Truth

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
ktz
Posts: 169
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Habermas

Re: Truth

Post by ktz »

Eduk wrote: November 29th, 2018, 3:07 pm Ktz. Aren't you in danger of being wise after the event with your examples of the good of religion?
For me it would be more nuanced to talk about the percentage future benefits of religion versus other philosophical frameworks.
For me unreasonable beliefs will always be statistically less likely to give 'good' results than reasonable beliefs. Even if it is trivial to cherry pick examples in the past where the opposite was true.
Yes, you may be right. Can you think of concrete examples of the bad of religion not covered by attribution to power, the church, or misguided oppressive hermeneutics?

I chose the specific illustrative cases because I feel they are examples where religion created a pathway to certain positive outcomes that would not have been possible without the committal nature of faith and absolute belief, which can be provided by the established construct of religion. So I think not just the percentage of good versus bad to be important, but the range and depth of possible outcomes.

Also where religious ideas of morality and secular ideas of morality overlap surely they stop being unique to religion? At this point can we not question whether they are indeed religious in origin?
Ultimately, I care more about what people do than why they do it. To me, actions, not professed ideals or belief, are closer to real instances of truth. Ideas like restorative justice are close to my heart, that provide concrete evaluation and reparation of harms committed with an emphasis on improving future outcomes. Correspondingly, if someone performs moral duty for religious reasons I give them as much credit if they perform the same duty for secular reasons. But I feel that the construct of blind faith can be more binding than intellectual understanding. In extremely challenging circumstances, when the person can be in a compromised situation of limited willpower and intense suffering, I would predict that faith in an anthropomorphized higher power to confer a more practical reserve of strength than intellectual commitments to secular variations of morality.

There are positive side benefits to the somewhat odd and dogmatic regular practices of religion as well. Science is catching up here, but for example prayer can be a practical path to regular introspection and self-directed goal-oriented behavior. Meditation and the clearing of the mind is being validated by science for positive effects as well -- it's reasonably well understood now, but this is a practice thousands of years old that has provided these benefits the entire time prior to scientific validation.
You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hard-boiled egg.
User avatar
ktz
Posts: 169
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Habermas

Re: Truth

Post by ktz »

Eduk wrote: November 29th, 2018, 3:13 pm Ktz, no one is saying humans are perfect. Or that scientists are perfect. But the fact that you know what p hacking is is testament to the scientific method not a sign of the failure of the scientific method.
Indeed our messy human nature is one of the things which the scientific method deals better with than any other method. Our nature for self deception is built into science.
Anyone can point to myriad examples of scientists failing their own standards. But anyone can also point at myriad scientific advances.
Without being flippant what other options do we possess other than the scientific method for judging objective facts?
Without being flippant, I'm in agreement with you -- our options are limited to just doing better science. In the most practical sense, I think because of academia's perverse incentives it's important to be wary of modern scientific studies especially in the social sciences, computer science, and biostatistics. No one is incentivized to replicate studies, and everyone is incentivized to falsify data. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... #s002title
You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hard-boiled egg.
User avatar
ktz
Posts: 169
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Habermas

Re: Truth

Post by ktz »

Fooloso4 wrote: November 29th, 2018, 5:08 pm ktz:
Perhaps true in a large number of contexts. But, first let me offer some anecdotal ideas.
Religious belief can be of value and benefit, but since this is a topic on “truth” I would add that what is of benefit is not thereby true. What the truth of such matters is, however, is not something that we can know. What one believes can be a blessing or a curse, and, as the story of Genesis tells us, the two are one.
Very astute, sometimes I wonder if I could go about vomiting that apple out of my system somehow.

How do you feel about my proposition that a person's actions, and not their professed ideals or beliefs, constitute the true character of their being?

In my view, pure objective truth in the modern world is confined to the realm of Zermelo-Frankel set theory and Peano arithmetic. The real world is messy, full of confounding variables, and it often can be very difficult to distinguish signal from noise. Ultimately, that which we know and understand serve the fundamental purpose of forming schema and decision-making models in our minds. Why commit to objective truth when it is frequently a tool you cannot actually use to make good decisions?
You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hard-boiled egg.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Truth

Post by Eduk »

Ktz in the specific case of attempting to stop genocide by an insane group then perhaps a sincere and truthful belief in some religion might be the only path which might stop them. This is possible. It is still being wise after the event. The probability is that such a genocidal group won't ever meet you, plus unreasonable beliefs increase the chances of genocidal groups.
I mean. Perhaps if we assume that humans are too flawed to operate under reality you could maybe make an argument for madness? But I don't believe that is the case and I also believe that ultimately reality will win that particular argument.
As you say actions speak louder than words and nothing speaks louder than reality.
Oh and regarding instances of taking some historical belief and then proving it to have benefit scientifically. This certainly happens. Science can then remove all the superstition leaving only that which is effective, to the betterment of all. This is again not a problem with science.
Unknown means unknown.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Fooloso4 »

ktz:
How do you feel about my proposition that a person's actions, and not their professed ideals or beliefs, constitute the true character of their being?
One’s ideals and beliefs are part of one’s true character, but what one professes in not always what they believe, but this too is part of one true character. One’s actions, when intended for public display may not display the character intended, but this too is part of one true character.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Truth

Post by Hereandnow »

Just a note on that fooloso4, that if it is accepted that what is of benefit is not thereby true, and if this is taken to mean not just that because it makes one feel good it is not necessarily true, but rather that there is a standard for truth that extends beyond value and benefit, then there is the need to justify this claim by identifying what this standard is. What can it be if not pragmatics,utility, instrumentality (the various terms that are found here and there in discussions) which "work" to produce value and benefit?
Even if it is a claim that what is of benefit is not thereby true, and not any stronger claim than this, one still has to face William James' localized standards for truth by which if a belief, a knowledge claim works privately, apart from competing claims, then those competing standards would have no bearing on the truth of what is claimed locally. This is what it means, he would say, to abandon traditional concepts of reference that posit something exterior to pragmatic utility.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Fooloso4 »

H&N:
Just a note on that fooloso4, that if it is accepted that what is of benefit is not thereby true, and if this is taken to mean not just that because it makes one feel good it is not necessarily true, but rather that there is a standard for truth that extends beyond value and benefit, then there is the need to justify this claim by identifying what this standard is.
If someone believes in a God who cares about him, that may be beneficial. Whether or not such a God exists is not thereby determined, and perhaps may in no way be determined. In distinction from Aristotle’s bivalent logic, there are alternative logics with three valances: true, false, and undetermined.

If, however, I believe that God will provide or God will protect me, this could lead to disastrous consequences if I do not take proper measures to provide for and protect myself.

If one believes that someone she loves loves her, that may beneficial, but it may be detrimental if that love is betrayed, if the beloved is not “true” to her.

If one believes that some radical diet is beneficial that does not mean that it is.
What can it be if not pragmatics,utility, instrumentality (the various terms that are found here and there in discussions) which "work" to produce value and benefit?
I have no explicit theory of truth to offer. There is what Wittgenstein calls a “family resemblance” between the various ways in which the term is used.
Even if it is a claim that what is of benefit is not thereby true, and not any stronger claim than this, one still has to face William James' localized standards for truth by which if a belief, a knowledge claim works privately, apart from competing claims, then those competing standards would have no bearing on the truth of what is claimed locally.
I am not sure what it is that you think I must face or what bearing local and competing standards of truth may have or follow from the distinction between true and beneficial.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Truth

Post by Consul »

h_k_s wrote: November 28th, 2018, 7:44 pmI have seen scientific so called laws and theories change so many times in my lifetime that I no longer give it any more credit than a body of inferences from another body of data.
There is such a thing as theory change in science, but there is nevertheless a large body of scientific knowledge that is not going to change.

"While, however, we must remain alive to the possibility of radical changes in our scientific outlook, we must not exaggerate this possibility either. Consider a corridor which gives access to a number of rooms, in each of which there is a scientist engaged in fundamental research. In room number one there is a nuclear physicist, in room number two an atomic physicist, in room number three a classical physicist. In room number four there is a physical chemist and in room number five there is an inorganic or organic chemist. In room number six there is a biochemist, in room number seven a cytologist, and in room number eight there is a physiologist. It is likely that revolutionary changes made in room n will usually have very little practical effect on room n+1, and will probably have no practical effect at all on rooms n+2, n+3, etc. (I say practical effect, because I do not wish to deny that the changes in earlier rooms may have some effect on how the scientists in later rooms look at the world.) This relative independence of the various rooms from one another obtains because it is usually only the approximate correctness of the results got in room n that are needed by the man in room n+1, and an approximation to the results got in room n will pretty certainly be enough for the man in room n+2. Now a revolutionary theory will clearly have to predict, within the limits of experimental error, the results which constitute the evidence for the theory that it is meant to replace. Consider, for example, the general theory of relativity in its relation to the Newtonian theory of gravitation. Only in exceptional cases will the two theories predict different results, over and above the limits of experimental error. Most of the results that the man in room n+1 wants from the man in room n can be got from a rather old-fashioned theory on the n level, and in the case of room n+2 it is probable that all can. Still more is this so with rooms n+3, n+4, etc. It is, for example, extremely unlikely that revolutionary discoveries in nuclear physics will lead to any substantial modification of our beliefs about the physiology of respiration."

(Smart, J. J. C. "Philosophy and Scientific Plausibility." 1966. In Essays Metaphysical and Moral: Selected Philosophical Papers, 11-24. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987. p. 13)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Truth

Post by Consul »

h_k_s wrote: November 28th, 2018, 7:44 pmPhilosophy is the only thing I trust.
"I'd like to emphasize, cannot indeed overemphasize, the tentative nature of what I present here. Philosophers may not like to admit it, but fashion is an important factor in philosophy. And once fashion comes in, objectivity goes. The reason is rather obvious: philosophy lacks the wonderful decision procedures that are present in logic and mathematics (proofs) and the natural sciences (observation and experiment, together with mathematics). Unfortunately there seems to be no remedy for this situation, and those who thought there is a remedy, such as the logical positivists, learnt bitter lessons. But since this is so, we philosophers should be appropriately modest."

(Armstrong, D. M. Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. p. ix)

"One moral that I draw is that in the fields of philosophy and religion there is no knowledge. We can only know what our beliefs are. For consider: In these fields there is no consensus of opinion about what is true. People who are intellectually competent to discuss these matters, who have genuinely studied the considerations for and against some view—the existence of God or the existence of universals—who know the arguments, who have read and understood the books and the articles—find themselves in complete disagreement. Surely we should not claim knowledge in these matters. We all have our hopes. Perhaps some of us do have knowledge about these difficult matters. But how can we have any rational assurance that we do have knowledge? It is prudent, and suitable to our nature, to claim no more than belief."

(Armstrong, D. M. "A Naturalist Program: Epistemology and Ontology." Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 73/2 (1999): 77-89. p. 82)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Truth

Post by chewybrian »

The beginning of philosophy to him at least who enters on it in the right way and by the door, is a consciousness of his own weakness and inability about necessary things...

...And the cause of this is that we come into the world already taught as it were by nature some things on this matter, and proceeding from these we have added to them self-conceit. "For why," a man says, "do I not know the beautiful and the ugly? Have I not the notion of it?" You have. "Do I not adapt it to particulars?" You do. "Do I not then adapt it properly?" In that lies the whole question; and conceit is added here. For, beginning from these things which are admitted, men proceed to that which is matter of dispute by means of unsuitable adaptation; for if they possessed this power of adaptation in addition to those things, what would hinder them from being perfect? ...

...Can you then show us anything better toward adapting the preconceptions beyond your thinking that you do? Does the madman do any other things than the things as in which seem to him right? Is then this criterion for him also? It is not sufficient. Come then to something which is superior to seeming. What is this?

Observe, this is the beginning of philosophy, a perception of the disagreement of men with one another, and an inquiry into the cause of the disagreement, and a condemnation and distrust of that which only "seems," and a certain investigation of that which "seems" whether it "seems" rightly, and a discovery of some rule, as we have discovered a balance in the determination of weights, and a carpenter's rule in the case of straight and crooked things. This is the beginning of philosophy.
Epictetus, The Discourses
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Truth

Post by h_k_s »

Consul wrote: November 30th, 2018, 4:37 pm
h_k_s wrote: November 28th, 2018, 7:44 pmPhilosophy is the only thing I trust.
"I'd like to emphasize, cannot indeed overemphasize, the tentative nature of what I present here. Philosophers may not like to admit it, but fashion is an important factor in philosophy. And once fashion comes in, objectivity goes. The reason is rather obvious: philosophy lacks the wonderful decision procedures that are present in logic and mathematics (proofs) and the natural sciences (observation and experiment, together with mathematics). Unfortunately there seems to be no remedy for this situation, and those who thought there is a remedy, such as the logical positivists, learnt bitter lessons. But since this is so, we philosophers should be appropriately modest."

(Armstrong, D. M. Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. p. ix)

"One moral that I draw is that in the fields of philosophy and religion there is no knowledge. We can only know what our beliefs are. For consider: In these fields there is no consensus of opinion about what is true. People who are intellectually competent to discuss these matters, who have genuinely studied the considerations for and against some view—the existence of God or the existence of universals—who know the arguments, who have read and understood the books and the articles—find themselves in complete disagreement. Surely we should not claim knowledge in these matters. We all have our hopes. Perhaps some of us do have knowledge about these difficult matters. But how can we have any rational assurance that we do have knowledge? It is prudent, and suitable to our nature, to claim no more than belief."

(Armstrong, D. M. "A Naturalist Program: Epistemology and Ontology." Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 73/2 (1999): 77-89. p. 82)
By staying focused on Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Russell (except NOT his atheism), and Scruton (except NOT his politics) I strive to stay above "fashion" in Philosophy.

Ergo Philosophy is still the only thing that I trust. I define it as pure human thought unencumbered by fallacies (or fashion).

Thank you @Consul for your thoughts on this however.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Truth

Post by h_k_s »

Consul wrote: November 30th, 2018, 4:31 pm
h_k_s wrote: November 28th, 2018, 7:44 pmI have seen scientific so called laws and theories change so many times in my lifetime that I no longer give it any more credit than a body of inferences from another body of data.
There is such a thing as theory change in science, but there is nevertheless a large body of scientific knowledge that is not going to change.

"While, however, we must remain alive to the possibility of radical changes in our scientific outlook, we must not exaggerate this possibility either. Consider a corridor which gives access to a number of rooms, in each of which there is a scientist engaged in fundamental research. In room number one there is a nuclear physicist, in room number two an atomic physicist, in room number three a classical physicist. In room number four there is a physical chemist and in room number five there is an inorganic or organic chemist. In room number six there is a biochemist, in room number seven a cytologist, and in room number eight there is a physiologist. It is likely that revolutionary changes made in room n will usually have very little practical effect on room n+1, and will probably have no practical effect at all on rooms n+2, n+3, etc. (I say practical effect, because I do not wish to deny that the changes in earlier rooms may have some effect on how the scientists in later rooms look at the world.) This relative independence of the various rooms from one another obtains because it is usually only the approximate correctness of the results got in room n that are needed by the man in room n+1, and an approximation to the results got in room n will pretty certainly be enough for the man in room n+2. Now a revolutionary theory will clearly have to predict, within the limits of experimental error, the results which constitute the evidence for the theory that it is meant to replace. Consider, for example, the general theory of relativity in its relation to the Newtonian theory of gravitation. Only in exceptional cases will the two theories predict different results, over and above the limits of experimental error. Most of the results that the man in room n+1 wants from the man in room n can be got from a rather old-fashioned theory on the n level, and in the case of room n+2 it is probable that all can. Still more is this so with rooms n+3, n+4, etc. It is, for example, extremely unlikely that revolutionary discoveries in nuclear physics will lead to any substantial modification of our beliefs about the physiology of respiration."

(Smart, J. J. C. "Philosophy and Scientific Plausibility." 1966. In Essays Metaphysical and Moral: Selected Philosophical Papers, 11-24. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987. p. 13)
And … ???

Your point ???
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Fooloso4 »

Consul:
Philosophers may not like to admit it, but fashion is an important factor in philosophy.
One moral that I draw is that in the fields of philosophy and religion there is no knowledge.
This is the form of skepticism that informed Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. That this is not more widely recognized perhaps has something to do with the assumption that philosophy does or can lead to knowledge. This is a fashion that has endured, but there is a growing number of scholars who now recognize the aporetic nature of their philosophy.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Truth

Post by Hereandnow »

fooloso4
If someone believes in a God who cares about him, that may be beneficial. Whether or not such a God exists is not thereby determined, and perhaps may in no way be determined. In distinction from Aristotle’s bivalent logic, there are alternative logics with three valances: true, false, and undetermined.

If, however, I believe that God will provide or God will protect me, this could lead to disastrous consequences if I do not take proper measures to provide for and protect myself.

If one believes that someone she loves loves her, that may beneficial, but it may be detrimental if that love is betrayed, if the beloved is not “true” to her.

If one believes that some radical diet is beneficial that does not mean that it is.
I disagree about the logical indeterminateness of God: Evidence is either sufficient or not sufficient within one's doxastic world. All of our worlds are different, and agreement rises out of only that which is publicly demonstrable. I think there is a tendency to "go along" with the consensus and this valorizes many beliefs, truths, knowledge claims, but at the cost of covering up important or even profound aspects of what we are. Not to say that something cannot be indeterminate, just that concepts like 'God' are poorly conceived in the grand everydayness of things.

But re. truth: go to that mind where the belief or affirmation that has questionable truth on the grounds you lay out above, and assume the subjective perspective that is rich with episodic justification, where the premises for establishing what is true are formed completely differently such that what we would call essential is altogether absent, or other, say, unconventional content comes in to play, and there is in this experience conviction that appears proper. Obviously, if she believes she is loved by another and she is in fact not, her belief is false, but only if the belief is said to be about the other. We do this all the time, talk and establish beliefs about others, but showing how such an "open system" works is a challenge.

Pragmatism has different defenders, but James' version is the purest: The true’, to put it very briefly, is only the expedient in the way of our thinking, just as ‘the right’ is only the expedient in the way of our behaving. Expedient in almost any fashion; and expedient in the long run and on the whole, of course.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Fooloso4 »

H&N:
I disagree about the logical indeterminateness of God: Evidence is either sufficient or not sufficient within one's doxastic world.
Two different senses of the term ‘truth’. Whether one finds the evidence sufficient or insufficient to believe, it is not sufficient to determine the objective truth of the claim that a beneficent God exist. But one might still hold this to be a basic truth, one that believed or held to be true based on faith, and without need of evidence.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

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