Does Trump Want To Be President?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Ecurb wrote: February 1st, 2021, 1:03 pm
You're simply avoiding the issue. Moral views can be "incorrect" (even, presumably, in Terrapin's eyes) if they are inconsistent or contradictory.
No, not at all. You can't feel some way that's "incorrect" (or correct). Even if the way that you feel is somehow contradictory (relative to other ways that you feel, for example). However you feel is how you feel at a given moment, and there's not a correct or incorrect way to feel.
Even a moral relativist should answer the question: How is the moral culpuability different in the three scenarios I suggest?

Yeah, I can answer that, although I'm not sure what it's going to matter.

In (1) Actions do not have to be direct. We can be talking about a causal chain of events that rather indirectly lead to nonconsensual harm, whether we're talking about something intentional or accidental/negligent. This is a case of an indirect action. In this case we're talking about something intentional, so it would be punished more severely than if it were negligence.

Re (2) The child is responsible for the bombing, but the bombing isn't an intentional act on the child's part, and the child probably wouldn't face repercussions--there would likely be no reason to expect a child to be skeptical of pushing a plunger. There's a matter of contractual fraud in this scenario, because the results of pushing the plunger are not being disclosed, even though they're known. Cases where contractual fraud leads to something like a death would be punished more severely if I were king than cases where contractual fraud leads to, say, losing $10 or whatever. The punishment for contractual fraud would be proportionate to the upshots of the contractual fraud.

In (3), assuming the accomplice knows the results of pushing the plunger (otherwise this is the same as (2)), the accomplice is responsible for the murder and the person who built the bomb is guilty of nothing more than building a device that might be prohibited (it depends exactly on the nature of the bomb, whether the builder is authorized to build such a device, etc.). In this case, it's the accomplice's decision to commit the murder that matters on that end.

In (2) and (3) we're not talking about a causal chain of events as we're talking about in (1), because we're positing people making decisions to do something as an intermediate step. That breaks the causal chain, as someone could decide to not push the plunger. And then it's just an issue of whether they know what the result of their decisions will be.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Ecurb »

Terrapin Station wrote: February 1st, 2021, 2:31 pm


Yeah, I can answer that, although I'm not sure what it's going to matter.

In (1) Actions do not have to be direct. We can be talking about a causal chain of events that rather indirectly lead to nonconsensual harm, whether we're talking about something intentional or accidental/negligent. This is a case of an indirect action. In this case we're talking about something intentional, so it would be punished more severely than if it were negligence.

Re (2) The child is responsible for the bombing, but the bombing isn't an intentional act on the child's part, and the child probably wouldn't face repercussions--there would likely be no reason to expect a child to be skeptical of pushing a plunger. There's a matter of contractual fraud in this scenario, because the results of pushing the plunger are not being disclosed, even though they're known. Cases where contractual fraud leads to something like a death would be punished more severely if I were king than cases where contractual fraud leads to, say, losing $10 or whatever. The punishment for contractual fraud would be proportionate to the upshots of the contractual fraud.

In (3), assuming the accomplice knows the results of pushing the plunger (otherwise this is the same as (2)), the accomplice is responsible for the murder and the person who built the bomb is guilty of nothing more than building a device that might be prohibited (it depends exactly on the nature of the bomb, whether the builder is authorized to build such a device, etc.). In this case, it's the accomplice's decision to commit the murder that matters on that end.

In (2) and (3) we're not talking about a causal chain of events as we're talking about in (1), because we're positing people making decisions to do something as an intermediate step. That breaks the causal chain, as someone could decide to not push the plunger. And then it's just an issue of whether they know what the result of their decisions will be.
In scenario one, the guy who builds the tiger trap cannot be sure that the victim will fall into it. True, he often walks down the path, but perhaps a tiger will fall into the pit first, foiling the plan. Perhaps he excuses his actions by claiming that he was attempting to trap a man-eating tiger, not the victim.

In scene 2, we agree that the child is not guilty. He's not "responsible for the bombing" (per Terrapin's notion). He's responsible for pushing the plunger. If the plotter hadn't hooked the bomb up to the plunger, pushing the plunger would have been harmless. The question is: is the man who tells the child to push the plunger when his enemy walks by guilty? The murder is more certain, the plan more foolproof, and the execution of it more decisive than in the tiger pit plan. Why would the plotter be less guilty here than in the tiger pit scenario. If actions "do not have to be direct", then the murderer in this scene is surely just as guilty as in the tiger pit scene.

In scene 3, we both agree that the hitman is guilty. Nonetheless, his guilt does not absolve the plotter's guilt. If the tiger pit builder is guilty, despite his actions being indirect, then the bombers in both cases are also guilty of indirect actions which cause murder.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7089
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Ecurb wrote: February 1st, 2021, 1:03 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: January 30th, 2021, 6:11 pm
Ecurb wrote: January 30th, 2021, 3:34 pm We seem to be abandoning Trump and whether he's guilty of inciting anything. Terrapin's position is ludicrous. Let's posit three situations:

1) A man knows his enemy walks down a certain path every day. He builds a tiger-trap pit on the path, covered with twigs and leaves, with sharpened stakes implanted at its bottom. The enemy falls into the pit and implaled and dies.

2) The man builds an explosive device and plants it on the path. He bribes a small child to watch the path and push a plunger when the enemy walks by (the child doesn't know the plunger is hooked up to a bomb). The enemy is blown to smithereens.

3) A man builds an explosive device. He hires an accomplice to push the pluunger. The enemy is exploded.

The result is the same in each case. The moral culpability is the same in each case. It's true, of course, that in case 2 the child pushing the plunger doesn't know what the result will be, but I don't see how the person who bult the bomb is morally absolved in case 3, but not in case two.

In any event, since Terrapin's position is idiosyncratic, and nobody in the world agrees with him, he should make some attempt to justify it, instead of merely explaining it. Perhaps, however, we should return to Trump's culpability, which is a more interesting and nuanced situation.
The moral culpability isn't the same in each case in my view. My view can't be incorrect. It also can't be correct. Moral stances aren't correct or incorrect. They're not true or false.

But sure, my view on this is definitely unusual, as is my view on many things.
You're simply avoiding the issue. Moral views can be "incorrect" (even, presumably, in Terrapin's eyes) if they are inconsistent or contradictory. Even a moral relativist should answer the question: How is the moral culpuability different in the three scenarios I suggest?
Most supposedly "true" moral positions are fully inconsistent with reality.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Sy Borg »

Terrapin,

1) Do you agree that, without the former president's lies and incitement, the Capitol takeover would not have happened?

1a) What price should he pay for creating public mischief that caused such massive costs to society, both financially and socially?

2) Another duping issue: Do you believe that phishing scammers should be prosecuted or do you think that phishing should be legal, and that it's simply the victims' fault for being gullible? After all, they are not forcing their dupes to click dodgy links or provide personal information to strangers.

3) More generally, do you agree that information confers power to the holder? Or do you think that we must exclusively focus on physical actions?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Ecurb wrote: February 1st, 2021, 6:45 pm In scenario one, the guy who builds the tiger trap cannot be sure that the victim will fall into it. True, he often walks down the path, but perhaps a tiger will fall into the pit first, foiling the plan. Perhaps he excuses his actions by claiming that he was attempting to trap a man-eating tiger, not the victim.
Sure, and then it could be a case of negligent homicide instead. I already mentioned this in my comment: "whether we're talking about something intentional or accidental/negligent."
In scene 2, we agree that the child is not guilty. He's not "responsible for the bombing" (per Terrapin's notion).
I said "The child is responsible for the bombing, but the bombing isn't an intentional act on the child's part, and the child probably wouldn't face repercussions"
is the man who tells the child to push the plunger when his enemy walks by guilty?
Did you even read what I wrote? This is the third time that I'm having to repeat something I answered already. I said, "There's a matter of contractual fraud in this scenario." The man who tells the child to push the plunger is guilty of contractual fraud. And I said, "Cases where contractual fraud leads to something like a death would be punished more severely if I were king than cases where contractual fraud leads to, say, losing $10 or whatever. The punishment for contractual fraud would be proportionate to the upshots of the contractual fraud."
Why would the plotter be less guilty here than in the tiger pit scenario.
Again, I already answered this. It's like why bother to type everything I typed before? Either you didn't really read it or didn't really get it. I said:

(A) In (1) Actions do not have to be direct. We can be talking about a causal chain of events that rather indirectly lead to nonconsensual harm,

and

(B) In (2) and (3) we're not talking about a causal chain of events as we're talking about in (1), because we're positing people making decisions to do something as an intermediate step.
If actions "do not have to be direct",
It depends on whether we're talking about a causal chain of events versus not talking about that, because we're positing people making decisions to do something as an intermediate step.

I made all of this explicit already. Why am I having to type it again? Did you not read it the first time? Did you not understand it?
In scene 3, we both agree that the hitman is guilty. Nonetheless, his guilt does not absolve the plotter's guilt. If the tiger pit builder is guilty, despite his actions being indirect, then the bombers in both cases are also guilty of indirect actions which cause murder.
No, because It depends on whether we're talking about a causal chain of events versus not talking about that, because we're positing people making DECISIONS to do something as an intermediate step.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Greta wrote: February 1st, 2021, 7:40 pm Terrapin,

1) Do you agree that, without the former president's lies and incitement, the Capitol takeover would not have happened?
I don't agree that we can know that, but I'm find assuming it. As I've stated many times, that there's a necessary precondition for something doesn't amount to laying blame on the necessary precondition for whatever we're concerned with.
1a) What price should he pay for creating public mischief that caused such massive costs to society, both financially and socially?
None on my view. There should be no price to pay for speech.
2) Another duping issue: Do you believe that phishing scammers should be prosecuted or do you think that phishing should be legal, and that it's simply the victims' fault for being gullible? After all, they are not forcing their dupes to click dodgy links or provide personal information to strangers.
I'd have contractual fraud be illegal. Contractual fraud being illegal is not a matter of speech being illegal. The issue with contractual fraud is that one is promising to deliver (or not deliver as the case may be) some good, service or action in exchange for something, in a good faith manner, so that just what's being delivered is made explicit (at least as explicit as it can be to the parties' knowledge), but what was promised wasn't actually delivered (or not delivered). The crime there isn't speech, it's in failing to deliver what was promised.
3) More generally, do you agree that information confers power to the holder? Or do you think that we must exclusively focus on physical actions?
Well, first I think that there only are physical actions (strictly speaking). Re the "power" question, I'm not really a fan of "power" talk, because I think that the idea of both quantifying and qualifying "power dynamics" is very vague/very ill-defined/very ill-supported in terms of empirical data. Definitely speech can influence people, but influence isn't causality. People must still make decisions to act (and on top of that, actually act to carry out the decisions they made).
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Oops "I'm fine assuming it" that should have read (obviously)
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Sy Borg »

Terrapin Station wrote: February 1st, 2021, 7:55 pm
Greta wrote: February 1st, 2021, 7:40 pm Terrapin,

1) Do you agree that, without the former president's lies and incitement, the Capitol takeover would not have happened?
I don't agree that we can know that, but I'm find assuming it. As I've stated many times, that there's a necessary precondition for something doesn't amount to laying blame on the necessary precondition for whatever we're concerned with.
So you must be against charging people for keeping illegal explosive devices at home? After all, it's just a precondition of bombing, not damaging in itself.
Terrapin Station wrote: February 1st, 2021, 7:55 pm
1a) What price should he pay for creating public mischief that caused such massive costs to society, both financially and socially?
None on my view. There should be no price to pay for speech.
So you would think it is fine for slanderers to loudly and publicly try to shame an innocent person as a molester. After all, we can't limit free speech. Clearly you must be against defamation suits too, because they greatly stifle free speech.
Terrapin Station wrote: February 1st, 2021, 7:55 pm
2) Another duping issue: Do you believe that phishing scammers should be prosecuted or do you think that phishing should be legal, and that it's simply the victims' fault for being gullible? After all, they are not forcing their dupes to click dodgy links or provide personal information to strangers.
I'd have contractual fraud be illegal. Contractual fraud being illegal is not a matter of speech being illegal. The issue with contractual fraud is that one is promising to deliver (or not deliver as the case may be) some good, service or action in exchange for something, in a good faith manner, so that just what's being delivered is made explicit (at least as explicit as it can be to the parties' knowledge), but what was promised wasn't actually delivered (or not delivered). The crime there isn't speech, it's in failing to deliver what was promised.
Who would phishing be illegal? There is no contract involved. A person is falsely told that they must provide personal information to this email address or there will be consequences. Why not allow someone to freely send their personal information to a scammer? It's their choice, right?

Terrapin Station wrote: February 1st, 2021, 7:55 pm
3) More generally, do you agree that information confers power to the holder? Or do you think that we must exclusively focus on physical actions?
Well, first I think that there only are physical actions (strictly speaking). Re the "power" question, I'm not really a fan of "power" talk, because I think that the idea of both quantifying and qualifying "power dynamics" is very vague/very ill-defined/very ill-supported in terms of empirical data. Definitely speech can influence people, but influence isn't causality. People must still make decisions to act (and on top of that, actually act to carry out the decisions they made).
Anyone with the right personal information about you has great power over you. That would make power real to you rather than an abstract airily dismissed. Information absolutely is power, and it would logically be treated as such by the law. There is no logic or sense to making a sacred cow out of free speech because, as we can see, it is simply exploited by less naive players seeking easy wins.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:It's not something I'd come up with a "principle" like that about. Again, I'm not a fan of a principle-oriented account to ethics like that. In general, though, as I said already, I'd only have a problem with verbal abuse when it comes to kids or to someone with a pretty sever disability--where there's a stronger dependence on a guardian/caretaker that can't be avoided.
I'm not a big fan of principle-oriented accounts of ethics either. I see those as the all-or-nothing approach that I've mentioned. I see free speech absolutism as a principle-oriented account. Free speech absolutism appears to me to stem partly from this view:
Terrapin Station wrote:...influence isn't causality.
If there was one simple sentence which could be seen as the root of the reason why I disagree with you on free speech absolutism I think that could be it. I disagree with it. But I think we've already discussed that as thoroughly as necessary now so can probably just agree to disagree on this particular issue.


Ecurb wrote:You're simply avoiding the issue. Moral views can be "incorrect" (even, presumably, in Terrapin's eyes) if they are inconsistent or contradictory.
Terrapin Station wrote:No, not at all. You can't feel some way that's "incorrect" (or correct). Even if the way that you feel is somehow contradictory (relative to other ways that you feel, for example). However you feel is how you feel at a given moment, and there's not a correct or incorrect way to feel.
I agree more with Ecurb's point on this. If moral positions are personal tastes then an inconsistent or contradictory moral position amounts to stating that one both does and doesn't have some personal taste at the same time. e.g. "I simultaneously love and hate vanilla ice cream". Moral positions, such as "I think all speech is morally neutral" or "I think it is morally wrong to say some things" aren't simply standalone tastes in themselves. They are generally argued to derive from underlying tastes and beliefs. If they didn't then we wouldn't all be having a discussion about them here, and talking about things like the nature of human action and of causality in support of our positions. So the contradiction in one's moral position can occur if that underlying taste, from which the more superficial taste was derived, also leads to something that is incompatible with it. It looks to me like Ecurb is trying to demonstrate an incompatibility like that. Whether or not he's succeeded is a different matter. But I think the general form of the attempt is valid.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Greta wrote: February 1st, 2021, 11:32 pm
So you must be against charging people for keeping illegal explosive devices at home? After all, it's just a precondition of bombing, not damaging in itself.
Materials and the state they're in would be illegal or not if I were king depending on just how dangerous they are should the possessor make a mistake with them, tempered by how qualified (via training, experience, facilities, safety checks, etc.) the possessor is to handle them. So in other words, it's not that I'd never legislate against potentials, but there are qualifications for it, and the qualified potentials I'd legislate against would be relatively few and far between, where the deciding factor would be a judgment call largely based on how many people would be affected in a causal chain of events should something go wrong (accidents, for example), balanced by the likelihood of something going wrong.
So you would think it is fine for slanderers to loudly and publicly try to shame an innocent person as a molester. After all, we can't limit free speech. Clearly you must be against defamation suits too, because they greatly stifle free speech.
Correct, which is a view I share with Noam Chomsky among others. No one should ever take speech alone/claims alone as sufficient evidence for something important. When we have a culture where some speech is illegal, such as slander and libel, we have a culture prone to believe speech alone for important claims, claims that will majorly impact persons lives, just in case the speech hasn't been declared illegal. That's a serious problem in practice.
Who would phishing be illegal? There is no contract involved. A person is falsely told that they must provide personal information to this email address or there will be consequences. Why not allow someone to freely send their personal information to a scammer? It's their choice, right?
I'd have to research what exactly counts as phishing. I'm familiar with the term, but I don't know much about it.

You're not thinking that contracts are required to be "formal" where they're written as contracts and "sealed" with signatures, etc. are you? That's not at all the legal definition of a contract. Any agreement between people where certain things are promised in exchange for any good, service or action is a contract, and contracts can be implicit. For example, when you buy food from a grocery store, you're entering into a contract with both the food manufacturer and the grocery store. You're agreeing to exchange money for the food that is promised on the label, containing the ingredients claimed in the label, and only the ingredients claimed on the label (to the manufacturer's knowledge), with the actual manufacturer, their actual location, etc. accurately represented in the label, and so on. While on the store and manufacturer's side, you're presenting funds that aren't counterfeit, and so on. That's an implicit contract.

So with phishing, which again I'd need to research to know exactly what does and doesn't conventionally count as phishing, it's a matter of what goods, services, or actions are being promised on both sides, whether any misrepresentations are being made, etc. My understanding of phishing is that it involves contractual fraud--for example, isn't a common tactic to falsely claim to be some business or organization? But maybe I don't really know what phishing is.
Anyone with the right personal information about you has great power over you. That would make power real to you rather than an abstract airily dismissed. Information absolutely is power, and it would logically be treated as such by the law. There is no logic or sense to making a sacred cow out of free speech because, as we can see, it is simply exploited by less naive players seeking easy wins.
It's never that only one person has power in any relationship, and power is very multifaceted and complex. The notion that it's easily quantifiable is absurd.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Steve3007 »

Greta wrote:Anyone with the right personal information about you has great power over you.
I think this is the point on which all disagreements between Terrapin Station and the other posters here (or at least those that aren't free speech absolutists) turns. It's about the nature of power, influence, force and causality in relation to human actions and which of those can be said to be relevant to the process of a human speaking and another human subsequently acting.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Sy Borg »

Terrapin Station wrote: February 2nd, 2021, 6:08 am
Greta wrote: February 1st, 2021, 11:32 pmSo you would think it is fine for slanderers to loudly and publicly try to shame an innocent person as a molester. After all, we can't limit free speech. Clearly you must be against defamation suits too, because they greatly stifle free speech.
Correct, which is a view I share with Noam Chomsky among others. No one should ever take speech alone/claims alone as sufficient evidence for something important. When we have a culture where some speech is illegal, such as slander and libel, we have a culture prone to believe speech alone for important claims, claims that will majorly impact persons lives, just in case the speech hasn't been declared illegal. That's a serious problem in practice.
Your comment reminds me of economists whose ideas are based on the assumption that the public are rational actors. In the real world, mud sticks. This is indisputable, unfortunately. What Chomsky thinks *should* happen bears no relation with what actually happens, again, unfortunately.

People's lives can, and are, be ruined by loose slander. It is not just our cultures too, but all cultures throughout history have grappled with the problems of slander and developed rules to keep them in check.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Greta wrote: February 2nd, 2021, 6:35 am
In the real world, mud sticks . . . People's lives can be ruined by loose slander.
Right, which is exacerbated by the fact that slander and libel are illegal. Again, this contributes to a culture where people believe things simply because they're claimed. That's what we need to move past.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: February 2nd, 2021, 6:08 am
Greta wrote:Anyone with the right personal information about you has great power over you.
I think this is the point on which all disagreements between Terrapin Station and the other posters here (or at least those that aren't free speech absolutists) turns. It's about the nature of power, influence, force and causality in relation to human actions and which of those can be said to be relevant to the process of a human speaking and another human subsequently acting.
Information has become ever more controversial, which is a pretty fair indicator of its influence. We worry about how information is handled, how it's distributed, how it's sourced, its veracity, and some question if it even exists! Others, of course, claim information is all that exists. Many think information and matter are indivisible, that matter must be informational and information only exists as an attribute of matter.

Whatever, manipulation of information is incredibly powerful and influential, acting like Archimedes' lever. I am not sure the law has quite caught up with this, leaving significant loopholes for the unscrupulous to exploit, as we have seen in the last few years.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Sy Borg »

Terrapin Station wrote: February 2nd, 2021, 6:40 am
Greta wrote: February 2nd, 2021, 6:35 am
In the real world, mud sticks . . . People's lives can be ruined by loose slander.
Right, which is exacerbated by the fact that slander and libel are illegal. Again, this contributes to a culture where people believe things simply because they're claimed. That's what we need to move past.
Mud has always stuck. Is there a society anywhere or anywhen whose masses have outgrown gullibility?
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

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