Does Causality Come First?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:Steve, I think our hands are tied on this one. We humans have no choice but to accept causation (i.e. that all events are caused; strict determinism) as a fundamental, undeniable truth. We have no way to rationally deny it.

The reason I say this is because we can't "make sense" of anything without relying on causation. Our sense making abilities (i.e. our reasoning; our logic (deductive and inductive)) all rely on causal connections. To put it more simply, our means of making sense would not make sense if we did not accept causation as true. Therefore, if we do not accept causation as a fundamental truth, then we could have no way to rationally refute/deny it (or make sense in refuting/denying it).

Since it is impossible to rationally deny causation (because we would have to affirm it in order to deny it), we humans therefore have no choice in the matter. We can only affirm causation, as we have no rational means to deny it!
Pattern-chaser wrote:I see your point(s). But I think it is reasonable to paraphrase your argument as "Causality must be true because humans cannot make sense of the universe if it is not"?
P-chaser, it is not necessarily that I (or we humans) claim that it "must be true", it is that we humans have no rational means to deny its truth.

We humans are constrained (limited) to only make sense of that which is rational; that which is "causally" connected. We humans refer to those seemingly non-rational events (i.e., those appearing not-causally connected events) as "magic", or "random" (non-caused) events (...note: both "magic" and "random" are non-rational; non-sensical to our human sense-making abilities).

Once we crack open the door to accept the possibility of "magic" (or a "random" event) as a true/real event, then we have lost all means to "make sense" - in other words, we have lost the means to maintain rationality. For if we consider "non-rational events as rational" (e.g. if we accept ~X=X), then NOTHING no longer makes sense; and anything and everything would then be possible.

So, we humans either can continue to try to "make sense" of this universe/reality (e.g., by maintaining rationality; maintaining the impossibility of ~X=X), or we can succumb to the acceptance that anything and everything (including true "magic" and "randomness") is possible. So, if we wish to continue trying to "make sense" of reality, then we need to keep that door closed.

Pattern-chaser wrote:That causality is something-close-to unavoidable for us, in practice, I accept.
That it is therefore true/correct, I find difficult to accept.

I also find it difficult to accept that all events have causes, although, equally, I would not be happy to assert that causality is incorrect.

Life, for humans, and maybe other creatures too, is uncertain, filled with things we believe, but which we cannot confirm. This uncertainty confers on almost everything we 'know' an element of, er, uncertainty, and maybe that is one of the most fundamental truths that life, the universe and everything has to offer us?
Well-said P-chaser, I can't disagree. But unfortunately for us humans, our hands are tied. We have no other 'rational' means of denying rationality (causality).

...and any 'irrational' means of denying causality is not very convincing (to most of us)!
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

RJG wrote:Steve, I think our hands are tied on this one. We humans have no choice but to accept causation (i.e. that all events are caused; strict determinism) as a fundamental, undeniable truth. We have no way to rationally deny it.

The reason I say this is because we can't "make sense" of anything without relying on causation. Our sense making abilities (i.e. our reasoning; our logic (deductive and inductive)) all rely on causal connections. To put it more simply, our means of making sense would not make sense if we did not accept causation as true. Therefore, if we do not accept causation as a fundamental truth, then we could have no way to rationally refute/deny it (or make sense in refuting/denying it).

Since it is impossible to rationally deny causation (because we would have to affirm it in order to deny it), we humans therefore have no choice in the matter. We can only affirm causation, as we have no rational means to deny it!
Pattern-chaser wrote:I see your point(s). But I think it is reasonable to paraphrase your argument as "Causality must be true because humans cannot make sense of the universe if it is not"?
RJG wrote: October 10th, 2021, 10:16 am P-chaser, it is not necessarily that I (or we humans) claim that it "must be true", it is that we humans have no rational means to deny its truth.
While I accept what you say, I would simply add that we humans have no rational reason to accept its truth. Your statement, which I agree with, works both ways...
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by GE Morton »

RJG wrote: October 10th, 2021, 10:16 am
We humans are constrained (limited) to only make sense of that which is rational; that which is "causally" connected. We humans refer to those seemingly non-rational events (i.e., those appearing not-causally connected events) as "magic", or "random" (non-caused) events (...note: both "magic" and "random" are non-rational; non-sensical to our human sense-making abilities).

Once we crack open the door to accept the possibility of "magic" (or a "random" event) as a true/real event, then we have lost all means to "make sense" - in other words, we have lost the means to maintain rationality. For if we consider "non-rational events as rational" (e.g. if we accept ~X=X), then NOTHING no longer makes sense; and anything and everything would then be possible.
The situation is not quite as dire as you suggest. Yes, explanation consists in finding causes for effects, and without cause and effect we have no means of explaining anything. But that doesn't force us to deny that some phenomena may be uncaused; it only forces us to admit that we can't explain those things. So we put them in a box, as "special cases."

Randomness, BTW, doesn't mean "uncaused." It only means "unpredictable." The random event may well have causes we've not yet identified. But as long as we're ignorant of their causes the possibility remains open that they are indeed uncaused. So we put them in that box.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Ecurb »

I stand by my earlier post: what we mean by a "cause" is either a handle we can manipulate, or the intentional act of a conscious being. (There's a third, mathematical meaing, which is the logical conclusion of a set of postulates.)

As Sculptor suggested, there are (if we look closely enough) an infinite number of preconditions for any event. There may be an infinite number of necessary and sufficient preconditions. To call all of them "causes" is reasonable, but meaningless. We have to narrow it down -- and we do. If we are experimental scientists we create "variables" and manipulate them. If there are infinite "causes" for any event, we can make sense of the event only by limiting what we call a "cause".

(By the way, can't we make sense of "irrational" numbers? I've forgotten most of my math, and don't know if this is relevant to RJG or GE's point.)
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: October 10th, 2021, 12:55 pm
As Sculptor suggested, there are (if we look closely enough) an infinite number of preconditions for any event. There may be an infinite number of necessary and sufficient preconditions. To call all of them "causes" is reasonable, but meaningless. We have to narrow it down -- and we do. If we are experimental scientists we create "variables" and manipulate them. If there are infinite "causes" for any event, we can make sense of the event only by limiting what we call a "cause".
The various necessary conditions for an event to occur are not the causes of that event, as that term is normally used. It is usually the condition last satisfied, which then results in the event. For example, fuel, oxygen, and a spark are necessary and sufficient conditions for starting a fire. If the spark is applied last, we say the spark (from a match, campfire, downed power line) caused the fire. If a spark and air are already present, such as from a grinder in a machine shop, and someone spills a flammable solvent on the floor, we say the spilled fuel caused the fire. Etc.
(By the way, can't we make sense of "irrational" numbers? I've forgotten most of my math, and don't know if this is relevant to RJG or GE's point.)
"irrational" there has a different meaning than in ordinary usage (where it means "nonsensical" or illogical"). In math it only means that the number can't be expressed as a ratio between two integers (a better term might be "non-rational").
PoeticUniverse
Posts: 638
Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by PoeticUniverse »

THE IRRATIONAL

Indefiniteness didn’t sit well with Pythagorus,
Ever concerned with the perfection of numbers.

You can divide the circumference of a circle
With its radius but you cannot write the result
As a fraction or a ratio, for pi just keeps on going.

So, he pledged his disciples to secrecy,
For the ancient Pythagoreans
Had developed an entire religion
Based on the rationality of numbers.

Yet, one rebel vowed to let the word out;
However, he mysteriously drowned at sea.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by RJG »

Pattern-chaser wrote:While I accept what you say, I would simply add that we humans have no rational reason to accept its truth.
Sure we do! It is perfectly 'rational' to accept the truth of causality (causal connections). Causation is (the essence of) rationality!

Pattern-chaser wrote:Your statement, which I agree with, works both ways…
No, not "both" ways. Remember, our only means to "make sense" is through 'rationality' (causal connections), ...not through 'irrationality' (non-causal connections).

1. The truth of causation is very rational, and
2. Denying the truth of causation is self-contradictory, (...as we would have to affirm it to deny it).


************
GE Morton wrote:The situation is not quite as dire as you suggest.
GE, if you are referring to our inability to rationally deny causality, then it is more than "dire", ...it is downright "impossible"!

GE Morton wrote:Yes, explanation consists in finding causes for effects, and without cause and effect we have no means of explaining anything.
Correct, agreed.

GE Morton wrote:But that doesn't force us to deny that some phenomena may be uncaused…
I think it does. Since we have no rational means to make that claim ("that some phenomena may be uncaused"), then that means we cannot rationally make that claim. And if we can't rationally make that claim, then it means we are denied from making that claim (...unless of course we want to be irrational).

GE Morton wrote:...it only forces us to admit that we can't explain those things. So we put them in a box, as "special cases."
If we can't rationally explain something, then we are denied from rationally explaining that something. If we want to put the unexplainable in a special box, (maybe to address at a later point), then sure, but it doesn't change anything. Not-X will always be not X.

GE Morton wrote:Randomness, BTW, doesn't mean "uncaused." It only means "unpredictable." The random event may well have causes we've not yet identified.
Firstly, when I say "randomness", I'm referring to 'true' (real) randomness ("uncaused" events), and not necessarily to "unknown" (or "unpredictably") caused events, much like when talking about real/true "magic", and not the trickery (unknown/unpredictable causes). Events (effects) without true/real causes are unexplainable; non-rational; they have no rational explanation.

GE Morton wrote:But as long as we're ignorant of their causes the possibility remains open that they are indeed uncaused. So we put them in that box.
But again, if they are "uncaused", then there is NO rational explanation (or cause) for them. And if so, then we can't claim that, that (uncaused-ness) is a rational explanation.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: October 10th, 2021, 2:51 pm
The various necessary conditions for an event to occur are not the causes of that event, as that term is normally used. It is usually the condition last satisfied, which then results in the event. For example, fuel, oxygen, and a spark are necessary and sufficient conditions for starting a fire. If the spark is applied last, we say the spark (from a match, campfire, downed power line) caused the fire. If a spark and air are already present, such as from a grinder in a machine shop, and someone spills a flammable solvent on the floor, we say the spilled fuel caused the fire. Etc.


"irrational" there has a different meaning than in ordinary usage (where it means "nonsensical" or illogical"). In math it only means that the number can't be expressed as a ratio between two integers (a better term might be "non-rational").
That's reasonable, but I like my definitions of "cause" better. First, in the case of the medical study, the delivery of the drug or placebo is not the "last satisfied condition" for the cure. That might be the death of a certain percentage of the infecting bacteria, or some merely coincidental thing like the drop of body temperature. We call the drug the cure because it is the handle we are manipulating. Second, in the case of the intentional act. the intent is not the "last satisfied condition". The murderer who shoots someone "causes" his death, but the "last satisfied condition" is somthing like the cessation of brain function, or the bullet ripping through the brain.

I still think we generally use "cause" to refer to a handle we can manipulate (by the way I got this from some Philosophy article, but I can't remember the author or the citation. I didn't make it up myself though.).

Perhaps because I'm not a mathematician, the square root of -1 seems pretty irrational to me. It is, at any rate, outside of normal reasoning, as are some other things people call "irrational", but that may be explained as rational by moving off the number line (normal paradigm or way of thinking). The notion that time could be relative was probably thought to be irrational, once.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by GE Morton »

RJG wrote: October 10th, 2021, 4:15 pm
GE Morton wrote:But that doesn't force us to deny that some phenomena may be uncaused…
I think it does. Since we have no rational means to make that claim ("that some phenomena may be uncaused"), then that means we cannot rationally make that claim. And if we can't rationally make that claim, then it means we are denied from making that claim (...unless of course we want to be irrational).
Of course we have a rational means to make the claim, "X may have no cause." Namely, that we know of no cause (though we've searched carefully). We'd have no rational means of making the claim, "X has no cause," however, since that would involve proving a negative, which (in this case) would require omniscience. But inserting the modal "may" --- i.e., possibility --- into the proposition makes it rational. It is what is left over after we admit that we can't prove, "For all X, X has a cause," either. That would also require omniscience.

If X truly does have no cause, of course, then we will never be able to explain X either. I'm pretty there are some X's that fall into that category.
Firstly, when I say "randomness", I'm referring to 'true' (real) randomness ("uncaused" events), and not necessarily to "unknown" (or "unpredictably") caused events, much like when talking about real/true "magic", and not the trickery (unknown/unpredictable causes). Events (effects) without true/real causes are unexplainable; non-rational; they have no rational explanation.
"Real" randomness is an impossibly vague notion. In common uses, it generally means "unpredictable," not "uncaused." In mathematics, it denotes a number that cannot be generated by any known algorithm, or in computer science a string that can't be generated by any program shorter than the string. It is impossible to say, by just looking at a number (or anything else) in isolation, whether it is random or not. But I agree with your last sentence there.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr ... of&f=false
But again, if they are "uncaused", then there is NO rational explanation (or cause) for them. And if so, then we can't claim that, that (uncaused-ness) is a rational explanation.
Agree. Saying that an event is uncaused is not an explanation of the event. It is saying that we can't explain that event.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:
Does anybody have any other views than the above as to how we arrive at the conclusion (if we do in fact arrive at it) that all events have prior causal events?
Steve, I think our hands are tied on this one. We humans have no choice but to accept causation (i.e. that all events are caused; strict determinism) as a fundamental, undeniable truth. We have no way to rationally deny it.

The reason I say this is because we can't "make sense" of anything without relying on causation. Our sense making abilities (i.e. our reasoning; our logic (deductive and inductive)) all rely on causal connections. To put it more simply, our means of making sense would not make sense if we did not accept causation as true. Therefore, if we do not accept causation as a fundamental truth, then we could have no way to rationally refute/deny it (or make sense in refuting/denying it).

Since it is impossible to rationally deny causation (because we would have to affirm it in order to deny it), we humans therefore have no choice in the matter. We can only affirm causation, as we have no rational means to deny it!
I agree that dispensing with the concept of causality altogether (as, for example, the new poster here called Dennis Blewett has proposed) leads to absurdity. But it doesn't follow from that that causality is a necessarily universal principle. i.e. it doesn't follow, as a logically necessary truth, that all events are caused. So the proposition "some events have no causes" is not a logically necessary truth. Someone who regarded causality as a synthetic a priori truth would presumably believe it was.
Pattern-chaser wrote:[Talking to RJG] I see your point(s). But I think it is reasonable to paraphrase your argument as "Causality must be true because humans cannot make sense of the universe if it is not"?

That causality is something-close-to unavoidable for us, in practice, I accept.
That it is therefore true/correct, I find difficult to accept.
If your last sentence was "That it is therefore a necessary truth..." then I would agree. I think the key difference between causality as an inductively or abductively derived principle and causality as an a priori first principle is that in the latter case the proposition "all events have a cause" is seen as necessary truth. In the former it isn't.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Steve3007 »

Typo. This:

So the proposition "some events have no causes" is not a logically necessary truth. Someone who regarded causality as a synthetic a priori truth would presumably believe it was.

should have been this:

So the proposition "some events have no causes" is not a logically necessary falsehood. Someone who regarded causality as a synthetic a priori truth would presumably believe it was.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Steve3007 »

GE Morton wrote:I assume you've read Hume's discussions of causality, which set the stage for all debates on that topic that have occurred since.
I've read about Hume in various texts on western philosophy in general, but I have to say I've never read the original. So I've read enough to know that Hume's take on causality was as you've described it (from the summary you cited):
Hume argued that there is no necessary connection between events we deem causes and those we deem their effects. All we can observe with regard to "A causes B" is that A precedes B and is "constantly conjoined" with B. But there is no contradiction in affirming B and denying A. He argues that the "necessary connection" is supplied by our own minds, an inductive inference we are psychologically impelled to make, and not one forced upon us by anything discernible in reality.

Of course, much argument has ensued.
GE Morton wrote:[To RJG] Great answer. In Kant's view cause and effect is an a priori category, a rule of thought built into our brains (as it were). Explanation, for us, consists in finding causes for effects. Without it, there are no explanations of anything.

As Steve suggest above, the "necessary connection" Hume could not find consists in pattern recognition; our ability to predict future events (predicting effects from known causes) consists in the ability to predict the other elements of a pattern if we observe a few. For example, if while walking down a street we observe parked car, we may see the rear bumper, taillights, rear window, etc. From that information we can predict that as we continue walking, we'll see a hood, grill, headlights, etc. We infer a spatial pattern from a few visible elements. Cause and effect is the same, except it is a temporal, not a spatial pattern. We observe a few events that are part of a larger pattern, a process, and infer the presently invisible portions of the process. Those patterns confer a unity on disparate perceptions and events, thus supplying a "necessary connection" between them.
I disagree with that last sentence here. I think the one thing that those patterns don't supply is a necessary connection. Kant's take on causality (according to my understanding) does supply that necessary connection. I side more with Hume than with Kant on this.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Steve3007 »

Sculptor1 wrote:My feeling is that neither abduction or induction are enough. Both follow a logical assumption of linear reasoning. My feeling is that all events and causes are multifarious, and that reality is far too complex to offer simple linear causality.
It is no doubt true that the world is a complex place and that there are webs of causality, as well as events that may only seem to be uncaused because of that complexity. I don't think that is relevant to the applicability of otherwise of inductive reasoning. I don't really know what you mean by "a logical assumption of linear reasoning" here.
The idea that some events have no prior causes seems absurd and has no valuable merit. What is likely is that whatever we choose to dub "event" is merely an empirical nexus or a complexity of causes and consequences, some of which are easy to recognize, some of which are obscure and others which are completely occult.
Yes, the physical world is complex and there are often hidden causes. Again, I don't see that as relevant to the proposition that causality is an inductively derived principle which, as such, is not a logically necessary universal truth.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Steve3007 wrote: October 11th, 2021, 4:59 am
Sculptor1 wrote:My feeling is that neither abduction or induction are enough. Both follow a logical assumption of linear reasoning. My feeling is that all events and causes are multifarious, and that reality is far too complex to offer simple linear causality.
It is no doubt true that the world is a complex place and that there are webs of causality, as well as events that may only seem to be uncaused because of that complexity. I don't think that is relevant to the applicability of otherwise of inductive reasoning. I don't really know what you mean by "a logical assumption of linear reasoning" here.
The idea that some events have no prior causes seems absurd and has no valuable merit. What is likely is that whatever we choose to dub "event" is merely an empirical nexus or a complexity of causes and consequences, some of which are easy to recognize, some of which are obscure and others which are completely occult.
Yes, the physical world is complex and there are often hidden causes. Again, I don't see that as relevant to the proposition that causality is an inductively derived principle which, as such, is not a logically necessary universal truth.
Describe the causality of this event.

It grows dark. I see a light switch. Describe the caualsity which leads to the light coming on.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by RJG »

GE Morton wrote:Of course we have a rational means to make the claim, "X may have no cause."
GE, I understand your point that making the claim "X may have no cause" seems very 'rational' since we don't know if there truly is a cause or not. But my point is that if it truly has no cause, then it (a non-caused event) can't "make-sense" to us humans; and therefore it can't be rational or logical (as it lacks any causal connective-ness). It is like saying "the magicians trick may be real magic" is a rational claim, because we don't know what truly caused the rabbit to appear in the hat. The rabbit appearing from nowhere is not rational; it does not make any causal sense to us humans. We NEED 'causation' to get 'rationality'. - So, as I see it, an "event that is not-caused" is 'non-rational'; there is no causality, or rationality/logic, to it whatsoever!

GE Morton wrote:Saying that an event is uncaused is not an explanation of the event. It is saying that we can't explain that event.
Agreed. And I would further add that an "uncaused event" is logically impossible [X=~X]; it defies rationality/causality (as it has no causal connections).

GE Morton wrote:If X truly does have no cause, of course, then we will never be able to explain X either. I'm pretty there are some X's that fall into that category.
So, then do you believe "uncaused events" (and magic, and true randomness) are actually possible? ...certainly there are no rational means by which to believe this, ...I know some science tells us this, but to me, this seemingly is just another example of "bad science" (science that disregards logic), as it defies sound reasoning and simple logic, and therefore can't be possible.
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