What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Chat about anything your heart desires here, just be civil. Factual or scientific questions about philosophy go here (e.g. "When was Socrates born?"), and so most homework help questions belong here. Note, posts in the off-topic section will not increase new members post counts. This includes the introductions and feedback sections.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by Sy Borg »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 9:54 pm
Greta wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 6:53 pmThen again, survival and thrival have never been about accepting reality, but concocting a story that helps people navigate life ...
Yes. Surviving and believing what is most reasonable are not at all the same thing. One does not need accurate beliefs about quite a wide range of things for survival. Often, it is easier to survive if one simply goes along with the group one is in, and one avoids looking for the truth about those beliefs which are dearly held by one's society. For example, historically, it has been a dangerous thing to pursue the questioning of the local religion. Of course, anyone who has even the most basic understanding of logic will know, most religions of the world must be false, since they all contradict each other. And, of course, they could all be false. But questioning the local fiction can cause the locals to kill one.
When you look at, at least, Abrahamic religion, great store is placed on faith. In truth, the object of faith is less important than faith itself. So a pro tennis player might talk themselves into believing that they have a good chance of beating an opponent who is almost certain the beat seven shades of crap out them (metaphorically speaking). Yet, without belief, the lower ranked player won't be able to take advantage of the higher ranked player having a rare off day.

Millions live in poverty, experiencing troubles that boggle the mind, who are sustained by the hope that there will be something better on the other side. Many billions would have experienced comfort at the loss of a loved one, due to belief in the afterlife.

Belief in the afterlife appears to be a counterpart to the survival instinct. I see them as evolutionary snow jobs. A strong survival instinct is naturally selected but it's not logical or reasonable. People, whose lives are truly dreadful, cling on desperately. Logically, why bother? Because we are unconsciously driven by the fact that our predecessors probably wanted to live more than their unsuccessful rivals.

So what does an intelligent species do when confronted with the illogical desperation of their survival instinct? They create a buffer. So, even if you die, it's okay, because you don't really die.

In the face of such powerful emotional forces, logic seemingly has no hope, unless enforced. The state of the US would be a great advertisement for the CCP's command economy, until you look at the fermenting chaos in China's fundamentals, eg. wasting huge amounts of resources building ghost cities.

Without the internet, I expect that the tribal forces battling it out today would have assembled more slowly.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Greta wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 10:29 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 9:54 pm

Yes. Surviving and believing what is most reasonable are not at all the same thing. One does not need accurate beliefs about quite a wide range of things for survival. Often, it is easier to survive if one simply goes along with the group one is in, and one avoids looking for the truth about those beliefs which are dearly held by one's society. For example, historically, it has been a dangerous thing to pursue the questioning of the local religion. Of course, anyone who has even the most basic understanding of logic will know, most religions of the world must be false, since they all contradict each other. And, of course, they could all be false. But questioning the local fiction can cause the locals to kill one.
When you look at, at least, Abrahamic religion, great store is placed on faith. ...

I think that is because there is no good reason to believe the religion. You are to have faith that it is true, not seek for evidence about whether it is true or not.

The advocacy of faith is a part of all religions. This is because they are not reasonable to believe. If one were actually supported by evidence, then they would tell people to look at the evidence. But telling people to do that would be disastrous for religion.

Greta wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 10:29 pm...

Belief in the afterlife appears to be a counterpart to the survival instinct. I see them as evolutionary snow jobs. A strong survival instinct is naturally selected but it's not logical or reasonable. People, whose lives are truly dreadful, cling on desperately. Logically, why bother? Because we are unconsciously driven by the fact that our predecessors probably wanted to live more than their unsuccessful rivals.

...

I think the survival instinct, which occurs in pretty much all animals, is there because those animals that did not have it, did not live long enough to reproduce. Those that had it were more likely to live long enough to reproduce, and the stronger they have it, the more likely they are to live long enough to reproduce. So I think evolution strongly favors a survival instinct.

And, of course, you are right, it has nothing whatever to do with reason.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by Sy Borg »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 11:17 pmI think the survival instinct, which occurs in pretty much all animals, is there because those animals that did not have it, did not live long enough to reproduce. Those that had it were more likely to live long enough to reproduce, and the stronger they have it, the more likely they are to live long enough to reproduce. So I think evolution strongly favors a survival instinct.

And, of course, you are right, it has nothing whatever to do with reason.
Yes. Organisms that are desperate to survive are more likely to reproduce than their more laid back peers. You see it in civilisations too, how easygoing indigenous people were swamped by fiercely competitive Europeans, honed by generations of intense competition in dense populations.

Other animals are less conscious of the passing of time, so we are left with this sense of existential dread, seeing an inevitable precipice ahead that represents a dark unknown. Other animals are more inclined to stay focused on their next meal.

The internet cannot answer to these fears so people dance around it with religions and political parties used as symbols taken to represent support for either an afterlife or existential obliteration.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by Sculptor1 »

LuckyR wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 1:57 am
Sculptor1 wrote: May 1st, 2020, 8:13 pm
Nothing beats a bit of education.
Much of what I read here, especially in the area of counter arguments, is often poorly understood and the simple result of surfing. Often the counter-arguments are badly and not quite relevantly pasted texts from various websites.
In some ways it does not matter where the source comes from. A wise old bird once told me (about 45 years ago) that experts are mostly experts in knowing where to look-up stuff, and knowing how to use it. You don't need to know everything, but it helps to have a sound grounding and general appreciation of the way knowledge is generated, to be able to assess and judge the value of content. The internet saves having a library, but there is so much garbage out there that the uneducated can only fools others like themselves.
This is the way the Interweb is best used, but alas poor processing power is all too common.
What computers have gained in processing power they seem to reveal the lack of it in many humans.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by Sculptor1 »

What ever you might read, see or hear, it is always vital to first unpack the question.
No one can "ask" the Internet, since "ask" implies "answer" and between those actions there is the implication of intelligence and judgement.
If you ask a four year old a question their answer shall be the result of a process of cognition and resolution unlike the processing that happens in the Internet.
The Internet arrives at a response to a question. But if that response is an "answer" is is by luck and flaw, since the question is not understood by the Internet. The "answers" it offers (and there will rarely be only one) is nothing more than the end of a chain of algorythms.

Having experienced a time when the Internet did not exist, and used it at the outset of its invention right up to the present, it is easy to see its evolution. But the fundementals have not changed. The Internet "knows" nothing. It is a collection of stuff regurgitated programatically. For a new user, the process might look clever. And herein lies the major danger; that the Internet is a thing to be trusted when it is in fact no more to be trusted than the people who originally put the information out there in the first place.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by Terrapin Station »

evolution wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 9:27 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: May 1st, 2020, 8:21 pm

Although it's not actually the case (that I think my views are "absolutely and irrefutably true" and that I'm not open to other views), I'm sure I come across that way at times, but what are you supposed to do when it's something you've been studying, thinking about, and interacting with others about for decades, so that (a) you've long since come to a conclusion about it, and (b) the other ideas you encounter about it are not only things you first encountered long ago, but you've heard them repeated by various people literally tens if not hundreds of times?
IF what you are saying is absolutely and irrefutably true, then just prove it. But, if 'it' is NOT absolutely and irrefutably true, then make this clear, so that then you do NOT come across 'that way', at times.
Terrapin Station wrote: May 1st, 2020, 8:21 pm You'd have to pretend that you've not actually come to a conclusion about the issue at hand, and you'd have to pretend that you've not heard the same competing ideas hundreds of times . . . which would seem rather dishonest to me.
But you do NOT 'have to' do this, at all.

WHY do you ASSUME and/or PROPOSE that 'you do 'have to' pretend'?

By the way, if the conclusion about the issue at hand, which you have come to, is based on absolute and/or irrefutable proof, then why not just present that proof?

But, if the conclusion about the issue at hand, which you have come to, is NOT based on absolutely and/or irrefutable proof, then 'what' are you basing that conclusion on, EXACTLY?
There's nothing like a timely response, eh? Aren't there some conversations from 2015 you'd like to continue?
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Greta wrote: October 4th, 2020, 1:06 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 11:17 pmI think the survival instinct, which occurs in pretty much all animals, is there because those animals that did not have it, did not live long enough to reproduce. Those that had it were more likely to live long enough to reproduce, and the stronger they have it, the more likely they are to live long enough to reproduce. So I think evolution strongly favors a survival instinct.

And, of course, you are right, it has nothing whatever to do with reason.
Yes. Organisms that are desperate to survive are more likely to reproduce than their more laid back peers. You see it in civilisations too, how easygoing indigenous people were swamped by fiercely competitive Europeans, honed by generations of intense competition in dense populations.

Other animals are less conscious of the passing of time, so we are left with this sense of existential dread, seeing an inevitable precipice ahead that represents a dark unknown. Other animals are more inclined to stay focused on their next meal.

The internet cannot answer to these fears so people dance around it with religions and political parties used as symbols taken to represent support for either an afterlife or existential obliteration.

Having a reasoned attitude about death does not seem to help one survive and have offspring, though it does not necessarily prevent it. Epicurus, who was an early Greek atomist, said that when one dies, one's atoms are dispersed, and one then ceases to exist. One is, or, more importantly, one's mind (or soul or whatever one wants to call it) is the arrangement and interaction of the atoms that make up one, so that when those atoms are dispersed, or the actions of one's constituent parts no longer do what they have been doing, one's mind or soul no longer exists. So, death is for you what things were like before you were born: nothing at all.

Here one can read the principle doctrines of Epicurus:

http://epicurism.info/etexts/PD.html#1

One of the striking things about him is how his view, overall, is very modern. Of course, all of the details of how he thinks things work are wrong, but the overall picture he presents is consistent with modern science.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by Arjen »

An idiot found a time machine and travelled back in time. Then tried to get in charge with future knowledge, but he actually knew nothing except for general concepts?
:lol:
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by Sy Borg »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 4th, 2020, 1:32 pm
Greta wrote: October 4th, 2020, 1:06 am
Yes. Organisms that are desperate to survive are more likely to reproduce than their more laid back peers. You see it in civilisations too, how easygoing indigenous people were swamped by fiercely competitive Europeans, honed by generations of intense competition in dense populations.

Other animals are less conscious of the passing of time, so we are left with this sense of existential dread, seeing an inevitable precipice ahead that represents a dark unknown. Other animals are more inclined to stay focused on their next meal.

The internet cannot answer to these fears so people dance around it with religions and political parties used as symbols taken to represent support for either an afterlife or existential obliteration.
Having a reasoned attitude about death does not seem to help one survive and have offspring, though it does not necessarily prevent it. Epicurus, who was an early Greek atomist, said that when one dies, one's atoms are dispersed, and one then ceases to exist. One is, or, more importantly, one's mind (or soul or whatever one wants to call it) is the arrangement and interaction of the atoms that make up one, so that when those atoms are dispersed, or the actions of one's constituent parts no longer do what they have been doing, one's mind or soul no longer exists. So, death is for you what things were like before you were born: nothing at all.

Here one can read the principle doctrines of Epicurus:

http://epicurism.info/etexts/PD.html#1

One of the striking things about him is how his view, overall, is very modern. Of course, all of the details of how he thinks things work are wrong, but the overall picture he presents is consistent with modern science.
The ancients appear to have been more sophisticated than many imagined. I think it likely that the authors of the Bible used metaphors to describe situations that were never meant to be literally believed. Thus, many today are significantly less sophisticated thinkers that philosophers of antiquity.

The current unhinged approach to reality means that no story is too off-the-wall to be believed. So people believe that Hilary Clinton ran a global child cannibalism ring based in a local pizza shop. Or they believe they is a Reptilian. Or an emissary of grey aliens.

Of course, you don't need to be right, especially in a large population like the US. All you need is sufficient like-thinking "tribe members". This, I see, as the basis of modern religion. By contrast, the basis of religions per se, came not from tribalism and superstition, but from reports of extraordinary peak experiences and near death experiences (and Buddhists remain interested in this core of their belief systems).

As for the OP's question (oops), the inability to "ask the internet" would probably result in greater diversity of responses to topics, less inaccurate but more creative.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Arjen wrote: October 4th, 2020, 2:10 pm An idiot found a time machine and travelled back in time. Then tried to get in charge with future knowledge, but he actually knew nothing except for general concepts?
:lol:
I know that is a joke, but it is very unfair to Epicurus. There is only so much one can figure out as an armchair philosopher. To get the details right about what is going on in the world requires the use of experimentation, or, in other words, science. That was very limited in his day, and so he did not get all of the details right for how the world works. In the case of Epicurus, he could easily adapt his views to modern science, and—and this is the important bit—give exactly the same advice for how to live one's life as he gave originally.

Epicurus adapted the atomism of earlier Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus, and built his ethical theory on top of that. It is his ethical theory for which he is famous.

Rather interestingly, the propaganda against him, largely by Christians and others who did not like his theory, has caused the modern term "epicurean" to mean almost the opposite of what Epicurus advocated. Epicurus was a hedonist, meaning that he regarded pleasure as good and pain as bad, but that does not entail a recommendation of a life of debauchery. On the contrary, the pain of vomiting all night and a hangover the next day and ruining one's health long term involve pains which are to be avoided, which is why he does not recommend excessive drinking. Also, to give a modern example, one should go to a good dentist, not because it is good (pleasurable) in itself, but to avoid the pain that can come with poor dental health. He was very much interested in the long-term effects of what one did, and not just the immediate feelings one gets from one's actions. He also spoke highly of the value of friendship, some of which you can read at the links below, though I do not quote any of that in this post.

Here are a couple of samples from him:

2) Death is nothing to us, because a body that has been dispersed into elements experiences no sensations, and the absence of sensation is nothing to us.

...

10) If the things which debauched men find pleasurable put an end to all fears (such as concerns about the heavenly bodies, death, and pain) and if they revealed how we ought to limit our desires, we would have no reason to reproach them, for they would be fulfilled with pleasures from every source while experiencing no pain, neither in mind nor body, which is the chief evil of life.

11) If we were never troubled by how phenomena in the sky or death might concern us, or by our failures to grasp the limits of pains and desires, we would have no need to study nature.

12) One cannot rid himself of his primal fears if he does not understand the nature of the universe but instead suspects the truth of some mythical story. So without the study of nature, there can be no enjoyment of pure pleasure.

13) One gains nothing by securing protection from other men if he still has apprehensions about things above and beneath the earth and throughout the infinite universe.
http://epicurism.info/etexts/PD.html#1


With the above, he is warning against superstitious fears, which can ruin one's life.

Death is no concern to us. All things good and bad are experienced through sensation, but sensation ceases at death. So death is nothing to us, and to know this makes a mortal life happy. Life is not improved by adding infinite time; removing the desire for immortality is what’s required. There is no reason why one who is convinced that there is nothing to fear at death should fear anything about it during life. And whoever says that he dreads death not because it’s painful to experience, but only because it’s painful to contemplate, is foolish. It is pointless to agonize over something that brings no trouble when it arrives. So death, the most dreaded of evils, is nothing to us, because when we exist, death is not present, and when death is present, we do not exist. It neither concerns the living nor the dead, since death does not exist for the living, and the dead no longer exist.

...

Although pleasure is the greatest good, not every pleasure is worth choosing. We may instead avoid certain pleasures when, by doing so, we avoid greater pains. We may also choose to accept pain if, by doing so, it results in greater pleasure. So while every pleasure is naturally good, not every pleasure should be chosen. Likewise, every pain is naturally evil, but not every pain is to be avoided. Only upon considering all consequences should we decide. Thus, sometimes we might regard the good as evil, and conversely: the evil as good.
http://epicurism.info/etexts/Lives.html#I40
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by LuckyR »

Sculptor1 wrote: October 4th, 2020, 6:04 am
LuckyR wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 1:57 am

This is the way the Interweb is best used, but alas poor processing power is all too common.
What computers have gained in processing power they seem to reveal the lack of it in many humans.
I somewhat disagree, I remember knowing quite easily who the simpletons were before computers.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by Arjen »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 4th, 2020, 10:12 pm Rather interestingly, the propaganda against him, largely by Christians and others who did not like his theory, has caused the modern term "epicurean" to mean almost the opposite of what Epicurus advocated. Epicurus was a hedonist, meaning that he regarded pleasure as good and pain as bad, but that does not entail a recommendation of a life of debauchery. On the contrary, the pain of vomiting all night and a hangover the next day and ruining one's health long term involve pains which are to be avoided, which is why he does not recommend excessive drinking.
I do remember that part, but not too clearly, in the period that I was learning about him, I was more into hedonism ;)
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Steve3007 wrote: April 26th, 2020, 5:12 am If [...] all we had to rely on were our own thoughts and memories, and perhaps a little research from a dimly remembered dusty tome plucked from the bookshelf, do you think that would improve or degrade the quality of the discussions here?
I suspect our discussions would be unaffected, overall. There would be a little less factual research material available (if you can sift through the rubbish to find it on the internet), but more examples of correspondents thinking for themselves, and expressing their own opinions for consideration here. For myself, I nearly always post based on what I (think I) know, and have learned. Only occasionally do I use the interweb to check stuff, although I have to check spellings now that used to be second nature. Don't get old; it's a trap! 😉
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by Sculptor1 »

LuckyR wrote: October 5th, 2020, 1:23 am
Sculptor1 wrote: October 4th, 2020, 6:04 am
What computers have gained in processing power they seem to reveal the lack of it in many humans.
I somewhat disagree, I remember knowing quite easily who the simpletons were before computers.
But I bet you never really understood just how many and widespread they were across the entire globe. Social media has brought you into contact with hitherto unknown vast numbers.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: What if we weren't allowed to "ask the internet"?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sculptor1 wrote: October 6th, 2020, 4:06 am
LuckyR wrote: October 5th, 2020, 1:23 am I somewhat disagree, I remember knowing quite easily who the simpletons were before computers.
But I bet you never really understood just how many and widespread they were across the entire globe. Social media has brought you into contact with hitherto unknown vast numbers.
I just checked. On the interweb, of course. It seems that, at the time of writing, there are 7,816,681,619 living simpletons in the world.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophers' Lounge”

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