we make ideas, whether they be true or not, and then we use logic to fill in the pieces and prove them as we go. That is why philosophy is important, it gives us the target for which we aim. Of course this does not mean that philosophy does not pertain to things that we already know, such as in ethics. I believe metaphysics to be the target creating tool of which I speak.
I can`t disagree with that analogy! bravo Chaotic.

Alun said
However, it remains that logical and empirical thinking are the only reliable ways of communicating without loss of information to subjective bias
I disagree there are many avenues to truth. Logic and whatever you mean by empirical thinking aren`t the only ones that hold information. Empirically the whole world once believed the earth was flat, empirically theists by the billions say and assert their truths. Is their empirical truth your truth or mine? certainly not.
User avatar
Alun
Posts: 1118
Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post by Alun »

Eveready, I said without loss of information. It is certainly possible for subjective communication that contains information. E.g. poetry, song, prose, etc. Furthermore, the argument that the Earth is flat goes like this: When I stand here on the Earth, I see flat land going out in all directions (absent mountains and valleys). You can do the same thing; you can stand and look around, and see for yourself. Even if you see something different, you know exactly what the other person is talking about. I.e. there is virtually no loss of information so long as we are talking explicitly about what we sense.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
Eveready
Banned
Posts: 348
Joined: June 19th, 2010, 10:30 pm

Post by Eveready »

You are deferring Alun nobody is or was speaking about subjective except you and PJKeeley.
User avatar
ChaoticMindSays
Posts: 253
Joined: August 28th, 2009, 8:52 am

Post by ChaoticMindSays »

Alun said,
However, it remains that logical and empirical thinking are the only reliable ways of communicating without loss of information to subjective bias, which is what makes them so valuable.
Hmm.. I disagree with this statement. I know I am perfectly able to make decisions without using logical thinking, only, and without allowing my personal bias to effect said decision. I think there are serious problems with the whole... subjective/objective idea. It does not allow for a wide enough range of possibility, it is an either or system. It shouldn't be a either or system.

Has anyone here read Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance? Or, Lila? By Pirsig.
Kurticus
Posts: 43
Joined: September 20th, 2010, 2:13 pm

Post by Kurticus »

My personal belief has me biased on this one. The Tao is everchanging. Whats moral, good, objective now, may not be 10min from now. A gross simplification but my mind is fried at the moment. :shock:
User avatar
Alun
Posts: 1118
Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post by Alun »

Eveready wrote:You are deferring Alun nobody is or was speaking about subjective except you and PJKeeley.
You didn't specify, and I didn't imply that you said anything about subjective communication; I gave an example of non-empirical, non-logical communication to clarify my statement about the loss of information.
ChaoticMindSays wrote:I know I am perfectly able to make decisions without using logical thinking, only, and without allowing my personal bias to effect said decision.
Ok, but would you be able to explain to me how you made that decision in a way that I would fully understand? My point is not that non-logical, non-empirical thinking is weaker for personal use. In fact, there are many decisions that cannot be made with logic or hard evidence. Rather, other forms of thought are just much harder to express to others without personal bias grossly obstructing interpretation.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
Marabod
Banned
Posts: 977
Joined: March 25th, 2010, 9:54 pm

Re: Logic is it's own fallacy.

Post by Marabod »

ChaoticMindSays wrote:Why do we value empirical evidence so highly? It is the only means we have to objectively disqualify scenarios. BUT I believe there to be more to the idea of empirical evidence than we give credit to.

We believe what we see. We need scientific proof to believe right?
Well what about the word of thousand and thousand and sometimes even millions of people over tens, sometimes hundreds, of generations? I don't believe that millions of people believe in something for thousands of years for no reason. I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power. THAT is illogical.
I am not going to argue with you POV. It is because your POV comes from a type of thinking, which is completely different from the one I myself use. Say, I tried to answer your poll - and could not find any matching answer. Because I do not reason like you do.

I am a professional scientist/engineer with over 30 years of practical experience. I got used to see the things clearly - either they "do match" or they "do not". There is no third option for me. It is either Objective, or Subjective. To me Science battles the Subjective to dry it down to the Objective, as simple as that. Empirical evidence means that what the scientific law/theory was proclaiming has confirmation in reality - for instance, the electrons in a CRT behave in magnetic field exactly as the designer told them to behave, so that you can see a picture on a glass screen, coated with some optically-active semiconductor like Zinc Sulphide. Can you see a picture on the TV screen? - if "yes" means Science was RIGHT, and empirical evidence, it provided was TRUE. If "no" then this would be YOUR problem, as the other 6 billion people can see it!

I mean I do not object if you like to reserve some possibility of God (or whoever else is this "higher" thing you mean) - but you have to reserve it FOR YOURSELF. Please, do not say "we", "us" etc like that, I am not with you on this, we are not in one boat! Do not speak on my behalf please. Speak for yourself only.
Persecrates
Posts: 220
Joined: July 6th, 2010, 2:15 pm

Post by Persecrates »

ChaoticMindSays wrote: I see empirical evidence as being a function of logic. SO the two are almost interchangeable. Forgive me for my mis-communication.
Any idea that can't be expressed by a logical demonstration is at best of low quality/cognitive value/significance, at worse meaningless/false, an illusion/delusion.

The empirical method is the testing of an idea put in a logical form.
So, its purpose is to validate (when possible) an logical valid conclusion. Meaning it allows us to prove it sound (i.e. true).

You have to imagine that an idea, before to be considered true, must be meaningfully/rationally (i.e. logically) expressed. If you fail or neglect to do so, your idea has no or little value.
Doing this, you verify the validity of the logical demonstration you made.

Now, to validate the conclusion of your demonstration (your idea if you will), you must confront it with 'Reality', that's why we use the empirical method. Because logic cannot validate/prove itself (that would be a self-referencing loophole).

If your conclusion is verified empirically, your logical conclusion is qualified of sound (i.e. true).
If your (logical) conclusion is contradicted by the result of your experiment, then it is said unsound (i.e. false).
If the result of the experiment doesn't directly confirm nor contradict your idea (logical conclusion) is said undetermined/undecided.

It can be because your idea is not ideally formulated or because the experience you designed is not good enough.

So, not only the empirical method cannot be conflated with the logical method but it is necessary (when possible) to determine the soundness (truth) of an assertion.
I believe desire to have quite a bit to do with the nature of our reality.


So, do you believe that 'Reality' can be created by our desires/thoughts?
They can influence 'Reality' (not how we percieve Reality, but Reality itself)?
Proof isn't the issue here, it is the question why?. I don't believe that Nearly every culture that has ever existed all just happened to believe in a 'God' because it is logical for people to be afraid of death. Not all people are afraid of death, not all cultures are afraid of death.
It's not logical. It's irrational (like we are) and it's a fact.
And, yes all people in all cultures are afraid of dying/ceasing to exist. But their acceptation of it through self-sacrifice for example, is highly dependent on their beliefs and the indoctrination/brainwashing (call that culture if you want) they have been subjected to.

If these beliefs are strong enough, they can create the illusion of knowledge, the knowledge there is nothing to fear. In doing so, transforming an 'unknown' by a 'believed'.
But a true decrease, never absence, in fear can only be obtained through knowledge, not belief.
When the moment, of the sacrifice for example, comes they very much feel fear.

If there is only one instinct, it's the one of survival.
So, if there is only one fear, it's the fear of 'death'.
I agree, we make our own purpose. But I also believe that that purpose is more than just our desire. It is made tangible by our desire, the purpose is real.
No, what I mean is that our life has for only purpose the one we give it to. There is little chance there is an Objective ('real') Purpose. This idea rely only on, again, beliefs.

It would be 'better' if the purpose we give to our life was constant (intellectual/cognitive) improvement of ourselves and the people we can help (by transmitting the knowledge/experience we think we have for example) though.

At least we would have done our part.
I disagree, just because you desire something does not mean you automatically allow yourself to believe in said thing.
You right, I should have said: "is more likely to induce this or this belief. It depends on your experience and how much you value truth instead of belief (if you can discern them from one another).

Kant said: "The value of someone is determined by the number of truths he/she is able to accept."
I couldn't agree more...

Also, yes, 'Truth' has a price, but to be forced to wake up/snap out from a delusion is even more painfull.
You pretend to believe that you know that "the fact that so many people do so is due to their fear of uncertainty, the unknown.", Maybe it is because of your fear of the unknown? :wink:


I should have said: "is one of the reason for"...
I don't believe in anything. I think to believe is stupid and counterproductive.
I don't have any problem to don't know.
Don't misunderstand, I would prefer to know... But not to the point to create a fantasy and believe in it to reassure/comfort me.
I prefert to assert and accept a lack of knowledge, than to indulge myself in illusion/wishful (or harmful) desires/fears.
I included always because, in my opinion, it is unattainable.
Maybe but if you want people to answer to your poll (to express their opinion), you should consider all possibilities (at least, here, one more).
I know this and am not saying that it should be by 'the force of majority rule', just that because billions and billions of people have believed in God that that means, logically, that there may very likely be something more to the idea of God than what our human logic may be able to reveal.
So, you know it's a fallacy... But, still, you (desire to) use it as if it was a valid argument. Well, it's not.

Again, I gave you examples, using logic to why people are inclined to believe such thing.
You there must be other reasons, without citing them, and when someone gives you some, you dismiss them.

Also, you're saying that the fact that they believe something is proof that this something exists.
That's circular thinking and a belief has never been a proof of anything else than the desires/fears causing it.
I believe that this weight should put it equal to logic, reason, empirical evidence, whatever you want to call it. I just don't believe logic to be the ultimate that so many people give their faith to.


Read the thread "Can knowledge stem from faith?" from Meleagar.
I demonstrate that no knowledge can be induced by belief/faith.

Faith/beliefs have little if not none cognitive value.

Alun nailed it. Even more than he allows his reasoning to go:
Alun wrote:However, it remains that logical and empirical thinking are the only reliable ways of communicating without loss of information to subjective bias, which is what makes them so valuable.
Logical thinking (i.e. reasoning) not the only reliable/meanigful way to communicate, but also to form/express one.
The rest, again, is illusion and meaningless.
Nonsense, philosophy is concerned with everything and was built by truths that can only be made by intuition.(metaphysics)
These axioms, are simply proof of the limit of our understanding of Reality, our knowledge.
It's not because there are some things that we have to assume as being true today (that can change with time), without real proof, that it is justified to abandon all reason or to assume that all knowledge come from beliefs, these axioms.

In fact, I would like someone to give us some of these logical axioms and see if they cannot be logically (at least) demonstrated. Therefore, not being axioms.
For all intent and purpose they must be few...
I see logic as a box.


Logic is not a box, nor a prison.
See it more like glasses. Without them, you can't see properly. If you never put glasses on you can imagine that your view is perfect, that everyone see the world as you do. But it ain't so...

You can also think that you don't really need them because it's constraining to wear... Well it's your choice.
You have to decide if you prefer the illusion of freedom or the actual increased capacity to make choices, because you WILL understand EVERYTHING better... You just need a little mental/intellectual discipline.

You can try to get around it as much as you like, the desire to see beliefs (or 'something else', whatever that means...) as equal to logic demonstration doesn't make this belief true.
It's like a 7 year old child being convinced and believing that he can write a dissertation/text as well/meaningful/significant as his parents could...

He's really convinced of this, no one can seem to make him understand that it's not possible. He believes.
The problem for us, humans, is that 90% of the population has the same belief, they are all children. The 10% left (I'm being overly optimistic here) at least understand and accept that freedom doesn't mean delusion/narcissism, That logic, method and mental discipline is required.

But logic is even more, they are glasses that, when you put them on, people also see (understand as Alun pointed out) you better.
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