Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Seth_Gibson
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2020, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Seth_Gibson »

Jack D Ripper wrote: November 28th, 2020, 6:21 pm
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 28th, 2020, 4:08 pm It took me much longer to get through the section on catholic philosophy for Russel's history as I found it comparably less interesting. Not much original thought is there, at least in the way Russel portrayed it. But hey, at least they preserved the questions Plato attempted to answer. If they did not care, Plato might have become some obscure philosopher, and a large portion of the western canon would never develop as a response to his arguments.

Although I agree that medieval philosophy is less interesting (and less good) than other philosophy, I don't think it was very useful in the rediscovery of the ancient philosophers. In fact, I think it is mostly the opposite, as Christians had a habit of burning books they did not like. This is why, for example, we have so little of what Epicurus wrote. But, perhaps, they did help make Plato more influential, as they did not burn his books and tried to adapt some of his ideas to Christianity (well, that started long before medieval philosophy, as Augustine was doing that, but many continued that tradition). It also may have helped Aristotle be influential, as they liked him, too. So we have a lot of Aristotle and a lot of Plato that we can read today.
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 28th, 2020, 4:08 pm I just read it. There is definitely an incentive to stroke the ideological preconceptions of the people scrutinizing one's work. In Thinking: Fast and Slow it is shown that when someone disagrees with you, areas of your brain light up with pain, essentially creating cognitive strain. This makes you more likely to catch grammatical mistakes in the work of people you disagree with. Also, the fact that Sokel used the terminology of the academics reduced the cognitive strain even further, because familiarity makes people comfortable. This phenomenon is known as the mere exposure effect.

The key, though, is that in order for academics to contribute in some way, they must argue that someone from before is wrong without creating cognitive strain. Value is created where disagreement arises if the academic can show how the theory can be improved or replaced. When scientists have a model that describes the world, the newly accumulated evidence is integrated into that model, such as the theory of relativity. When the result of an experiment is not compatible with a theory like relativity (a quantum mechanical result, for example), the experiment is viewed with suspicion, and it is not until a new theory comes along like quantum mechanics that the results are generally accepted.

I don't think that is right. They accept the results when it is repeated by others who get the same results. They don't wait until there is a theory to explain it to accept the results of the experiment. In fact, it is the acceptance of the results that drives the work on a theory to explain it. If they did not accept the results of the experiment, then they would have no need to explain the results of the experiment.
There might be an initial suspicion that the methodology of the experiment is flawed, but I guess it does make more sense that it would be accepted eventually and then a new theory would come along.
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 28th, 2020, 6:21 pm
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 28th, 2020, 4:08 pm Philosophy is more chaotic than that because there are multiple theories of reality that run in parallel, and none of them are universally recognized as objective, unlike with science. This makes me think that I could definitely get away with writing nonsense, as long as I "improve" upon the nonsense of others, while making sure to not to offend them.

Part of all this comes from a video I watched which talked about how to create value with academic writing. If everyone on this forum watched this video, then it would be a lot easier to have discussions:

https://youtu.be/vtIzMaLkCaM

There are a couple of things driving the nonsense that gets published in academia. Part of it is based on the "publish or perish" approach to hiring at universities. At many schools, teachers who do not publish do not get tenure and instead get fired. So they have to publish something or they perish in academia. So, if they have nothing worthwhile to say, they can write something unintelligible instead, that they get published, and it keeps administrators happy who then give them tenure. So, for that aspect of the problem, it is an institutional problem rather than something academics particularly desired to do.

Also, there are many prejudices that people have, and appealing to them works for getting things published. Some of the people running "scholarly" journals are idiots who believe a great deal of nonsense themselves, and so one can get published in those journals primarily by writing garbage. That was exploited in the Sokal Hoax.

Many people don't seem to think about it this way, but when you don't understand something, it could be because you are not smart enough to understand it, or it could be because you did not have the right preparation for it (as, for example, being presented with the last proof in Calculus III before you took Calculus I), or it could be because it is nonsense. This last option is one that people often are reluctant to suppose is the case, but it is a very real option.
There are still a few sections in Beyond, Good and Evil that still appear incoherent to me, despite knowing way more about Nietzsche than I need to as you said. It is not lack of expertise on my end, but a lack of clarity on Nietzsche's. Initially, I was impressed with Nietzsche being above my level, because whereas with Plato I could get through 30 pages in an hour, I could only get through 5 with Nietzsche. But now that I can grasp his esotaric writing style, it seems more like he is repeating the same ideas without a further proof just as you said. At first I thought it was my fault for not grasping the underlying message he conveys like others seem to argue, but I gave up on finding that message. He leaves too much work for the reader to peace his puzzles togethar without knowing how to himself.

It is stated in that article about the Sokal Hoax that the most groundbreaking works in string theory are easier to read than the ones less groundbreaking. If only a few people understood Einstein's general theory of relativity, that would be a sign if his inadequacy, not his brilliance. Would you say that it is the same with philosophy, that there is a relative negative correlation between difficulty of understanding and greatness (as a general rule of thumb, because there are plenty of contrary examples)?
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 10:17 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 28th, 2020, 6:21 pm


Although I agree that medieval philosophy is less interesting (and less good) than other philosophy, I don't think it was very useful in the rediscovery of the ancient philosophers. In fact, I think it is mostly the opposite, as Christians had a habit of burning books they did not like. This is why, for example, we have so little of what Epicurus wrote. But, perhaps, they did help make Plato more influential, as they did not burn his books and tried to adapt some of his ideas to Christianity (well, that started long before medieval philosophy, as Augustine was doing that, but many continued that tradition). It also may have helped Aristotle be influential, as they liked him, too. So we have a lot of Aristotle and a lot of Plato that we can read today.




I don't think that is right. They accept the results when it is repeated by others who get the same results. They don't wait until there is a theory to explain it to accept the results of the experiment. In fact, it is the acceptance of the results that drives the work on a theory to explain it. If they did not accept the results of the experiment, then they would have no need to explain the results of the experiment.
There might be an initial suspicion that the methodology of the experiment is flawed, but I guess it does make more sense that it would be accepted eventually and then a new theory would come along.
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 28th, 2020, 6:21 pm


There are a couple of things driving the nonsense that gets published in academia. Part of it is based on the "publish or perish" approach to hiring at universities. At many schools, teachers who do not publish do not get tenure and instead get fired. So they have to publish something or they perish in academia. So, if they have nothing worthwhile to say, they can write something unintelligible instead, that they get published, and it keeps administrators happy who then give them tenure. So, for that aspect of the problem, it is an institutional problem rather than something academics particularly desired to do.

Also, there are many prejudices that people have, and appealing to them works for getting things published. Some of the people running "scholarly" journals are idiots who believe a great deal of nonsense themselves, and so one can get published in those journals primarily by writing garbage. That was exploited in the Sokal Hoax.

Many people don't seem to think about it this way, but when you don't understand something, it could be because you are not smart enough to understand it, or it could be because you did not have the right preparation for it (as, for example, being presented with the last proof in Calculus III before you took Calculus I), or it could be because it is nonsense. This last option is one that people often are reluctant to suppose is the case, but it is a very real option.
There are still a few sections in Beyond, Good and Evil that still appear incoherent to me, despite knowing way more about Nietzsche than I need to as you said. It is not lack of expertise on my end, but a lack of clarity on Nietzsche's. Initially, I was impressed with Nietzsche being above my level, because whereas with Plato I could get through 30 pages in an hour, I could only get through 5 with Nietzsche. But now that I can grasp his esotaric writing style, it seems more like he is repeating the same ideas without a further proof just as you said. At first I thought it was my fault for not grasping the underlying message he conveys like others seem to argue, but I gave up on finding that message. He leaves too much work for the reader to peace his puzzles togethar without knowing how to himself.

It is stated in that article about the Sokal Hoax that the most groundbreaking works in string theory are easier to read than the ones less groundbreaking. If only a few people understood Einstein's general theory of relativity, that would be a sign if his inadequacy, not his brilliance. Would you say that it is the same with philosophy, that there is a relative negative correlation between difficulty of understanding and greatness (as a general rule of thumb, because there are plenty of contrary examples)?

There are, as you say, certainly exceptions to that idea, as some ideas are simply harder to understand than others. But I do think that a book or essay being difficult to understand is often a very bad sign. It could be that the person is a poor writer, or it could be that they are willfully making things difficult, to hide the fact that they are not as brilliant as they want others to believe. It works because many people seem to believe that if something is difficult to understand, then it must be very clever indeed.

I hesitate to use the word "greatness" in this, as that term often is used to indicate how popular and influential a philosopher is. But I do think that, as a general rule, the philosophers who are particularly difficult to understand are particularly bad philosophers. Naturally, we can expect their defenders to say that their favorite is one of the exceptions whose ideas are simply harder to understand. So I advise you to pay very little attention to such protestations.

One sign that something might be nonsensical is when the defenders of that writer do not generally agree on what the writer means.


Of course, in some cases, the difficulty in understanding something can be due to the change in language from when it was written. Many people would have trouble with Hobbes based on the fact that English has changed quite a lot since the 1600's. So much so, that it is common to find modernizations of his Leviathan. And for the average reader, going with one of those is probably a good idea. To get the flavor of it, here is the dedication at the beginning:

TO MY MOST HONOR'D FRIEND Mr. FRANCIS GODOLPHIN of GODOLPHIN
HONOR'D SIR.
Your most worthy Brother Mr SIDNEY GODOLPHIN, when he lived, was pleas'd to think my studies something, and otherwise to oblige me, as you know, with reall testimonies of his good opinion, great in themselves, and the greater for the worthinesse of his person. For there is not any vertue that disposeth a man, either to the service of God, or to the service of his Country, to Civill Society, or private Friendship, that did not manifestly appear in his conversation, not as acquired by necessity, or affected upon occasion, but inhaerent, and shining in a generous constitution of his nature. Therefore in honour and gratitude to him, and with devotion to your selfe, I humbly Dedicate unto you this my discourse of Common-wealth. I know not how the world will receive it, nor how it may reflect on those that shall seem to favour it. For in a way beset with those that contend on one side for too great Liberty, and on the other side for too much Authority, 'tis hard to passe between the points of both unwounded. But yet, me thinks, the endeavour to advance the Civill Power, should not be by the Civill Power condemned; nor private men, by reprehending it, declare they think that Power too great. Besides, I speak not of the men, but (in the Abstract) of the Seat of Power, (like to those simple and unpartiall creatures in the Roman Capitol, that with their noyse defended those within it, not because they were they, but there) offending none, I think, but those without, or such within (if there be any such) as favour them. That which perhaps may most offend, are certain Texts of Holy Scripture, alledged by me to other purpose than ordinarily they use to be by others. But I have done it with due submission, and also (in order to my Subject) necessarily; for they are the Outworks of the Enemy, from whence they impugne the Civill Power. If notwithstanding this, you find my labour generally decryed, you may be pleased to excuse your selfe, and say that I am a man that love my own opinions, and think all true I say, that I honoured your Brother, and honour you, and have presum'd on that, to assume the Title (without your knowledge) of being, as I am,
Sir,
Your most humble, and most obedient servant, Thomas Hobbes.
Paris APRILL 15/25 1651.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm


Aside from the style being quite different from what one would normally expect to be written today, there are many words that are not spelled the same anymore. So some of the effort of reading it is figuring out what words are written. This is why the average reader is better off buying a modernized version of it instead of trying to read the original text.

So, I think that these things should be judged on a case by case basis, though you should be suspicious that it may be nonsensical if it seems unnecessarily difficult to understand.


There is an author, whose name I do not wish to mention in a forum (though I will email you or PM you his name if you wish, if you agree not to post his name in connection with this post), as he is quite popular and others reading this may take offense and try to argue with me, but when I read one of his books, I was struck with the impression that everything was ambiguous and could be taken in two different ways, one way which was a banal truth, and the other a ridiculous and unfounded claim that was false but that had the sound of profundity. This sort of thing is particularly pernicious, as any time one identifies the falsehood of the one interpretation, the defenders of that vermin could retort that he meant, in that passage, the banal truth, and consequently was correct in that passage. Of course, if it were nothing but the banal truths, no one would regard it as significant philosophy, and so it must be that people who like him are going with the drivel for much of it.

If he really were a great thinker, he would not need to use such a method of writing. But he was famous and sold a lot of books. So writing crap can be profitable. Fortunately, he seems less fashionable than he once was, but he is still quite popular (among people who are not professional philosophers anyway).
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Seth_Gibson
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2020, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Seth_Gibson »

Jack D Ripper wrote: November 28th, 2020, 7:19 pm
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 28th, 2020, 5:04 pm

We have to have a ballpark estimate of the definition though, otherwise, we do not know what we are recognizing, right?

Yes and no. We have to have some ideas about it, certainly, but there are things that don't have to be in the ballpark at all. For example, when it comes to consciousness, for recognizing that someone is conscious, it does not matter if one believes that it is the result of an immaterial soul attached to a physical body or if one is a materialist who believes that it is the result of brain activity or if one believes something else regarding it.
If I believe that rocks are conscious because the universe is conscious, then one might say I have a faulty definition for consciousness. You convinced me that metaphysics does not matter for consciousness, but the epistemological question remains. You said that one judges by behavior when determining whether someone is conscious. I do not recall you saying what type of behavior is necessary. I presume you mean something like the ability to confirm that others perceive reality through actions. A rock might be conscious, but we can never know that. When a human acts upon an environment with intelligent decisions, we judge the human as consciousness because a nonconscious entity is unlikely to execute those intelligent actions. Is this correct?
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 28th, 2020, 7:19 pm
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 28th, 2020, 5:04 pm If we need an estimate, then to what extent do we need a definition? Take a farmer who lives with his family and tends to his farm, but has no understanding of philosophy. Does he recognize the truth that loving one's family is a virtue?

Is that a truth?

But that is not the kind of thing that we are discussing, is it?
No, it is an assumption for the sake of the example. Good question though.
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 15th, 2020, 5:49 pm
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 28th, 2020, 5:04 pm When you say people can recognize truth, do you mean recognize truth in the case of the farmer, or in the case of a philosopher like Hume who nakedly "senses" truth for what it is in an abstract sense?

You seem to like phrasing things in ways I do not like. Hume thought about human understanding and wrote the relevant section of A Treatise of Human Nature about it, which was slightly revised for An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Part of that came from reading what others had to say about human understanding, and reacting to those other things, accepting bits of what he read, and rejecting other bits of what he read. He presents his reasoning in his books. I would not describe that as that he "nakedly 'senses' truth for what it is in an abstract sense". I think you have been reading too much Nietzsche.
Nietzsche would disagree with the idea that anyone can nakedly sense truth. That is more of an imprecise use of words on my part. The skeptical Hume would say that he does not necessarily grasp the objective truth, but he does so in a more subjective way through the process you describe.

And maybe over time, I will start to emulate your terminology more precisely, especially if I read books that you recommend to me. I am sure my habit of speech has changed somewhat already due to my interaction with you and the feedback I get in communicating what is true.
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 28th, 2020, 7:19 pm
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 28th, 2020, 5:04 pm One would not say that the farmer has an abstract theory to explain why loving one's family is a virtue, even though lives according to what is ethically correct. Would you respond by saying that he "recognizes" that it is a virtue because of this empathy, and shared humanity with his family? In other words, a precise definition is not required because the foundation of ethics is empathy. Except it might still be required for things outside of ethics based on what I just said.

The farmer can have virtues whether he understands them or not. He also could have a mistaken interpretation of whatever virtues he may possess.

Of course, a farmer could be a brilliant philosopher as well as a farmer; the two things are not mutually exclusive.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 28th, 2020, 5:04 pm In the case of recognizing consciousness, it was easy to see why we did not have to have a precise definition of consciousness. My transhumanist brother is not switching out my Mom's brain any time soon. But when it comes to truth, it is not so easy as "judging by behavior". How does one recognize the truth in a broad sense?

I don't think that is the right way to approach the issue. Earlier, I stated (in response to someone else):
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 15th, 2020, 5:49 pm...
If this does start a discussion of what truth is, I will be in the bar somewhere else. I will, though, leave one parting thought, and that is that there are different kinds of "truth", which is illustrated with the following example:

Imagine someone says, "Santa Claus lives at the South Pole." Someone else replies, "No, that isn't true; Santa Claus lives at the North Pole."

Now, the statement "Santa Claus lives at the North Pole" is, in one sense (at least), true, in that it fits the story of Santa Claus, unlike the claim about the South Pole. In another sense, though, it is not true, because there is no Santa Claus, so he does not live anywhere.

But, if any of you pursue this, do not expect me to be a major participant. I don't like being unduly irritated while drinking Scotch. I can be irritated enough with other conversations.

How you would tell that the statement is true (in accordance with the story) is very different from how you would tell the statement is false (as there is no Santa Claus).

Or, to give new examples, how you know some statement in geometry is true is quite different from how you would know that it is true that you are at home (if you are at home). Which is different again from how you tell whether it is true or not that your mother loves you.

So, there is no single method of recognizing what is true.


This is not new with me:

Aristotle wrote:Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the
subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike
in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts.
Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit
of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought
to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give
rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people;
for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and
others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking
of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly
and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the
most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions
that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type
of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to
look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature
of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable
reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific
proofs.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.mb.txt
So there are many ways to recognize the truth. Can one give an account of them all in a comprehensive set classes? I read a quote online about truths of reason, and truths of experience. Does that provide a good start?

The Aristotle quote helps clear it up a bit. Sentences and the premises they contain are too imprecise to give an account of objective truth, and there are innumerable ways to capture different truths through different criteria. Is that last sentence false? Perhaps one can cut up the innumerable examples of recognizing truth into different classes of ways to recognize the truth. But would categorizing truth in this way ultimately be a further extension of the imprecise argumentation that Aristotle points out? But if categorizing truth is too imprecise, then Aristotle's arguments are too imprecise to recognize as true. There are different classes of ways to recognize the truth, but they are merely rules of thumb that need to be developed even further, just as Aristotle's arguments need to be developed further for more precision. So there must be different classes of arguments, which one recognizes as true based upon the internal logic of the category that it resides in. For example, recognizing the consistency of an analytic argument, and determining whether the moon is cheese through empirical observation would be two different methods of recognizing the truth. If the preceding argument is correct, then I do not see how the quote from Aristotle would make us necessarily conclude that there are infinite methods of recognizing the truth.

I hope that is not too convoluted. Maybe this whole business of categorizing truth is not so fruitful, but I await your thoughts on that. I am tempted to read into the nature of truth more, but I get the impression that you do not think it is fruitful either.
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 15th, 2020, 5:49 pm
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 28th, 2020, 5:04 pm

Convincing others of crap is not really possible universally, though, because if someone says something that could never be construed as plausibly true, then people will treat it like the crap that it is. People are unlikely to believe you if you say the moon is cheese, even though that sounds like a wonderful prospect. With science, there is an agreed-upon objective truth because the truth is empirically observable, and so humans are forced to see it irrespective of how they feel.

With the natural sciences, that tends to be the case, but not so much with the social sciences, which are much more variable in how much rigor is applied. So with the particular example you mention, yes, you are correct, it will be difficult to convince people that the moon is made of cheese.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 28th, 2020, 5:04 pm
With philosophy, though, yes it is much harder to discern the truth from the garbage. Maybe once we have developed sufficiently sophisticated tools to root out the superstition, and confirmation bias that permeates academia, we can actually recognize the truth. That is, as philosophy becomes more like science, we get closer to the truth.

Don't get your hopes up too high for developing such tools:

https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/wrongthoughts.html
I will get back to you on this point tomorrow after I read the article.
User avatar
Seth_Gibson
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2020, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Seth_Gibson »

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm Can one give an account of them all in a comprehensive set classes? I read a quote online about truths of reason, and truths of experience. Does that provide a good start?
That is really vague. I meant the quote from Hume that I cannot find where he says that if an argument is not a truth of reason or a truth of evidence, one should commit the argument to fire.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

You might also want to take a look at this:
Why I Left Academic Philosophy
You don’t need a degree to ask big questions

Rachel Anne Williams
Apr 8, 2018 · 7 min read

Have you ever save you ever spent two years pouring your heart and soul into a project that only three people will ever see? In academia, we call that your “dissertation.”

Philosophers spend a lot of time writing things and trying to get them published in journals nobody reads — not even other philosophers — because in order to get a job, you need to have these papers and journals on your C.V.

Those two years you spent every day working on that paper — all that effort reduced to a single line on a C.V., just to ever-so-slightly improve your odds of getting a good job as you compete against people who also have those lines on their C.V.

Nobody reads this stuff because most of the journals are behind paywalls so expensive that only large libraries at academic institutions can afford to access them (and even then, many university libraries are cutting some journals off for budget reasons). Even within the halls of academia, where people do have access, there are simply so many papers published every year, even within niche fields, that nobody has time to read anywhere close to all the papers/books being published, especially considering the amount of reading it takes just to teach classes, etc.

...

Philosophers use “rigor” to justify bad writing

Even if academic philosophy were publicly accessible, I doubt the public would be interested in reading any of it. Philosophers often go to great lengths to make their papers as boring and difficult to read as possible. This is done in order to seem “rigorous” and “technical,” but most of the time that “rigor” does nothing but make it harder for non-philosophers to understand.

...
https://medium.com/s/story/why-i-left-a ... 0049ea4f3a


So, I am not alone in some of my ideas regarding philosophy.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Seth_Gibson
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2020, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Seth_Gibson »

Here it is:
Hume wrote:If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) sect. 12, pt. 3
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 28th, 2020, 7:19 pm


Yes and no. We have to have some ideas about it, certainly, but there are things that don't have to be in the ballpark at all. For example, when it comes to consciousness, for recognizing that someone is conscious, it does not matter if one believes that it is the result of an immaterial soul attached to a physical body or if one is a materialist who believes that it is the result of brain activity or if one believes something else regarding it.
If I believe that rocks are conscious because the universe is conscious, then one might say I have a faulty definition for consciousness. You convinced me that metaphysics does not matter for consciousness, but the epistemological question remains. You said that one judges by behavior when determining whether someone is conscious. I do not recall you saying what type of behavior is necessary. I presume you mean something like the ability to confirm that others perceive reality through actions. A rock might be conscious, but we can never know that. When a human acts upon an environment with intelligent decisions, we judge the human as consciousness because a nonconscious entity is unlikely to execute those intelligent actions. Is this correct?

I am not sure I would use the requirement of "intelligent decisions", but I would say you are more or less correct. I doubt you have made many mistakes about whether a person you encounter is conscious or not. You can tell the difference between someone who is awake and one who is asleep? And between an awake person and a dead person? I think most people can readily tell these differences, though, of course, one might think someone is awake because they were awake a moment ago, but has just fallen asleep, and other such things can cause one to make a mistake. But one normally can readily correct such mistakes.

It becomes harder if someone is semiconscious, like someone in the process of falling asleep or waking up, either from a natural sleep or being drugged.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 28th, 2020, 7:19 pm


Is that a truth?

But that is not the kind of thing that we are discussing, is it?
No, it is an assumption for the sake of the example. Good question though.
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 15th, 2020, 5:49 pm


You seem to like phrasing things in ways I do not like. Hume thought about human understanding and wrote the relevant section of A Treatise of Human Nature about it, which was slightly revised for An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Part of that came from reading what others had to say about human understanding, and reacting to those other things, accepting bits of what he read, and rejecting other bits of what he read. He presents his reasoning in his books. I would not describe that as that he "nakedly 'senses' truth for what it is in an abstract sense". I think you have been reading too much Nietzsche.
Nietzsche would disagree with the idea that anyone can nakedly sense truth.

I was thinking more in terms of literary style. It is a romantic style.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm That is more of an imprecise use of words on my part. The skeptical Hume would say that he does not necessarily grasp the objective truth, but he does so in a more subjective way through the process you describe.

And maybe over time, I will start to emulate your terminology more precisely, especially if I read books that you recommend to me. I am sure my habit of speech has changed somewhat already due to my interaction with you and the feedback I get in communicating what is true.

If you want to make money from your writing, I suggest you do not follow my style.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 28th, 2020, 7:19 pm


The farmer can have virtues whether he understands them or not. He also could have a mistaken interpretation of whatever virtues he may possess.

Of course, a farmer could be a brilliant philosopher as well as a farmer; the two things are not mutually exclusive.





I don't think that is the right way to approach the issue. Earlier, I stated (in response to someone else):




How you would tell that the statement is true (in accordance with the story) is very different from how you would tell the statement is false (as there is no Santa Claus).

Or, to give new examples, how you know some statement in geometry is true is quite different from how you would know that it is true that you are at home (if you are at home). Which is different again from how you tell whether it is true or not that your mother loves you.

So, there is no single method of recognizing what is true.


This is not new with me:




http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.mb.txt
So there are many ways to recognize the truth. Can one give an account of them all in a comprehensive set classes?

Maybe. I don't know.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm I read a quote online about truths of reason, and truths of experience. Does that provide a good start?

It is a start.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm The Aristotle quote helps clear it up a bit. Sentences and the premises they contain are too imprecise to give an account of objective truth, and there are innumerable ways to capture different truths through different criteria. Is that last sentence false? Perhaps one can cut up the innumerable examples of recognizing truth into different classes of ways to recognize the truth. But would categorizing truth in this way ultimately be a further extension of the imprecise argumentation that Aristotle points out? But if categorizing truth is too imprecise, then Aristotle's arguments are too imprecise to recognize as true. There are different classes of ways to recognize the truth, but they are merely rules of thumb that need to be developed even further, just as Aristotle's arguments need to be developed further for more precision. So there must be different classes of arguments, which one recognizes as true based upon the internal logic of the category that it resides in. For example, recognizing the consistency of an analytic argument, and determining whether the moon is cheese through empirical observation would be two different methods of recognizing the truth. If the preceding argument is correct, then I do not see how the quote from Aristotle would make us necessarily conclude that there are infinite methods of recognizing the truth.

I think Aristotle's point is that some subjects allow for greater precision than others. Mathematics, for example, generally is very exact. A proof in geometry is rigorous. However, if you have a headache, and I ask you how much it hurts, what can you say to me? You are not going to give me the precision of a geometric proof. You are going to tell me that it hurts a lot or a little, or you might pretend to give it precision by rating it on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most pain possible, and then you pick a number. But it isn't something that is going to have the kind of precision one has in pure mathematics, or even the precision with which the length of a piece of lumber can be measured. (At least not until neuroscience improves and we hook you up to some brain scanning machine that can measure such things, if such a machine is ever made.)

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm I hope that is not too convoluted. Maybe this whole business of categorizing truth is not so fruitful, but I await your thoughts on that. I am tempted to read into the nature of truth more, but I get the impression that you do not think it is fruitful either.

Don't let me stop you from trying. It is possible that you will come up with something useful. Or, if not, the exercise may be useful for teaching you that the task is quite difficult. You won't know which of those will be the case without trying (or it may be something else that will come of it rather than one of those two options).

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 15th, 2020, 5:49 pm


With the natural sciences, that tends to be the case, but not so much with the social sciences, which are much more variable in how much rigor is applied. So with the particular example you mention, yes, you are correct, it will be difficult to convince people that the moon is made of cheese.





Don't get your hopes up too high for developing such tools:

https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/wrongthoughts.html
I will get back to you on this point tomorrow after I read the article.

It is a good read. I don't agree with everything he says (that should go without saying when I refer you to some article), but I think his basic idea is right. It is simultaneously both amusing and depressing. In that way, it is like the film Dr. Strangelove, though that film is far more amusing.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Seth_Gibson
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2020, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Seth_Gibson »

Jack D Ripper wrote: November 30th, 2020, 12:53 am
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm

If I believe that rocks are conscious because the universe is conscious, then one might say I have a faulty definition for consciousness. You convinced me that metaphysics does not matter for consciousness, but the epistemological question remains. You said that one judges by behavior when determining whether someone is conscious. I do not recall you saying what type of behavior is necessary. I presume you mean something like the ability to confirm that others perceive reality through actions. A rock might be conscious, but we can never know that. When a human acts upon an environment with intelligent decisions, we judge the human as consciousness because a nonconscious entity is unlikely to execute those intelligent actions. Is this correct?

I am not sure I would use the requirement of "intelligent decisions", but I would say you are more or less correct. I doubt you have made many mistakes about whether a person you encounter is conscious or not. You can tell the difference between someone who is awake and one who is asleep? And between an awake person and a dead person? I think most people can readily tell these differences, though, of course, one might think someone is awake because they were awake a moment ago, but has just fallen asleep, and other such things can cause one to make a mistake. But one normally can readily correct such mistakes.

It becomes harder if someone is semiconscious, like someone in the process of falling asleep or waking up, either from a natural sleep or being drugged.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm


No, it is an assumption for the sake of the example. Good question though.

Nietzsche would disagree with the idea that anyone can nakedly sense truth.

I was thinking more in terms of literary style. It is a romantic style.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm That is more of an imprecise use of words on my part. The skeptical Hume would say that he does not necessarily grasp the objective truth, but he does so in a more subjective way through the process you describe.

And maybe over time, I will start to emulate your terminology more precisely, especially if I read books that you recommend to me. I am sure my habit of speech has changed somewhat already due to my interaction with you and the feedback I get in communicating what is true.

If you want to make money from your writing, I suggest you do not follow my style.
But at least I can communicate the truth more precisely by emulating your terminology. I can emulate Nietzsche's romantic writing style, but the flowery prose will not make me any more correct. I do see what you are saying though.
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 30th, 2020, 12:53 am
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm

So there are many ways to recognize the truth. Can one give an account of them all in a comprehensive set classes?

Maybe. I don't know.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm I read a quote online about truths of reason, and truths of experience. Does that provide a good start?

It is a start.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm The Aristotle quote helps clear it up a bit. Sentences and the premises they contain are too imprecise to give an account of objective truth, and there are innumerable ways to capture different truths through different criteria. Is that last sentence false? Perhaps one can cut up the innumerable examples of recognizing truth into different classes of ways to recognize the truth. But would categorizing truth in this way ultimately be a further extension of the imprecise argumentation that Aristotle points out? But if categorizing truth is too imprecise, then Aristotle's arguments are too imprecise to recognize as true. There are different classes of ways to recognize the truth, but they are merely rules of thumb that need to be developed even further, just as Aristotle's arguments need to be developed further for more precision. So there must be different classes of arguments, which one recognizes as true based upon the internal logic of the category that it resides in. For example, recognizing the consistency of an analytic argument, and determining whether the moon is cheese through empirical observation would be two different methods of recognizing the truth. If the preceding argument is correct, then I do not see how the quote from Aristotle would make us necessarily conclude that there are infinite methods of recognizing the truth.

I think Aristotle's point is that some subjects allow for greater precision than others. Mathematics, for example, generally is very exact. A proof in geometry is rigorous. However, if you have a headache, and I ask you how much it hurts, what can you say to me? You are not going to give me the precision of a geometric proof. You are going to tell me that it hurts a lot or a little, or you might pretend to give it precision by rating it on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most pain possible, and then you pick a number. But it isn't something that is going to have the kind of precision one has in pure mathematics, or even the precision with which the length of a piece of lumber can be measured. (At least not until neuroscience improves and we hook you up to some brain scanning machine that can measure such things, if such a machine is ever made.)
It is interesting to think about how a Utilitarian society could develop around that sort of machine.
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 30th, 2020, 12:53 am
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm I hope that is not too convoluted. Maybe this whole business of categorizing truth is not so fruitful, but I await your thoughts on that. I am tempted to read into the nature of truth more, but I get the impression that you do not think it is fruitful either.

Don't let me stop you from trying. It is possible that you will come up with something useful. Or, if not, the exercise may be useful for teaching you that the task is quite difficult. You won't know which of those will be the case without trying (or it may be something else that will come of it rather than one of those two options).

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:55 pm

I will get back to you on this point tomorrow after I read the article.

It is a good read. I don't agree with everything he says (that should go without saying when I refer you to some article), but I think his basic idea is right. It is simultaneously both amusing and depressing. In that way, it is like the film Dr. Strangelove, though that film is far more amusing.
It is indeed interesting, especially that list of 40 assertions about the number 3. The only weakness of the essay is that he does not provide any solutions! It is concerning when one finds out that Newton spent more time with alchemy than he did with physics. Except with philosophy, the "pathology of thought" is much, much harder to combat.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Seth_Gibson wrote: December 1st, 2020, 12:07 am...
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 30th, 2020, 12:53 am
...
It is a good read. I don't agree with everything he says (that should go without saying when I refer you to some article), but I think his basic idea is right. It is simultaneously both amusing and depressing. In that way, it is like the film Dr. Strangelove, though that film is far more amusing.
It is indeed interesting, especially that list of 40 assertions about the number 3. The only weakness of the essay is that he does not provide any solutions! It is concerning when one finds out that Newton spent more time with alchemy than he did with physics. Except with philosophy, the "pathology of thought" is much, much harder to combat.

If you want solutions to everything, you should go into something other than philosophy.

Though on the other hand, pretty much every subject has unanswered questions, so you are pretty well out of luck on that. However, the situation with philosophy is particularly bad on this.

Regarding Newton, that he wasted a lot of time with something else does not detract from the valuable contributions he made to physics. One would feel better about it if he had wasted his time with something less stupid, but it is much easier to judge that today than when he was alive. With that in mind, I would think that it is fair to say that he was more intelligent than most people today. Even among those who do not believe in alchemy.

Many times, people judge historical figures as if those figures had all of information available today. That is obviously obscenely unjust to them, as they could not know many things that are known today.

To look at this another way, people have far less excuse to believe stupid things than people had hundreds of years ago.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Seth_Gibson
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2020, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Seth_Gibson »

Jack D Ripper wrote: December 1st, 2020, 1:16 am
Seth_Gibson wrote: December 1st, 2020, 12:07 am...


It is indeed interesting, especially that list of 40 assertions about the number 3. The only weakness of the essay is that he does not provide any solutions! It is concerning when one finds out that Newton spent more time with alchemy than he did with physics. Except with philosophy, the "pathology of thought" is much, much harder to combat.

If you want solutions to everything, you should go into something other than philosophy.

Though on the other hand, pretty much every subject has unanswered questions, so you are pretty well out of luck on that. However, the situation with philosophy is particularly bad on this.

Regarding Newton, that he wasted a lot of time with something else does not detract from the valuable contributions he made to physics. One would feel better about it if he had wasted his time with something less stupid, but it is much easier to judge that today than when he was alive. With that in mind, I would think that it is fair to say that he was more intelligent than most people today. Even among those who do not believe in alchemy.

Many times, people judge historical figures as if those figures had all of information available today. That is obviously obscenely unjust to them, as they could not know many things that are known today.

To look at this another way, people have far less excuse to believe stupid things than people had hundreds of years ago.
Oh definitely. That was not meant as an insult to Newton's brilliance. People back then lacked the intellectual artillery that we have today. A lot of the time with philosophy, we get the equivalent of a Newton doing alchemy. There is less overarching objective progress made with philosophy, so the intellectual artillery that students get fed is of mixed value in relation to objective truth.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Seth_Gibson wrote: December 1st, 2020, 9:09 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: December 1st, 2020, 1:16 am


If you want solutions to everything, you should go into something other than philosophy.

Though on the other hand, pretty much every subject has unanswered questions, so you are pretty well out of luck on that. However, the situation with philosophy is particularly bad on this.

Regarding Newton, that he wasted a lot of time with something else does not detract from the valuable contributions he made to physics. One would feel better about it if he had wasted his time with something less stupid, but it is much easier to judge that today than when he was alive. With that in mind, I would think that it is fair to say that he was more intelligent than most people today. Even among those who do not believe in alchemy.

Many times, people judge historical figures as if those figures had all of information available today. That is obviously obscenely unjust to them, as they could not know many things that are known today.

To look at this another way, people have far less excuse to believe stupid things than people had hundreds of years ago.
Oh definitely. That was not meant as an insult to Newton's brilliance. People back then lacked the intellectual artillery that we have today. A lot of the time with philosophy, we get the equivalent of a Newton doing alchemy. There is less overarching objective progress made with philosophy, so the intellectual artillery that students get fed is of mixed value in relation to objective truth.

I would say it quite differently from that. People today have a lot more scientific information available than people had back in Newton's day. But with philosophy, it is far worse, as there are people doing nothing but the equivalent of alchemy. And they are doing it today. Except it is even worse than that, as they sometimes come up with some new alchemy, some new stupidity, that no one had before.

If we look at the history of philosophy, newer is often not better. In some cases, it is far worse than what preceded it. That is not merely my opinion, but in many instances, is simply the common opinion of philosophers today. For example, almost no one today regards the neoplatonists as being as good as Plato.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Seth_Gibson wrote: October 30th, 2020, 3:58 pm Does philosophical inquiry lead to truth?...

Given how long this thread has gotten, I thought it might be a good idea to ask if anything you were concerned about has been missed or neglected. (I may regret asking this, if you present a question that is troublesome.)
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Seth_Gibson
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2020, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Seth_Gibson »

Jack D Ripper wrote: December 2nd, 2020, 2:26 am
Seth_Gibson wrote: October 30th, 2020, 3:58 pm Does philosophical inquiry lead to truth?...

Given how long this thread has gotten, I thought it might be a good idea to ask if anything you were concerned about has been missed or neglected. (I may regret asking this, if you present a question that is troublesome.)
Based on what we have discussed so far, it seems that we have attempted to answer three questions related to the question of the original post. These are not comprehensive, but they stand out the most to me.

The first is whether philosophers generally come to the right conclusions. The answer we agreed on is no. I am satisfied with this.

The second is what constitutes proper philosophical inquiry. My tentative conclusion is that philosophical inquiry should look like something akin to the analytic tradition, rather than the continental tradition. Generally, it entails an engagement with epistemological questions rather than metaphysical ones, along with a focus on bringing philosophy as close as possible to the rigors of science. Beyond that broad description, I would have to read philosophers in the analytic tradition and compare them to philosophers in the continental tradition. My impression is that this question is beyond the scope of this thread. I am happy to leave it as it is unless someone can provide some questions and answers to get the ball rolling again. The question is perhaps too broad in its present form.

The third is what constitutes truth, which is separate from the second question because recognizing truth and defining truth are not the same. I do not have the time and resources to develop an opinion on this outside the forum as of now. From what I recall, some of you discussed this early on in the thread, and it was not talked about much from thereon. I am still in the dark on this, and I am okay with that for now.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Bold emphasis is added.
Seth_Gibson wrote: December 3rd, 2020, 11:27 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: December 2nd, 2020, 2:26 am


Given how long this thread has gotten, I thought it might be a good idea to ask if anything you were concerned about has been missed or neglected. (I may regret asking this, if you present a question that is troublesome.)
Based on what we have discussed so far, it seems that we have attempted to answer three questions related to the question of the original post. These are not comprehensive, but they stand out the most to me.

The first is whether philosophers generally come to the right conclusions. The answer we agreed on is no. I am satisfied with this.

The second is what constitutes proper philosophical inquiry. My tentative conclusion is that philosophical inquiry should look like something akin to the analytic tradition, rather than the continental tradition. Generally, it entails an engagement with epistemological questions rather than metaphysical ones, along with a focus on bringing philosophy as close as possible to the rigors of science. Beyond that broad description, I would have to read philosophers in the analytic tradition and compare them to philosophers in the continental tradition. My impression is that this question is beyond the scope of this thread. I am happy to leave it as it is unless someone can provide some questions and answers to get the ball rolling again. The question is perhaps too broad in its present form.

The third is what constitutes truth, which is separate from the second question because recognizing truth and defining truth are not the same. I do not have the time and resources to develop an opinion on this outside the forum as of now. From what I recall, some of you discussed this early on in the thread, and it was not talked about much from thereon. I am still in the dark on this, and I am okay with that for now.
That is a good attitude to take. You should expect to remain in the dark for a good while. And however unsatisfactory that may seem, it is far better to be in the dark and realize it, than it is to believe one has figured it out and be completely wrong. Plato is useful in appreciating this. Or, for those who prefer to think of Socrates, Socrates is useful in appreciating this. For those who need it, The Apology by Plato is what one may wish to read in connection with that idea.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by evolution »

Seth_Gibson wrote: December 3rd, 2020, 11:27 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: December 2nd, 2020, 2:26 am


Given how long this thread has gotten, I thought it might be a good idea to ask if anything you were concerned about has been missed or neglected. (I may regret asking this, if you present a question that is troublesome.)
Based on what we have discussed so far, it seems that we have attempted to answer three questions related to the question of the original post. These are not comprehensive, but they stand out the most to me.

The first is whether philosophers generally come to the right conclusions. The answer we agreed on is no. I am satisfied with this.

The second is what constitutes proper philosophical inquiry. My tentative conclusion is that philosophical inquiry should look like something akin to the analytic tradition, rather than the continental tradition. Generally, it entails an engagement with epistemological questions rather than metaphysical ones, along with a focus on bringing philosophy as close as possible to the rigors of science. Beyond that broad description, I would have to read philosophers in the analytic tradition and compare them to philosophers in the continental tradition. My impression is that this question is beyond the scope of this thread. I am happy to leave it as it is unless someone can provide some questions and answers to get the ball rolling again. The question is perhaps too broad in its present form.

The third is what constitutes truth, which is separate from the second question because recognizing truth and defining truth are not the same. I do not have the time and resources to develop an opinion on this outside the forum as of now. From what I recall, some of you discussed this early on in the thread, and it was not talked about much from thereon. I am still in the dark on this, and I am okay with that for now.
What constitutes truth is 'that', which is not false, obviously.

As for recognizing truth and defining truth, and as you suggest they may not be the same, identically. But, once you have defined 'truth', properly and correctly, then recognizing 'truth' becomes Truly very simple AND very easy, as well as being able to be done almost instantaneously.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

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