Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

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
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by JackDaydream »

I was discussing this relationship with a friend yesterday because the relationship between philosophy and psychology is complex. The two were linked in the thinking of William James and Wundt. However, they began their own individual journeys during the twentieth century. In particular, the development of psychoanalysis and psychiatry were important in the development of psychology. In philosophy, significant developments were the emphasis on language in logical positivism and Wittgenstein, as well as postmodernism as deconstruction.

In the twentieth century, the rise of cognitive approaches, as well as neuroscience are central in explaining mental states. This was important in the twentieth century but the crossover has become more and more significant. In some ways, philosophy looks more for explanations whereas psychology for the application for understanding how this applies in human life. However, it is not that simple and the two overlap in putting together so many explanations for human behaviour. So, I am asking for your thoughts on the relationship between philosophy and psychology, and where this may go in the future potentially?
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by chewybrian »

I think you grossly underestimate length of time that psychology has been with us, whether it carried that label or not. It did, I think, emerge from philosophy, rather than these two areas of study emerging on their own. I would even say that it is more properly categorized as a kind of philosophy rather than another category of study or activity. This is the philosophy that moves me, and the type I think should be the focus of most philosophers, for it is a philosophy of action. However, it is not the kind that justifies selfish action or causes us to hurt others because we follow our dogma. Rather, it encourages self-improvement, humility, growth, empathy and virtue, and healthy doses of minding your own business and cleaning up your own house before trying to clean up the world.

Here is Epictetus 2000 years ago:
"Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible. When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay the fault of his own bad condition upon others. Someone just starting instruction will lay the fault on himself. Some who is perfectly instructed will place blame neither on others nor on himself.", Epictetus, "The Enchiridion"
And here is Albert Ellis, founder of rational emotive behavior therapy, the precursor of cognitive behavioral therapy, about 70 years ago:
“When I started to get disillusioned with psychoanalysis I reread philosophy and was reminded of the constructivist notion that Epictetus had proposed 2,000 years ago: "People are disturbed not by events that happen to them, but by their view of them." I could see how that applied to many of my clients.”, Albert Ellis

“Too many people are unaware that it is not outer events or circumstances that will create happiness; rather, it is our perception of events and of ourselves that will create, or uncreate, positive emotions.", Albert Ellis
It's not like Ellis dug up these long lost ideas. Instead, they have carried along all those years and always been some part of us, often expressed as "common sense" notions. However, they were not so common until philosophy created or discovered them some 2000 years ago.

I don't think predictions of the future are worth much beyond a few laughs. I'll just say that these ideas are in play and fairly widely used right now, in therapy and in self-help programs like AA or STOP.

This is a most compelling subject, though I'm not quite sure where you are trying to go with it.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by JackDaydream »

chewybrian wrote: April 11th, 2022, 7:26 am I think you grossly underestimate length of time that psychology has been with us, whether it carried that label or not. It did, I think, emerge from philosophy, rather than these two areas of study emerging on their own. I would even say that it is more properly categorized as a kind of philosophy rather than another category of study or activity. This is the philosophy that moves me, and the type I think should be the focus of most philosophers, for it is a philosophy of action. However, it is not the kind that justifies selfish action or causes us to hurt others because we follow our dogma. Rather, it encourages self-improvement, humility, growth, empathy and virtue, and healthy doses of minding your own business and cleaning up your own house before trying to clean up the world.

Here is Epictetus 2000 years ago:
"Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible. When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay the fault of his own bad condition upon others. Someone just starting instruction will lay the fault on himself. Some who is perfectly instructed will place blame neither on others nor on himself.", Epictetus, "The Enchiridion"
And here is Albert Ellis, founder of rational emotive behavior therapy, the precursor of cognitive behavioral therapy, about 70 years ago:
“When I started to get disillusioned with psychoanalysis I reread philosophy and was reminded of the constructivist notion that Epictetus had proposed 2,000 years ago: "People are disturbed not by events that happen to them, but by their view of them." I could see how that applied to many of my clients.”, Albert Ellis

“Too many people are unaware that it is not outer events or circumstances that will create happiness; rather, it is our perception of events and of ourselves that will create, or uncreate, positive emotions.", Albert Ellis
It's not like Ellis dug up these long lost ideas. Instead, they have carried along all those years and always been some part of us, often expressed as "common sense" notions. However, they were not so common until philosophy created or discovered them some 2000 years ago.

I don't think predictions of the future are worth much beyond a few laughs. I'll just say that these ideas are in play and fairly widely used right now, in therapy and in self-help programs like AA or STOP.

This is a most compelling subject, though I'm not quite sure where you are trying to go with it.
Thanks for your reply and I am glad that you trace the development of the ideas in psychology back to philosophy. This sometimes is not done enough and the idea of psychology as a science may miss this basis of psychology. My very first studies of psychology were in experimental psychology and the underlying models of mind and thinking seemed missing, with behaviour as opposed to thought being the focus.

Even when I was first introduced to the cognitive behavioral therapy model in relation to psychiatric nursing the roots in philosophy were not really considered. However, from reading in this field it occurred to me that the model was a way of introducing those coming for such therapy to a basis of starting to look at life philosophically. I had not come across the writings of Epictectus at all. The techniques of Ellis and Beck are a way of enabling the examination of beliefs, and of seeing how underlying thoughts affect emotions and behaviour.

The possibility of drawing on philosophy in psychology in such a way do open up horizons for enabling those who undertake therapeutic work to begin critical analysis, although from what I have seen in psychological action in practice, it may depend on how the individual practitioners are able to interpret the model in such a way. If it is understood as being about a thorough examination of the basis of thought it may be able to enable reflective explanations.

The therapeutic applications of psychology are very important, but having placed the thread in the section on metaphysics and epistemology, it may be that the thread will also focus on the nature of various models of the mind. These vary, and it is likely that the emphasis on evidence based research are dominant and some aspects of thought are ranked as of lesser importance. In particular, the psychoanalytic school of thought may have faded although the psychodynamic model of Freud, Klein and Winnicott remains central to psychotherapy and art psychotherapists.

It is probably better focus on what may be happening in psychology presently, rather than of hypothetical guesses about future directions. As far as I am aware, the physicalist model has a big sway over many thinkers, with great attention to the biological aspects of the brain, including genetics and neurotransmitters, especially in psychiatry.

In writing this thread my intention was to look at the way in which philosophy influences psychology and vice versa. It is likely that the philosophy of mind draws upon developments in psychology. I am interested in all of these areas, but keep an open mind to how this particular thread could develop, because it depends on who chooses to participate in the discussion.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by JackDaydream »

In my above post I may have appeared vague in my intentions for the thread. That is simply because sometimes I had clear wishes for how I would like some threads to develop, but it never happened. That was because in the interaction with the people who replied it became difficult to pursue particular directions.

A couple of areas in the convergence between philosophy and psychology which I would like to explore are the nature of self and identity. Also, another aspect is the nature of perception in psychology and in relation to the philosophy of phenomenology. Nevertheless, the area in between psychology and philosophy is large, and I am willing to explore in conjunction with the interests of any who reply to the thread.
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by stevie »

Philosophy is mere speculation and psychology is mere speculation.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by JackDaydream »

stevie wrote: April 12th, 2022, 1:40 am Philosophy is mere speculation and psychology is mere speculation.
I know that you are opposed to speculation but if both psychology and the philosophy are summed up in this way there would be no point in education and reading books at all. We might as well be machines or computers if everything which is speculation were to be dismissed on that basis.
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by stevie »

JackDaydream wrote: April 12th, 2022, 1:50 am
stevie wrote: April 12th, 2022, 1:40 am Philosophy is mere speculation and psychology is mere speculation.
I know that you are opposed to speculation but if both psychology and the philosophy are summed up in this way there would be no point in education and reading books at all. We might as well be machines or computers if everything which is speculation were to be dismissed on that basis.
That's speculative fabrication.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by JackDaydream »

JackDaydream wrote: April 11th, 2022, 5:56 pm In my above post I may have appeared vague in my intentions for the thread. That is simply because sometimes I had clear wishes for how I would like some threads to develop, but it never happened. That was because in the interaction with the people who replied it became difficult to pursue particular directions.

A couple of areas in the convergence between philosophy and psychology which I would like to explore are the nature of self and identity. Also, another aspect is the nature of perception in psychology and in relation to the philosophy of phenomenology. Nevertheless, the area in between psychology and philosophy is large, and I am willing to explore in conjunction with the interests of any who reply to the thread.
One aspect of the phenomenological aspect in between psychology and philosophy is spoken of by Michael Slote in his, 'Between Psychology: East and West' is the way in which in Western philosophy there has been an emphasis of mind in relation to the 'function in purely intellectual, rational or cognitive terms, without any emotion(al disposition). He argues that this misses out the role of plans and intentions. He suggests,
'My own autobiographical phenomenology tells me that I never plan or intend to get coconut ice cream rather than cappuccino, even though I am at some level aware that I will always choose the coconut if both are available. To that extent, mere preference, like mere wishes, doesn't engage with the mind's cognitive apparatus the way desires do'.

Slote goes on to say, 'the so-called mind' may be most accurately be 'conceived as a heart-mind'. The author's understanding goes beyond the dualistic split which emerged in Western philosophy, which placed cognition 'in the head' and may be particularly important for understanding the complex nature of mood in relation to desires and wishes. This is significant for understanding the way in which thwarting of wishes affects wellbeing, in leading to clinical depression. So, while antidepressants may contribute to the maintenance of mood, the nature of wishes do need to be addressed too.

The cognitive model and recovery model in mental health do take this into account through an emphasis on enabling people to identify goals and aspirations to work with as a way of achieving a greater individual sense of wellbeing.
heracleitos
Posts: 439
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by heracleitos »

There are at least four important subdisciplines in philosophy that do not necessarily require a human to be involved:

- Ontology. The question "What is X?" and mechanically applying or even creating a definition, can often be done by a computer.

- Epistemology. A mechanical proof assistant can mechanically verify if the purported proof truly proves the theorem. Hence, machines can often verify justification (but rarely produce it).

- Logic migrated into a subdiscipline of mathematics a long time ago already, while verification in math revolves around mechanical procedures.

- Morality To the extent that a moral system is constructed from foundationalist rules, checking that a moral advisory necessarily follows from its foundations, could often be carried out by a computer.

Hence, entire subdivisions in philosophy are quite unrelated to psychology because they do not even require a human to be involved. There is simply no such thing as the psychology of a computer.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by JackDaydream »

heracleitos wrote: April 12th, 2022, 9:58 pm There are at least four important subdisciplines in philosophy that do not necessarily require a human to be involved:

- Ontology. The question "What is X?" and mechanically applying or even creating a definition, can often be done by a computer.

- Epistemology. A mechanical proof assistant can mechanically verify if the purported proof truly proves the theorem. Hence, machines can often verify justification (but rarely produce it).

- Logic migrated into a subdiscipline of mathematics a long time ago already, while verification in math revolves around mechanical procedures.

- Morality To the extent that a moral system is constructed from foundationalist rules, checking that a moral advisory necessarily follows from its foundations, could often be carried out by a computer.

Hence, entire subdivisions in philosophy are quite unrelated to psychology because they do not even require a human to be involved. There is simply no such thing as the psychology of a computer.
Thanks for your reply and I welcome you to the forum. It does seem that the questions of philosophy, especially epistemology and logic cannot be reduced to psychology alone. Some of this may be what was described by Immanuel Kant as a priori logic.

I guess that one question is whether a priori logic exists apart from the human minds which think it because there is no basis for knowledge of it apart from that which is realised by human consciousness. It is like the question as to whether a falling tree makes a source if there is no one to hear it.

Of course, it can be argued that the knowledge learned by human consciousness is independently of human consciousness and a basis could be that of Plato's theory of forms. Such a viewpoint does suggest an objective realm of ideas independently of the human mind.

In regard to your inclusion of morality as being outside of psychology, this is questionable. This is because it can be asked to what extent morality is rational or based on human values of specific human beings? Certain principles can be deduced by rationality and a computer may be able to come up with answers based on the information put into it. But, it would be different from the human approach because moral feeling would not come into play. People make moral choices on the basis of conscience, which includes internalised social norms. Also, another factor in morality is compassion and I am yet to meet a compassionate computer.
heracleitos
Posts: 439
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by heracleitos »

JackDaydream wrote: April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am Thanks for your reply and I welcome you to the forum.
Thanks!
JackDaydream wrote: April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am In regard to your inclusion of morality as being outside of psychology, this is questionable. This is because it can be asked to what extent morality is rational or based on human values of specific human beings?
The basic rules of morality are themselves probably of biological or revealed origin or similar.

As I see it, the question what the basic rules of morality should be, is not a question in morality, but about morality. In my opinion, morality cannot answer questions about itself.

As far as I see it, morality a (boolean) predicate formula that accept as argument the description of a particular behavior. This predicate returns true if the behavior is moral. It returns false when it is immoral.

I think that the design of this predicate formula is not a question in morality but one about morality, which morality itself cannot answer.

In general, a predicate formula cannot output another predicate formula, because in that case it is not a predicate formula. A predicate formula is limited to returning true or false.
JackDaydream wrote: April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am Certain principles can be deduced by rationality and a computer may be able to come up with answers based on the information put into it.
Yes. Agreed. That is what I understand by the term morality: deciding if the behavior described, is moral or not.

Where exactly we get the predicate formula from, must be decided by another field of inquiry.
JackDaydream wrote: April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am Also, another factor in morality is compassion and I am yet to meet a compassionate computer.
In my opinion, deciding the morality of a behavior described should not involve emotions. What exactly would we achieve by doing that?

Furthermore, there is no obligation to compassion. Nobody has a inalienable right to it. At the discretion of the person involved, he may grant mercy or not. In the end, it is still his prerogative.

For example, it is possible to waive the next month of rent for a tenant who is sick and in the hospital, but the contract may not grant the tenant such right. I do not believe that it is immoral to still demand payment of the rent, even in those circumstances.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by JackDaydream »

heracleitos wrote: April 13th, 2022, 11:37 pm
JackDaydream wrote: April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am Thanks for your reply and I welcome you to the forum.
Thanks!
JackDaydream wrote: April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am In regard to your inclusion of morality as being outside of psychology, this is questionable. This is because it can be asked to what extent morality is rational or based on human values of specific human beings?
The basic rules of morality are themselves probably of biological or revealed origin or similar.

As I see it, the question what the basic rules of morality should be, is not a question in morality, but about morality. In my opinion, morality cannot answer questions about itself.

As far as I see it, morality a (boolean) predicate formula that accept as argument the description of a particular behavior. This predicate returns true if the behavior is moral. It returns false when it is immoral.

I think that the design of this predicate formula is not a question in morality but one about morality, which morality itself cannot answer.

In general, a predicate formula cannot output another predicate formula, because in that case it is not a predicate formula. A predicate formula is limited to returning true or false.
JackDaydream wrote: April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am Certain principles can be deduced by rationality and a computer may be able to come up with answers based on the information put into it.
Yes. Agreed. That is what I understand by the term morality: deciding if the behavior described, is moral or not.

Where exactly we get the predicate formula from, must be decided by another field of inquiry.
JackDaydream wrote: April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am Also, another factor in morality is compassion and I am yet to meet a compassionate computer.
In my opinion, deciding the morality of a behavior described should not involve emotions. What exactly would we achieve by doing that?

Furthermore, there is no obligation to compassion. Nobody has a inalienable right to it. At the discretion of the person involved, he may grant mercy or not. In the end, it is still his prerogative.

For example, it is possible to waive the next month of rent for a tenant who is sick and in the hospital, but the contract may not grant the tenant such right. I do not believe that it is immoral to still demand payment of the rent, even in those circumstances.
Your approach to morality is one which is according to the letter of the law. Of course, in many ways it is possible to take that approach. In the example of the tenant who has been sick and in hospital many landlords do stick to clauses in the contract. It is likely that many lost their accommodation through such circumstances, with Covid_19 or other problems, including the pandemic.

But, some landlords may take a different approach. I once knew a landlord who kept a person's room for 6 months while a the person was in prison for shoplifting.But, in this thread I am not trying to make any prescriptive judgements but wish to look at the interplay between philosophy and psychology..

From a psychological perspective, empathy may take place within a person to enable them to see the other's predicament and pain. For example, there could be some understanding of a person's background, such as traumas a person has been through. Each individual in life situations comes from their own understanding of psychology, whether through academic knowledge or experience in the world. This psychological perspective is in conjunction with a philosophy of morality or moral action. In life, understanding of psychology and philosophy inform any individual' s approach to ethics, especially in the area of values for approaching the various situations which confront them. The two work together dynamically and some individuals are more able to explain consciously the basis of their own approaches than others. It is more about philosophy and psychology as the two strands of Socrates' idea of 'the examined life.'
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

JackDaydream wrote: April 14th, 2022, 12:16 am In this thread I am not trying to make any prescriptive judgements but wish to look at the interplay between philosophy and psychology.
Psychology is dreadfully damaged (IMO) by its efforts to present itself as a 'science', maybe in order to gain status, credibility, finance, or sponsorship. But let's assume it is a 'science'.

What we need is the philosophical equivalent of psychology, and I don't think there is one. We need a 'school' of philosophy that focusses on the human mind, of itself, and in its interactions with other human minds, and with life, the universe and everything else too. But from a philosophical perspective, of course, to complement the scientific perspective taken by psychology. I'm thinking here of analytic philosophy, and the common ground it shares with science.

I expect this is one of those sundry topics that is dropped into the bin marked "metaphysics"? 😉
Pattern-chaser

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

Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by GE Morton »

An interesting discussion, especially the divergence of answers to such questions as,

What is philosophy? What is psychology? What is morality? Clearly what you conceive those terms to denote and imply will determine what questions you ask and what you count as answers to those questions.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?

Post by JackDaydream »

GE Morton wrote: April 15th, 2022, 12:57 pm An interesting discussion, especially the divergence of answers to such questions as,

What is philosophy? What is psychology? What is morality? Clearly what you conceive those terms to denote and imply will determine what questions you ask and what you count as answers to those questions.
There is an overlap between the two areas and I have always found this interesting, as soon as I found the two sections in the library. Some people seem to gravitate more towards psychology and some more to philosophy. It may be about the balance between finding individual meaning or looking for answers beyond this. It is complex because each person has individual leaning in finding explanations but rational basis of understanding in philosophy is important too. These aspects can be looked at consciously rather than just being underlying tendencies.

Here, the questions asked are important and can be about understanding personal values or looking for ideas which go beyond the personal. It may be important to separate philosophy and psychology as a way of disentangling individual biases. On the other hand, even though philosophy may be about looking be looking beyond the personal meanings, with a view to an objective basis for explanations. It is likely that both the psychological and philosophical provide a basis for understanding but psychology points to a way of being aware of the aspects which of individual significance, especially moral values, or political ones. Awareness of these personal aspects may be important as a starting point for philosophical awareness, with the psychological involving awareness of what matters personally as a basis for critical thinking. Understanding subjective meaning and values is a way of being aware of the basis on which one begins to approach the philosophy questions.
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