Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by Steve3007 »

GaryLouisSmith wrote:I see your point and I basically agree with you, but things are a little different now in 2019. Today the supermarkets have become huge and you can find food from all over the world. A zillion kinds of cheese and buffets that will dish you up a plate of something you have no idea what it is. There are vegetables and fruit that are strange and hundreds of different kind of break. Fish from God knows where and wine and beer from all over the world, including some locally made, which ain't too bad. Anyway, every class of people, including Trump supporters, are all over buying up this stuff and giving it a taste. Class distinctions in food is pretty much a thing of the past. And everybody goes to McDonalds and KFC. Food has become democratized.
I think you're making the mistake of bringing factual information about modern lifestyles into the discussion. This is not about what is factually true about people. It's about the perceptions and stereotypes that most strike a chord and are therefore most useful. In this case, it's about buying into the mythology of the God-fearing beer and steak consumer. Whether any beer, steak or wine is actually consumed is irrelevant.

In the other recent example, where supporters at Trump rallies now chant "Send Her Home!", about a US Congresswoman, echoing Trump's words, it doesn't matter that the home of the person in question is the USA. It's about the joy of getting together to label somebody as an enemy and scream for them to be exiled. Facts need not get in the way of that process.
I'm trying to think of just what it is that separates the elite from the Trump supporters. I haven't yet thought of what it is. It's not music or fashion or furniture or entertainment. What is it? Beats me. I'll keep on thinking. Maybe it's religion. No, I don't think that's it.
I guess, if there is any one thing, it is the attractive mythology that there exists a thing called "the elite" which will be vanquished by the true representatives of "the people". Whether or not this "elite" really exists is irrelevant, just as in the novel 1984 it didn't matter whether Big Brother or Emmanuel Goldstein really existed, or whether Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib are US citizens. It only matters what is useful.
GaryLouisSmith
Posts: 1135
Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact:

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by GaryLouisSmith »

GaryLouisSmith wrote: July 18th, 2019, 6:17 am
Belindi wrote: July 18th, 2019, 4:56 am GaryLouisSmith , you wrote:


I did but you must have missed the link I posted to the work of Roy Willis. He's also on Facebook I see although he died recently.


https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/some-spir ... 859732885/
Shamanism here in Nepal is closely linked with Tantra. You might like this video by David Gordon White - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCUkH1d7agw&t=209s
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by Belindi »

I'm trying to think of just what it is that separates the elite from the Trump supporters. I haven't yet thought of what it is. It's not music or fashion or furniture or entertainment. What is it? Beats me. I'll keep on thinking. Maybe it's religion. No, I don't think that's it.
Trump represents the elite at this time. The elite are the powerful who by one means or another tell the common people what to do. You and I are not the elite. We aim to be among the intelligentsia. Intelligentsia and mystics, and the hippies of long ago are all on the same side usually ranged against the elite. We pray we may be the leaven in the loaf .
GaryLouisSmith
Posts: 1135
Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact:

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by GaryLouisSmith »

Steve3007 wrote: July 18th, 2019, 6:47 am
I think you're making the mistake of bringing factual information about modern lifestyles into the discussion.
Ok, I'll try to talk about the Trump thing without bringing in factual information. What we have going then is us against them. Us ordinary people against the elite snobs. Never mind that "ordinary people" and the elite don't exist. It's just us against them. And somehow "them" are outsiders or not real Americans. Europe has this same thing going, I think, with Nigel Farage. So where does all this lead? ..... I have no idea. Do you?
GaryLouisSmith
Posts: 1135
Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact:

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by GaryLouisSmith »

Belindi wrote: July 18th, 2019, 7:00 am
I'm trying to think of just what it is that separates the elite from the Trump supporters. I haven't yet thought of what it is. It's not music or fashion or furniture or entertainment. What is it? Beats me. I'll keep on thinking. Maybe it's religion. No, I don't think that's it.
Trump represents the elite at this time. The elite are the powerful who by one means or another tell the common people what to do. You and I are not the elite. We aim to be among the intelligentsia. Intelligentsia and mystics, and the hippies of long ago are all on the same side usually ranged against the elite. We pray we may be the leaven in the loaf .
Well, that was confusing.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by Belindi »

It's confusing because you and I use 'elite' for different ideas.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by Steve3007 »

GaryLouisSmith wrote:Ok, I'll try to talk about the Trump thing without bringing in factual information. What we have going then is us against them. Us ordinary people against the elite snobs. Never mind that "ordinary people" and the elite don't exist. It's just us against them. And somehow "them" are outsiders or not real Americans. Europe has this same thing going, I think, with Nigel Farage. So where does all this lead? ..... I have no idea. Do you?
Yes, everyone has the same thing going on to varying degrees. The "It's us against them" trope appears to be as old as humanity and it waxes and wanes in its power. I have no idea where it all leads either. In some circumstances it has in the past lead to terrible places. Where this latest surge of xenophobia in such places as the US and UK will lead this time, I don't know. I guess we just have to wait and see.
GaryLouisSmith
Posts: 1135
Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact:

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by GaryLouisSmith »

Belindi wrote: July 18th, 2019, 7:18 am It's confusing because you and I use 'elite' for different ideas.
No doubt. I even use it as something different from how even I use it. The truth is that I don't use the word much. Do you have anything else interesting to talk about?
GaryLouisSmith
Posts: 1135
Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact:

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by GaryLouisSmith »

Steve3007 wrote: July 18th, 2019, 7:33 am
GaryLouisSmith wrote:Ok, I'll try to talk about the Trump thing without bringing in factual information. What we have going then is us against them. Us ordinary people against the elite snobs. Never mind that "ordinary people" and the elite don't exist. It's just us against them. And somehow "them" are outsiders or not real Americans. Europe has this same thing going, I think, with Nigel Farage. So where does all this lead? ..... I have no idea. Do you?
Yes, everyone has the same thing going on to varying degrees. The "It's us against them" trope appears to be as old as humanity and it waxes and wanes in its power. I have no idea where it all leads either. In some circumstances it has in the past lead to terrible places. Where this latest surge of xenophobia in such places as the US and UK will lead this time, I don't know. I guess we just have to wait and see.
Do you think xenophobia really exists?
GaryLouisSmith
Posts: 1135
Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact:

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by GaryLouisSmith »

Belindi wrote: July 18th, 2019, 6:32 am Gary, a few days ago jKlint suggested that your preferred brand of theology is not theism but polytheism .
[/quote]

“Do you think a shaman has an attitude of quiescence towards the uncontrollable? “ It is often the case that shamans have to leave their body and travel to the underworld or wherever to talk to the spirits of the dead. In the past they rode all kinds of things or animals to get there. Today it is common for them to take a helicopter. A shaman is a very modern person and uses whatever is at hand. (Just hang on I’m coming to the point.) Now for polytheism vs. monotheism. But first a word about liminality. (Does your computer auto-correct liminal to luminal? It’s frustrating.) Liminality is about an in-between place, a doorway from one place to another, a woowoo portal. One, I suppose, can BE a polytheist and not a monotheist and vice versa. The same goes for belief. To believe or not to believe. So what is the middle ground, the liminal state? It is the state I am in. It is study. I study the gods and God. That is a liminal state between believing and not believing. A student is a ghost. Now being a student is different from what it was in the past. Such a one is now in a liminal state between being a student and not being. He is now a waster-of-time-on-the-Internet person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJUyx383gDw A super-ghostly figure.

So does a shaman have an attitude of quiescence towards the uncontrollable? The Internet is the most uncontrollable place. I imagine you are an internet shaman. Are you quiescent? Is liminality liminal? Are you always in-between? With your coffee that is getting a little cold. Is there such a thing as liminal coffee? Yes, of course. It is the soma of the gods.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by Belindi »

My cup of coffee is never an object that has induced in me a state of liminal consciousness. When I attain that state I am quiescent.

I don't know about shamans whether they are quiescent or not but I think they must be. I met one once and she gave me some therapy. She could not accept payment as to do so would have spoiled her gift .She was channelling something that was not herself. I am sceptical and I am sure what happened was real and not fanciful.

See Keats on "negative capability". it was to do with the poetic muse. The Romantic poets believed poets recalled beauty and its transience while in a tranquil and liminal mood. these poets spoke true as we know because their poetry can induce something of the same mood in its readers.
GaryLouisSmith
Posts: 1135
Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact:

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by GaryLouisSmith »

Belindi wrote: July 19th, 2019, 5:11 am My cup of coffee is never an object that has induced in me a state of liminal consciousness. When I attain that state I am quiescent.

I don't know about shamans whether they are quiescent or not but I think they must be. I met one once and she gave me some therapy. She could not accept payment as to do so would have spoiled her gift .She was channelling something that was not herself. I am sceptical and I am sure what happened was real and not fanciful.

See Keats on "negative capability". it was to do with the poetic muse. The Romantic poets believed poets recalled beauty and its transience while in a tranquil and liminal mood. these poets spoke true as we know because their poetry can induce something of the same mood in its readers.
I have no argument with anything you wrote , but it is far from the things I think about. If I think of somehow I might relate to your ideas I will write it to you. My thoughts are other. Sorry.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by Consul »

GaryLouisSmith

I learned today that Bergmann doesn't believe in unexemplified/uninstantiated universals. So he accepts what Lowe calls the weak doctrine of immanence:

"[T]he upshot of our inquiries is that, if the 'strong' doctrine of immanence is advanced in opposition to a transcendent conception of universals, then this leaves its adherents either with an inexplicable mystery which borders on incoherence or else with a doctrine which, to the extent that it is intelligible at all, seems to collapse into the trope theorist's conception of properties as being one and all particulars.
There is, however, also a 'weak' doctrine of immanence to be taken into consideration. This just amounts to an insistence upon the instantiation principle—the principle that every existing universal is instantiated. Applied to a universal such as the property of being red, it implies that this universal must have particular instances which exist 'in' space and time, but it doesn't imply that the universal itself must literally exist 'in' space and time."


(Lowe, E. J. The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. p. 99)

"If we may judge from what is presented to us, every individual exemplifies at least one character, every character is at least once exemplified. Call this the Principle of Exemplification. In this respect, individuals and characters are equally dependent."

(Bergmann, Gustav. Logic and Reality. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1964. p. 245)

"A universal need not be Platonic. I, for one, am prepared to die in the last ditch for both beliefs; that there are universals; and that they are not Platonic. Nor, on the other hand, do I hold that the Principle of Exemplification, of which the rejection of Platonism (separable universals) is but an immediate consequence, is shallow. The exaggerated anti-Platonism which I insist is shallow, is, rather, the fallacious inference from the true premiss that there are no separable universals to the nominalistic conclusion that there are none."
(p. 89)

"I reject separable universals out of hand."
(p. 89)

(Bergmann, Gustav. Realism: A Critique of Brentano and Meinong. 1967. Collected Works, Vol. III. Edited by Erwin Tegtmeier. Frankfurt: Ontos, 2004. p. 89)

"Alan Donagan seems to be siding with Plato when he argues that there is nothing incoherent in the notion of a universal that is never exemplified; whereas, Gustav Bergmann, who insists that 'every character is at least once exemplified', takes a mild form of the Aristotelian view."

(Loux, Michael J. Substance and Attribute: A Study in Ontology. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1978. p. 92)

"For Bergmann, of course, there are no unexemplified properties or relations. The properties and relations are inseparable, categorially, from instantiation."

(Sievert, Donald. "Bergmann on the Synthetic A Priori Truth: Nothing Can Have Two Colors All Over At Once." In Ontology and Analysis: Essays and Recollections about Gustav Bergmann, edited by Laird Addis, Greg Jesson, and Erwin Tegtmeier, 59-78. Frankfurt: Ontos, 2007. p. 63n10)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by Consul »

Consul wrote: July 6th, 2019, 2:33 am "Bare particularism
Like the bundle theory, bare particularism maintains that objects have their properties as constituents. But bare particularism adds that there’s something else too. In addition to its properties, every object has as a constituent a bare particular (or ‘thin particular’ or ‘substratum’) that instantiates those properties. Bare particulars are ‘bare’ in at least this sense: unlike objects, they have no properties as parts.
Bare particularism, then, is the conjunction of two theses. First, every object has at least two kinds of constituents: its properties and its bare particular. Second, every object has its properties by having as constituents properties that are instantiated by another of its constituents: its bare particular.
Bare particulars play two important roles in the theory at hand. First, they are the subjects of properties or the items to which the properties are attached by instantiation or exemplification."


Object: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/object/

As far as I can see, there are three different conceptions of a bare particular:

1. A particular (thing) is bare iff it doesn't have any properties.
2. A particular (thing) is bare iff it has accidental properties but doesn't have any essential properties.
3. A particular (thing) is bare iff it has accidental or essential properties, but they aren't part(s) of it.
I now see five possible interpretations of "bareness":

1. A particular is bare iff it doesn't have any (monadic or polyadic) attributes—iff it doesn't have any properties and doesn't stand in any relations to other particulars.

2. A particular is bare iff it doesn't have any monadic attributes—iff it doesn't have any properties.

3. A particular is bare iff it doesn't have any essential properties—if it lacks an essence or nature.

4. A particular is bare iff it doesn't have any intrinsic properties—iff it lacks non-relational or relation-independent properties. (*

5. A particular is bare iff it does have properties, but they are not part(s) (components/constituents) of it—iff they don't inhere in it, but are externally connected (adherent) to it.

(* Whether the class of non-intrinsic/extrinsic properties is the same as the class of relational properties is a contentious issue.)

———

As far as I know, the phrase "bare particular" was coined by Bergmann. Here's his definition:

"The second way of solving the problem of individuation is to make the further constituent a bare particular. This notion, too, has two parts. Bare particulars neither are nor have natures. Any two of them, therefore, are not intrinsically but only numerically different. That is their bareness. It is impossible for a bare particular to be “in” more than one ordinary thing. That is their particularity.

Upon this alternative, the things “in” an ordinary thing do not all belong to the same category. One is a bare particular; all the others are qualities."

(pp. 24-5)

"A bare particular is a mere individuator. Structurally that is its only job. It does nothing else. In this respect it is like Aristotle's matter, or, perhaps more closely, like Thomas’ materia signata. Only, it is a thing."
(p. 25)

"Particulars, being individuators and nothing else, have no ‘‘natures.” The difference between any two of them is merely numerical. Any two universals, being or having natures, differ intrinsically, or, as one says, qualitatively. The difference between things bare and natured is so profound that it is categorial. They belong, as one says, to different (ontological) types."
(p. 46)

"A particular, though bare, is yet a thing. …Also, being bare, a particular provides no cue whatsoever as to which universal or universals it may or may not exemplify. That is why I just said: happens to exemplify. Let me express this state of affairs by saying that a particular and a universal it exemplifies are wholly external to each other."
(pp. 46-7)

"To be bare is to have neither nature nor structure."
(p. 77)

"Bare particulars could not possibly be either complex or “complex” or derived. In other words, they have neither constituents nor pseudoconstituents nor quasiconstituents. Since we do not need ‘simple’ to qualify ‘thing’, let us use it to express this idea. All bare particulars are simple."
(p. 77)

(Bergmann, Gustav. Realism: A Critique of Brentano and Meinong. 1967. Collected Works, Vol. III. Edited by Erwin Tegtmeier. Frankfurt: Ontos, 2004.)

So, given my above definitions, Bergmannian bareness is bareness in senses 3 and 5. It cannot be bareness in sense 1 or 2, since he says that bare particulars exemplify properties. (A propertyless particular certainly couldn't exemplify any properties.)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
GaryLouisSmith
Posts: 1135
Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact:

Re: Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Post by GaryLouisSmith »

Consul wrote: October 12th, 2019, 10:28 am @GaryLouisSmith

I learned today that Bergmann doesn't believe in unexemplified/uninstantiated universals. So he accepts what Lowe calls the weak doctrine of immanence:

"[T]he upshot of our inquiries is that, if the 'strong' doctrine of immanence is advanced in opposition to a transcendent conception of universals, then this leaves its adherents either with an inexplicable mystery which borders on incoherence or else with a doctrine which, to the extent that it is intelligible at all, seems to collapse into the trope theorist's conception of properties as being one and all particulars.
There is, however, also a 'weak' doctrine of immanence to be taken into consideration. This just amounts to an insistence upon the instantiation principle—the principle that every existing universal is instantiated. Applied to a universal such as the property of being red, it implies that this universal must have particular instances which exist 'in' space and time, but it doesn't imply that the universal itself must literally exist 'in' space and time."


(Lowe, E. J. The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. p. 99)

"If we may judge from what is presented to us, every individual exemplifies at least one character, every character is at least once exemplified. Call this the Principle of Exemplification. In this respect, individuals and characters are equally dependent."

(Bergmann, Gustav. Logic and Reality. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1964. p. 245)

"A universal need not be Platonic. I, for one, am prepared to die in the last ditch for both beliefs; that there are universals; and that they are not Platonic. Nor, on the other hand, do I hold that the Principle of Exemplification, of which the rejection of Platonism (separable universals) is but an immediate consequence, is shallow. The exaggerated anti-Platonism which I insist is shallow, is, rather, the fallacious inference from the true premiss that there are no separable universals to the nominalistic conclusion that there are none."
(p. 89)

"I reject separable universals out of hand."
(p. 89)

(Bergmann, Gustav. Realism: A Critique of Brentano and Meinong. 1967. Collected Works, Vol. III. Edited by Erwin Tegtmeier. Frankfurt: Ontos, 2004. p. 89)

"Alan Donagan seems to be siding with Plato when he argues that there is nothing incoherent in the notion of a universal that is never exemplified; whereas, Gustav Bergmann, who insists that 'every character is at least once exemplified', takes a mild form of the Aristotelian view."

(Loux, Michael J. Substance and Attribute: A Study in Ontology. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1978. p. 92)

"For Bergmann, of course, there are no unexemplified properties or relations. The properties and relations are inseparable, categorially, from instantiation."

(Sievert, Donald. "Bergmann on the Synthetic A Priori Truth: Nothing Can Have Two Colors All Over At Once." In Ontology and Analysis: Essays and Recollections about Gustav Bergmann, edited by Laird Addis, Greg Jesson, and Erwin Tegtmeier, 59-78. Frankfurt: Ontos, 2007. p. 63n10)
Yes, Bergmann doesn't believe in unexemplified universals - or the null set. He also doesn't believe in "complex" universals, such as horse or bicycle. I believe in the Platonic Forms of Horse and Bicycle. There are a number of places where I disagree with Bergmann. What's your point? Are you conducting a class in Bergmann?
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