Kaufmann on Nietzsche

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Kaufmann on Nietzsche

Post by Felix »

Tamminen: "Consciousness is not a photograph, it is a motion picture. It is true that a movie is made of still pictures, but there has to be a succession of them to make the movie. And we cannot stop the film. To stop it means death. I have never understood what Kierkegaard meant when he said that the present is a cross-section of time and eternity."

I think you are conflating being with becoming. Becoming is temporal and being is eternal, that is the cross-section Kierkegaard referenced.

Tamminen: "And we cannot stop the film. To stop it means death."

But not necessarily physical death, as Buddha said: "the worldling will regard as death what the conquerer of Self knows to be life everlasting." That insight is not the product of chrono-logical thinking.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Kaufmann on Nietzsche

Post by Hereandnow »

But Felix, That insight is an insight IN time. Not about thinking about time. Is it even possible to conceive of timelessness, or is it some absurdity?

I think it is IN when we impose time values on it by talking about it. But the Buddhist, the, well, successful ones (how many of those are there? The dalai lama, even, denied he is "enlightened") closes in on nirvana, mental processes shut down,and these processes are not IN time, they ARE time. Without them all that is left is an abstraction, a Kantian apriori structure, which is itself a fiction of theory. Thinking often creates realities out of thought.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Kaufmann on Nietzsche

Post by Felix »

Hereandnow: "But Felix, That insight is an insight IN time."

What insight, the recognition of timelessness or eternity? How could it be in time when time does not exist there? Sure, one could try to recollect and think about one's experience, and that would occur in time (assuming the Satori experience didn't trigger a permanent shift in consciousness, which can happen) but that's a different phase of awareness.

The biographical information I've read on Kierkegaard suggests he had this experience of the Eternal and it dramatically altered his outlook on Life, whereas it doesn't appear that Kant ever escaped from the mental trap.

Hereandnow: "Without them all that is left is an abstraction, a Kantian apriori structure, which is itself a fiction of theory."

I agree, if one has never tasted eternity, it sounds like a fairy tale - the other side of the rainbow.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Jklint
Posts: 1719
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: Kaufmann on Nietzsche

Post by Jklint »

Jklint

Haven't we already been doing that since day one? No matter the adversity or its cause, humans have always kept on going regardless. This has nothing to do with any philosophy even Nietzsche's. It's simply a fact of life as determined by nature which strives to continue through every kind of suffering imaginable and keep breeding in the process.

Whether we say yes to life or not, life will have its way whatever its inflictions.
Hereandnow wrote: June 12th, 2019, 9:26 pmRight. And who could disagree with this? As to having to do with philosophy, well, it depends on who you read. Certainly not Nietzsche.
Actually Nietzsche is one of the best to read regarding morality. His psychological acumen is not to be negated nor his analysis of the moral establishment. It doesn’t mean I agree with all of his views but he certainly has made some major breakthroughs regarding it. The point is he makes one think especially when morality itself became a subject for analysis which was long overdue.
Hereandnow wrote: June 12th, 2019, 9:26 pmGood thing I'm not a fan of Nietzsche's. He spent his life fighting illness, then reified HIS struggle in Schopenhauer's Will, and resent the resenters, the ones, unlike him, who couldn't bear under the weight of the world.
I’m not a fan of Nietzsche either nor of any philosopher but I do believe your version of him here is a little too simplistic.
Hereandnow wrote: June 12th, 2019, 9:26 pmTo me, it takes an astounding lack of curiosity not to wonder what suffering is doing in this world at all. If you were imprisoned for no reason, then brought before a death squad, I bet you would be interested then. Or if you had some issue, and you had to deal with a bureaucracy that never ended, that would be curious. Or if you turned into an insect over night, well. Kafka tried to tell us something about this world.
Yes, absolutely he did! Not long ago I read Die Verwandlung (The Metamorphosis). It’s definitely one of the supreme stories of alienation as is also The Trial in its presentation of a bureaucracy that cannot be penetrated in its impermeable power structure. China kinda reminds me of that. They always had a “divine bureaucracy” format to government which is in full display even now.
Hereandnow wrote: June 12th, 2019, 9:26 pmWe see HOW things go, but we are alienated from the what of things. All terms reduce to pragmatics, and our apprehension of the real is just reified familiarity and instrumentality.
From what I’ve read, I don’t think Nietzsche would have disagreed with this. The point of contention would be what “the what of things” actually denote.
Hereandnow wrote: June 12th, 2019, 9:26 pm Ethics is transcendental, not factual. I knew this before I read Wittgenstein's Lecture on ethics.
Transcendental implies having reached escape velocity from its factual underpinnings meaning that many different interpretations are possible. If morality were considered to a greater degree factual in its motives it should be encountered more as a genealogy analyzing those motives than any self-serving theory of which there’s a plethora. In effect, it becomes a psychological investigation rather than a transcendental one.
Hereandnow wrote: June 12th, 2019, 9:26 pmPhilosophy doesn't care much for what we do in our ordinary lives, it questions the foundations of this. Of course, as you say, humans continue to strive through every kind of suffering, and so on. You might say, humans continue to think and make judgments and get along just fine; but does that mean Kant wasn't onto what philosophy is all about?? This fact of life. Is it? A fact, that is. What are facts?
If the meaning of facts remain amorphous than how much more so any transcendental interpretation of how those so-called facts are to be interpreted?

Hereandnow wrote: June 12th, 2019, 9:26 pmDo facts possess a descriptive account of what suffering is? i mean, the pain, the misery, and all for no reason we can fathom, is a description of the misery, the empirical account, exhaustive of the suffering?
Can philosophy? Pain and misery can be described, some descriptions being more potent than others. These linguistic strivings toward empathy are best conveyed in novels and plays the latter understood by the ancient Greeks as being one of its functions. But regardless of the degree of empathy conveyed, suffering is always a uniquely personal experience even if there’s more than one facing the same tribulation.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Kaufmann on Nietzsche

Post by Hereandnow »

Jklint

Actually Nietzsche is one of the best to read regarding morality. His psychological acumen is not to be negated nor his analysis of the moral establishment. It doesn’t mean I agree with all of his views but he certainly has made some major breakthroughs regarding it. The point is he makes one think especially when morality itself became a subject for analysis which was long overdue.
If you think N is the best to read, then you agree with Nietzsche, or, you think his contibution is important, among the most important. You like his perspectivalism on all things, which is why, I'm sure, they call him the historical founder of post modernism. I won't go here where I need too. I've done it too much elsewhere.

But I will say this: IF you are going to have an ethical theory that is not selective but comprehensive, looking at all there is to the issue and not turn away when the going gets rough, theoretically, that is, then you have to look where N simply did not care to look, (and I truly suspect he was not capable, was blinded by his narcissism, his struggles with illness),then you will have to deal with metaphysics, not the “grand narrative” types, but the simple imposing reality that all we know is grounded elsewhere. To me, in the matter of ethics, Nietzsche was little more than a complaining common thinker, and I say this because what he really wanted and admired was to see nature unimpeded in its course. He loved the gladiatorial, admired the statesmen Socrates abused, admired men like Odysseus who would fight against those who spit on his shield. He didn't understand anything about ethics save his insight that it was, and we all are, very much obsessed with our resentments toward others who have when we don't. If you think this is simplistic, then I am listening....
There is a reason why we associate the likes of Ayn Rand and the nazis with Nietzsche, and one can easily suppose the Heidegger's sympathy for the nazis had something to do with Niezsche. N supports a philosophy of strength in the will against the world; he says good things, provocative and startling things. He, and Kierkegaard were right: god was dead in the hearts of people. Here and there, he had interesting ideas; but never, as I have read, puts the meek, the weak, the victims on his list of cares (though no doubt, you will find something that can be so interpreted in Beyond Good and Evil and The Gay Science. These are aphoristic works, loosely constructed). But just look and see yourself. He writes:
“We exercise our power over others by doing them good or by doing them ill - that is all we care for!”
His attack on Christianity is not about issues of justification and metaphysics. He wages war on sympathy, love, gentleness, kindness, compassion—He never writes about any of these!

Do you really think THIS is among "the best to read regarding morality"? Why?
Yes, absolutely he did! Not long ago I read Die Verwandlung (The Metamorphosis). It’s definitely one of the supreme stories of alienation as is also The Trial in its presentation of a bureaucracy that cannot be penetrated in its impermeable power structure. China kinda reminds me of that. They always had a “divine bureaucracy” format to government which is in full display even now.
China? How about the US? Of course, things seem cheery enough if you are middle class and whitem but step outside of this class of normalcy and see how just and reasonable it is. But then, this is not what i am on about at all. Kafka's bureaucratic nightmares are reflections language and its norms, the ones that insist that all is well, when analysis shows there is nothing foundational that is revealed by our empirical inquiries. Human misery is whitewashed within the system of everdayness. Go a little deeper, and it falls apart very quickly. As a basic question, and the ministries of authority regarding who and what we are dismantled. This is because metaethically, empirical theory cannot issue a single defensible idea.
The point of contention would be what “the what of things” actually denote.
It is a question,the what of things, that is like reason itself; it has no explanatory justification save what it reveals in its essence. Reason has no second order of justificatory premises. It just sits there and we, if you will, obey. After all, we don't have reason, we are reason. The what of things: does it have a nature at all? I have long understood that our sense of reality is just a reification of familiarity. The what never penetrates understanding, but the repetition and the subsequent recollection that accrues, this we call real. The Real is accumulative, or, as Kierkegaard would say, quantitative. The what is qualitative, and qualities cannot be spoken save to simply put the consensus of shared observations in play. But who cares about things and their names? It matters not. But then, that is the rub, isn't it?: the caring. Caring, and its objective counterpart, value, this makes the whole affair turn ethical. Now we are in an ethical world. Human dasein is inherently ethical because it cares about the values it encounters. Ethics is, after all, all about the ooh's and ahh's and yums and ughs. It permeates existence, and because of this, it matters wha happens at all. i odn't understand why this is rarely understood, the Levinasian dictum, ethics is first philosophy! All other interests yield to this, for they all beg the question: Why bother? who cares? You say reality is divided into two kinds? why oh why does this matter at all? THIS is where Nietzsche has a geniune appeal, is truly important: he saw, as Kierkegaard did, that reason, as Hume announced much earlier, did not care one jot about anything! Reason is an empty vessel. Where Nietzsche went wrong was where he celebrated the natural world of struggle, which he got from Schopenhauer, I find. He did not see that ethics in its final analysis led to only one conclusion: the world is an abomination. Strong words. Open to discussion.
Transcendental implies having reached escape velocity from its factual underpinnings meaning that many different interpretations are possible. If morality were considered to a greater degree factual in its motives it should be encountered more as a genealogy analyzing those motives than any self-serving theory of which there’s a plethora. In effect, it becomes a psychological investigation rather than a transcendental one.
Actually, transcendental. if taken seriously, is the opposite of this. What you have described is the world as we know it, as Heideggarien hermeneutics would have it. Meaning is open and concepts disclose and open vistas of possibilities. Interpretative openness makes truth into something maleable. We have no essence, but the freedom to make ourselves what we will. This comes from Nietzsche and Kierkegaard: freedom in the face of possibilities and the making of a life for ourselves. Facts are possible choices of making present at hand into ready to hand, and it is language, the "house of Being" that makes for the world of self making. As for Nietzsche's Genealogy of morals, there is something to this, I have read. I prefer Foucault on this kind ot thinking, because he champions the weak, those outside of the institution of power who get marginalized and trampled on. Nietzsche has no voice for these.

Transcendental is what must be posited given what is before us, even though it canntp be empirilcally confirmed. Ethics is like this, its good and bad are not seen, but must be posited.
If the meaning of facts remain amorphous than how much more so any transcendental interpretation of how those so-called facts are to be interpreted?
Not that facts are amorphous, but that they do not speak authoritatively when philosophical issues arise. They don't try to. Facts just sit there, but it is in their sitting there that there appears philosophical questions, and these undermine altogether the boring complacency of facts. Inquiry shows that facts are not absolutes; they are contingent things. But we, human agencies of inquiry and value, are not, or so i argue.
Can philosophy? Pain and misery can be described, some descriptions being more potent than others. These linguistic strivings toward empathy are best conveyed in novels and plays the latter understood by the ancient Greeks as being one of its functions. But regardless of the degree of empathy conveyed, suffering is always a uniquely personal experience even if there’s more than one facing the same tribulation.
Novels and plays SHOW the human condition, and can do so poignantly. But only philosophy can undermine thought at its foundation, which is the whole point of philosophy, or so I argue.

All of what precedes is open for argument, which is what philosophy is about: arguing at the level of basic assumptions.
Jklint
Posts: 1719
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: Kaufmann on Nietzsche

Post by Jklint »

Jklint

Actually Nietzsche is one of the best to read regarding morality. His psychological acumen is not to be negated nor his analysis of the moral establishment. It doesn’t mean I agree with all of his views but he certainly has made some major breakthroughs regarding it. The point is he makes one think especially when morality itself became a subject for analysis which was long overdue.
There’s so much to respond to here but since I’m no-longer as prolific or involved on this site as I used to be I’ll keep it short. Also to admit, I’m often at a loss as to what you mean.
Hereandnow wrote: June 15th, 2019, 9:17 pmIf you think N is the best to read, then you agree with Nietzsche, or, you think his contibution is important, among the most important.
He’s definitely one of the most important. All one has to do is list all those he influenced in the 20th century and beyond in so many different fields including, of course, morality. His influence on philosophy and psychology was at least as great as Wagner's enormous influence in music.

To say “I agree with Nietzsche” is to beg the question what precisely am I agreeing with? There are things I agree with and some I don’t as is usual in reading philosophers. The merits in reading in Nietzsche is, as I said in my previous post, he makes one think beyond the confines of any handed-down status quo truths. I don’t read in order to follow; I read in order to think by examining other perspectives. There are main ideas in Nietzsche which I thoroughly renounce as for example Eternal Recurrence though the idea in its context is fascinating. But that’s a subject in itself.
Hereandnow wrote: June 15th, 2019, 9:17 pmThere is a reason why we associate the likes of Ayn Rand and the nazis with Nietzsche, and one can easily suppose the Heidegger's sympathy for the nazis had something to do with Niezsche.
The question should be is this justified or is it merely the default position of those who have almost no comprehension of what he meant. Why associate him with the Nazis? His sister was the villain in this story as is well-known by now. You may also easily suppose that Heidegger had sympathy for the Nazis as induced by Nietzsche but that is nothing more than forcing an inference for which there is no proof. Since he’s no-longer here and because of his notoriety he becomes fair game for any such absurd equations. How long do you think the Hitler regime would have lasted if Nietzsche’s intend had been carried out that ALL anti-Semites should be shot?
Hereandnow wrote: June 15th, 2019, 9:17 pm Reason has no second order of justificatory premises. It just sits there and we, if you will, obey.
No! reason does not just “sit there”. Reason is not god nor is it a judiciary; it’s an analytical process upon which decisions are made; if properly applied it prevents god from happening.
Hereandnow wrote: June 15th, 2019, 9:17 pmAfter all, we don't have reason, we are reason.
No again! We are definitely not reason, history proves that much. We are those who attempt to apply reason as much as we are able which clearly doesn’t always succeed. Even the higher mammals can reason to the extent they’re able...as with us.
Hereandnow wrote: June 15th, 2019, 9:17 pmWhere Nietzsche went wrong was where he celebrated the natural world of struggle, which he got from Schopenhauer
In that respect, Darwin was more essential to him.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Kaufmann on Nietzsche

Post by Hereandnow »

Jklint

He’s definitely one of the most important. All one has to do is list all those he influenced in the 20th century and beyond in so many different fields including, of course, morality. His influence on philosophy and psychology was at least as great as Wagner's enormous influence in music.

To say “I agree with Nietzsche” is to beg the question what precisely am I agreeing with? There are things I agree with and some I don’t as is usual in reading philosophers. The merits in reading in Nietzsche is, as I said in my previous post, he makes one think beyond the confines of any handed-down status quo truths. I don’t read in order to follow; I read in order to think by examining other perspectives. There are main ideas in Nietzsche which I thoroughly renounce as for example Eternal Recurrence though the idea in its context is fascinating. But that’s a subject in itself.
Well, you could say that about anyone make one think. Genghis Khan makes me think. So does Himmler. If you think he is important because he makes people think, then fine. But if you agree with him on certain points, then what is that about? The reason I come down hard on Nietzsche is that the doesn't understand ethics at all, by my thinking. Of course, I stand against a great many on this. But the reason why I think as I do is laid out for you. I wonder why you bypassed all this, just to say he is, well, important. I mean, out with it. What is it that wins the day, and how do you defend it?
There’s so much to respond to here but since I’m no-longer as prolific or involved on this site as I used to be I’ll keep it short. Also to admit, I’m often at a loss as to what you mean.
You missed the quote here, but I think I take your point. I blame myself, for the ideas I put out are are alien to most because no one reads what I read. Ethics, says Levinas, is first philosophy. To see why one would have to read Totality and Infinity. But it is a very compelling philosophy. Nietzsche did have his finger on the pulse of the matter. See his Genealogy of Morals where he states clearly how he sees humanity as in the center of a meaningless world where there is no relief yet horrors all around (it was much worse in the 19th century than now. No antibiotics, no anything, really). He gets it. But he does not look at the matter of value as Wittgenstein did. Of course, Wittgenstein was clear about the limits of language, but as I read more, I find he sees things as Niezsche did,but he leaned Kierkegaardian, and borrowed some of his thoughts from him. Moral affirmation issues from conditions in the world. Ethics is not an empirical science at all, and so the mere mention of evolution and observational theory is off the table. They matter not in a basic analysis of ethics. This is the hardest part of any discussion about ethics: empirical theory is derivative,, for all of its ideas beg questions about the essential givens. we live, you might say, in a kantian environment in which we endlessly assimilate, draw into our understanding, the world, and this makes the world a synthetic unity that cannot reach beyond itself, cannot see true foundational affairs. Thus, the question rises, are there foundational affairs at all? Or is this just a notion that issues from an extension of our totality of understanding? Nietzsche suffered his entire adult life and died insane. I do love his of his:
I have often asked myself whether I am not much more deeply indebted to the
hardest years of my life than to any others. . . . And as to my prolonged illness,
do I not owe much more to it than I owe to my health? To it I owe a higher kind
of health, a sort of health which grows stronger under everything that does not
actually kill it!—To it, I owe even my philosophy. . . . Only great suffering is the
ultimate emancipator of the spirit. . . . Only great suffering; that great suffering,
under which we seem to be over a fire of greenwood, the suffering that takes its
time—forces us philosophers to descend into our nethermost depths....

My point is that he takes his suffering, and Schopenhaur's "Will" and reifies these into a theme of overcoming. He does not see the nature ethics at all. My position on the nature pf ethics,which I probably should just quit writing about since no one really gets it, is what i wrote about at first. N was blinded by his own need to overcome, but the real issue he stays clear of.
The question should be is this justified or is it merely the default position of those who have almost no comprehension of what he meant. Why associate him with the Nazis? His sister was the villain in this story as is well-known by now. You may also easily suppose that Heidegger had sympathy for the Nazis as induced by Nietzsche but that is nothing more than forcing an inference for which there is no proof. Since he’s no-longer here and because of his notoriety he becomes fair game for any such absurd equations. How long do you think the Hitler regime would have lasted if Nietzsche’s intend had been carried out that ALL anti-Semites should be shot?
Not this at all. It is because ethics is about nothing if not about Others, and Niezsche does not give a fig about Others, and rather sees them as a nuisance. You can see Heidegger's thought here:others are our "fall" from authenticity as they embrace and spread delusion and fixation on everydayness. Nietzsche's overcoming is a celebration of the individual, the power to overcome (resentment and live as one is), and overcoming possesses this one extraordinary assertion: A person should live a life of power and authenticity, allowing one's virtue toshine forth, no to be intimidated by the cowering masses. This translates into nationalistic zealotry that gets its moral authority from in idea that altogether omits mutual responsibility among people. This is totalitarianism: the totality of the single nation over all Others, and Christian love and peace are a weakness (you might give a read of the things Himmler had to say. There is a striking simil;aity to Nietzsche when he gets rhetorically geared up).
How things played out with his sister I care not. Neiztsche understood nothing of ethics and the foundation of responsibility. Rand?? Don't get me started on that tripe. Read what she writes about he Kantian sense of duty: You have one duty, and that is to yourself!
No again! We are definitely not reason, history proves that much. We are those who attempt to apply reason as much as we are able which clearly doesn’t always succeed. Even the higher mammals can reason to the extent they’re able...as with us.
Well, I am saying that were you to not have reason, YOU would fall apart, literally. You could not say what a fine day it is, nor could you remember your past, for the memory must be placed within a logical grid to be understood. Read Kant, then Wittgenstein's Tractatus. then Hegel,who went beyond all of these: the rational is the real, he said.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

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