How does one find True Knowledge?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

RJG wrote: September 3rd, 2019, 7:42 am No, logic applies to all of us. Not even the Gods can defy logic.
If you exist in the objective world, then yes, logic applies to you. If you are a figment of my imagination, then there is no real you to disagree.
Logic applies to statements and symbols. It was logical for waves and particles to be separate things, until it wasn't. Logic, once being used to draw conclusions about objective reality, is always based on experiences of and hypotheses about objective reality. And those hypotheses include the ones you use to deduce that we don't really know trees. You can't come and tell us we can't draw conclusions, objectively, about OR, because that is hypocrisy.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Consul »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: September 7th, 2019, 3:38 pmLogic applies to statements and symbols.
Not only, because what is logically impossible is ontologically impossible; and what is ontologically impossible is physically impossible.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: September 7th, 2019, 3:38 pmIt was logical for waves and particles to be separate things, until it wasn't.
There's still no paradoxical wave-particle duality! A wave is a wave, and a particle is a particle.
That quantum physics has shown that there are exceptions to the logical law of non-contradiction is a false myth!
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Neri
Posts: 71
Joined: April 17th, 2010, 2:20 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Neri »

Consul,

Do you believe that a proposition is true if, but only if, it corresponds to a fact?

Do you not think that before we can decide how to obtain truth, we must first decide what it is?
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Consul wrote: September 7th, 2019, 3:51 pm
Karpel Tunnel wrote: September 7th, 2019, 3:38 pmLogic applies to statements and symbols.
Not only, because what is logically impossible is ontologically impossible; and what is ontologically impossible is physically impossible.
But our ideas about what is logically impossible in reality will always include empirical conclusions and paradigmantic assumptions. You are taking me to say that reality disproves logic. I am not saying that. I am saying that what seems logically impossible need not be. We are in situ, working with limited knowledge. On paper we can rule things out within specific mathematical systems or with symbolic logic, but the moment we start drawing conclusions about reality we are also using other types of processes, like induction and models of reality and even implicit semantics we may not even be aware of.

What seems logically impossible, may not be. Not because the logic is wrong, but because other things are wrong in the premises and assumptions.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: September 7th, 2019, 3:38 pmIt was logical for waves and particles to be separate things, until it wasn't.
There's still no paradoxical wave-particle duality! A wave is a wave, and a particle is a particle.
That quantum physics has shown that there are exceptions to the logical law of non-contradiction is a false myth!
But it was ruled out as illogical as were many qm phenomena, until the evidence was so strong. I am not saying, and notice that I did not say, that the law of selfcontradiction does not hold. What I am saying is that what seems logically impossible may not be since we will be basing our arguments on models and empirical conclusions and even assumptions we may not even be aware of. And that is why many genius level scientists resisted many qm ideas because they SEEMED illogical.

And this is all relevent to RPG because he wants his cake and eat it too. He wants to tell us we cannot know things about external reality, while telling us things, precisely that, about what is external reality to him. His conclusions cannot be drawn only from logic. They must, absolutely must include ideas about external reality based on his experiences, on empirical research, on models of perception, on models of what sensing is. Something, likely many things from that batch of information is in there for him to take pure symbolic logic off the page and apply it to the nature of reality. So he is being a hypocrite when he tells us we cannot know things about external reality.

My argument, just to be clear again, is not that this or that part of reality shows that logic does not hold. It is showing that what seems logically impossible to us may seem that way because of the non-logic portions of our thinking that MUST be there to draw conclusiosn about the outside world or anything real.
User avatar
detail
Posts: 171
Joined: June 1st, 2019, 1:39 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by detail »

As a matter of fact , the reasoning for scientific common logic is statistics and Approximation. Hooke's law is just valid for the same spring under not to strong weight forces, it's just valid due to statistical evaluation within it's application scope it's not true if the excerting force is too strong. But most of the commonly approved utterance are treated in the same way . So true knowlege is dependent on the person (experimenter). So true Knowledge is then the experience commonly approved by everybody so true Knowledge is dependent on the Settings of your social political and scientific society. Knowlege itself can be treated via epistemic logics and then is somehow converted to common Knowledge on a kripke structure in a similar way.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:TRUTH HIERARCHY:

1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective truth -- experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths
5. Non-truth -- via logical impossibilities

An Absolute Truth (#1) is the highest level of ‘certainty’ (real-ness); it is the singular premise/conclusion statement (that Descartes was searching for) that does not require supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness. It is not 'derived'. It is the beginning, the ‘seed’, upon which to build and grow all ‘true’ knowledge.

Objective Truths (#2) are the next highest level of ‘certainties’; these are “logically derived” via deduction. These truths are known and qualified as “logical truths”.

Subjective (#3) (“experientially derived”), and Religious (#4) truths are not trustworthy to yield ‘true’ (real; certain) knowledge. Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful. Non-truths (#5) are not logically possible.
Neri wrote:Unfortunately, none of this explains exactly what truth is. In other words, what is this truth that “absolute,” “objective,” “subjective” and “religious” all share? What makes them all examples of truth?
When I say "truths" I am referring to "knowledge that we hold as true" (real; certain). We all possess knowledge (truths), but not all our knowledge is necessarily 'objectively' true (aka "true knowledge").

What I mean is that ALL knowledge is 'subjectively' true (is true in the eye of the beholder), but not necessarily also 'objectively' true (is true 'independent' of the beholder).

Absolute and Objective Truths are not subjectively derived; they are not 'man-made' (they are not dependent upon, nor determined by a beholder), whereas, Subjective and Religious Truths, on the other hand, are subjectively derived (are 'man-made'; are 'beholder-made').

Neri wrote:You present the tautology that “non-truth” is not true. Non-truths, you say, are logical impossibilities. Does this mean that any proposition that is logically possible is true?
No, this does not mean that.

"Logical impossibilities are non-truths" does not mean "logical possibilities are truths".
"Apples are non-vegetables" does not mean "non-apples are vegetables".

Neri wrote:Or are you saying that--because we have no access to facts independent of our experience--truth consists of no more than the coherence of our beliefs when taken as a whole?
No, not at all. We DO have access to (and can know of) "non-experientially derived" facts. We can subjectively know 'absolute' and 'objective' truths. For instance, although we can't know, or be certain of the 'objects' of our experiencing, we can know with absolute certainty of our 'experiencing-of-this-object (content)'.

For example, although we may not know (with certainty) if the 'ghost' that we experience seeing is real, we certainly know that the 'experiencing' (of the ghost) was itself real. Furthermore we can also subjectively know the 'non-experientially' (non-subjectively) derived truths of math and logic.

Neri wrote:It seems to me that the only thing your “truths” have in common is that they are all beliefs. Surely, it cannot be the case that any proposition is true solely because it is believed.
Correct. All truths are 'subjectively' known (aka "beliefs"), but not all beliefs are 'objectively' true.

Neri wrote:The classical definition of knowledge is a justified true belief. In other words, a belief does not count as knowledge unless it is both justified and true.
No offense to the author of this definition, but it is wholly inadequate and non-sensical. For ALL beliefs are "justified and true" in the eye of the beholder, else it would not be called a belief. True (objective) knowledge has no dependence or relation to whatsoever to (subjective) beliefs.

Neri wrote:Presently, we are concerned with how one knows what is true. A simple example will suffice.
Well, since this topic is "How to find True Knowledge?", you are in the right place. :wink:

Two simple steps:
1. Start with an absolute truth ("experiencing" exists) and then logically derive from this point.
2. Remove all logical impossibilities from our contaminated pool of knowledge.


*****
Neri wrote:If I see a man before me, the content is that there is a man before me. The object is the man himself. If I am having a corresponding hallucination, the experience has a content, but no object--even though the content can be the same in both cases. The presence of a content does not necessarily mean that there must be an object.
RJG wrote:Good (and very important!) point, and agreed. For we are only privy to the 'content' (i.e. the bodily reaction, or effect thereof), whereas the 'object' can only be assumed, and never known to exist with certainty.
Neri wrote:As Searle would put it, the intentionally of a perception is only satisfied by a real object outside of us that has the power directly to cause the perception.
Nonsense. Searle only says what we 'want' to hear, and not necessarily what is true. For if we perceive a ghost flying about (or a tree outside), then this ghost (or tree) is a perception. And according to Searle, this therefore makes the ghost (or tree) 'real'.

Again, we are only privy to the 'content' (i.e. the bodily reaction, or effect thereof), whereas the 'object' can only be assumed, and never known to exist with certainty.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:But regardless, you are not working with pure deduction. You are applying deduction to premises based on empirical evidence and experiences about what the objective world is like.
Not so. My logic is very simple. X=X is true, X=~X, X<X, and X>X are logical impossibilities. That's it, that's all I use to "make sense" of reality.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Consul »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: September 8th, 2019, 1:24 amBut our ideas about what is logically impossible in reality will always include empirical conclusions and paradigmantic assumptions. You are taking me to say that reality disproves logic. I am not saying that. I am saying that what seems logically impossible need not be. We are in situ, working with limited knowledge. On paper we can rule things out within specific mathematical systems or with symbolic logic, but the moment we start drawing conclusions about reality we are also using other types of processes, like induction and models of reality and even implicit semantics we may not even be aware of.
What seems logically impossible, may not be. Not because the logic is wrong, but because other things are wrong in the premises and assumptions.
By "logic" I mean formal logic, and formal logic is not an empirical science. Logical truths are necessary truths; that is, if a logical proposition or principle is true, it must be true. However, classical propositional logic and predicate logic aren't the only logical systems in existence; so one can argue that logical truths (theorems) aren't absolute but relative to some logical system. In fact, there are many nonclassical logical systems. (See e.g. Graham Priest's 600-page Introduction to Non-Classical Logic!). On the other hand, it's one thing to say that there is more than one logic, and another to say that there is more than one correct logic: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-pluralism/

For example, the most notorious nonclassical logic is Graham Priest's dialetheism, which allows true contradictions. However, in this logical system true contradictions aren't only true but both true and false, such that it absurdly entails both the acceptance and the rejection of the classical law of non-contradiction. Therefore, Priest's logic of (true) contradictions is self-contradictory; but, anyway, one shouldn't expect a logic of inconsistencies to be consistent itself!

Even if there is more than one correct logic, there are some bedrock principles that cannot rationally be abandoned such as the law of non-contradiction.

"I'm sorry; I decline to contribute to your proposed book about the 'debate' over the law of non-contradiction. My feeling is that since this debate instantly reaches deadlock, there's really nothing much to say about it. To conduct a debate, one needs common ground; principles in dispute cannot of course fairly be used as common ground; and in this case, the principles not in dispute are so very much less certain than non-contradiction itself that it matters little whether or not a successful defence of non-contradiction could be based on them."

(Lewis, David. "Letters to Beall and Priest." In The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays, edited by Graham Priest, JC Beall, and Bradley Armour-Garb, 176-177. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. p. 176)
Karpel Tunnel wrote: September 8th, 2019, 1:24 amBut it was ruled out as illogical as were many qm phenomena, until the evidence was so strong. I am not saying, and notice that I did not say, that the law of selfcontradiction does not hold. What I am saying is that what seems logically impossible may not be since we will be basing our arguments on models and empirical conclusions and even assumptions we may not even be aware of. And that is why many genius level scientists resisted many qm ideas because they SEEMED illogical.
The (false) appearance of illogicality (paradoxicality, inconsistency) is due to a certain (bad) theoretical interpretation of quantum mechanics, the latter of which as such is nothing more than a mathematical algorithm enabling physicists to make probabilistic predictions about experimental outcomes. No cat can be both dead and alive/neither dead nor alive!
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

RJG wrote: September 8th, 2019, 1:00 pm Not so. My logic is very simple. X=X is true, X=~X, X<X, and X>X are logical impossibilities. That's it, that's all I use to "make sense" of reality.
Peachy, you reached a conclusion about X. I was talking about your conclusions about us, reality, what we can and cannot know.
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Consul wrote: September 8th, 2019, 1:37 pm
Karpel Tunnel wrote: September 8th, 2019, 1:24 amBut it was ruled out as illogical as were many qm phenomena, until the evidence was so strong. I am not saying, and notice that I did not say, that the law of selfcontradiction does not hold. What I am saying is that what seems logically impossible may not be since we will be basing our arguments on models and empirical conclusions and even assumptions we may not even be aware of. And that is why many genius level scientists resisted many qm ideas because they SEEMED illogical.
The (false) appearance of illogicality (paradoxicality, inconsistency) is due to a certain (bad) theoretical interpretation of quantum mechanics, the latter of which as such is nothing more than a mathematical algorithm enabling physicists to make probabilistic predictions about experimental outcomes. No cat can be both dead and alive/neither dead nor alive!
You're responding to someone else, not me. I wish you well in that argument.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Consul »

Neri wrote: September 8th, 2019, 12:22 amDo you believe that a proposition is true if, but only if, it corresponds to a fact?
"Narrowly speaking, the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to, or with, a fact—a view that was advocated by Russell and Moore early in the 20th century. But the label is usually applied much more broadly to any view explicitly embracing the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified)."

The Correspondence Theory of Truth: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trut ... spondence/

So the correspondence theory of truth might better be called the reality theory of truth. However, the truth-making parts of reality needn't be facts (belong to ontological category <fact>); and (arguably) there is no straightforward 1:1 correspondence between truths and facts (= actual, obtaining states of affairs). For example, there are negative truths but (I believe) no negative facts. A true negative proposition of the form ~p isn't true by virtue of some negative fact but by virtue of its negation ~~p = p lacking a truthmaker: If no positive fact makes p true, then p is false; and if p is false, then ~p is true. So ~p isn't true by virtue of having a negative truth-maker, but (indirectly) by virtue of p lacking a positive truth-maker.

I believe the correspondence or reality theory of truth is basically correct, but the relation of truths to (truth-making) realities/entities is more complicated and often less direct than its naive version suggests.

Truthmakers: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/
Neri wrote: September 8th, 2019, 12:22 amDo you not think that before we can decide how to obtain truth, we must first decide what it is?
I had believed for many years that truth is definable in some (non-circular) way or other, but now I strongly doubt that this is possible.

"I take the notion of truth to be primitive and indefinable, alongside the notions of existence and identity. Only some of the family of formal ontological notions are definable and truthmaking plausibly ought to be one of them. But truth itself, I believe, is too fundamental a notion to admit of non-circular definition."

(Lowe, E. J. The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. p. 210)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
MAYA EL
Posts: 177
Joined: May 2nd, 2019, 11:17 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by MAYA EL »

detail wrote: September 8th, 2019, 12:15 pm As a matter of fact , the reasoning for scientific common logic is statistics and Approximation. Hooke's law is just valid for the same spring under not to strong weight forces, it's just valid due to statistical evaluation within it's application scope it's not true if the excerting force is too strong. But most of the commonly approved utterance are treated in the same way . So true knowlege is dependent on the person (experimenter). So true Knowledge is then the experience commonly approved by everybody so true Knowledge is dependent on the Settings of your social political and scientific society. Knowlege itself can be treated via epistemic logics and then is somehow converted to common Knowledge on a kripke structure in a similar way.
I agree! Good reply 👍
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:TRUTH HIERARCHY:

1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective truth -- experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths
5. Non-truth -- via logical impossibilities

An Absolute Truth (#1) is the highest level of ‘certainty’ (real-ness); it is the singular premise/conclusion statement (that Descartes was searching for) that does not require supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness. It is not 'derived'. It is the beginning, the ‘seed’, upon which to build and grow all ‘true’ knowledge.

Objective Truths (#2) are the next highest level of ‘certainties’; these are “logically derived” via deduction. These truths are known and qualified as “logical truths”.

Subjective (#3) (“experientially derived”), and Religious (#4) truths are not trustworthy to yield ‘true’ (real; certain) knowledge. Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful. Non-truths (#5) are not logically possible.
detail wrote: So true knowledge is dependent on the person (experimenter). So true Knowledge is then the experience commonly approved by everybody so true Knowledge is dependent on the Settings of your social political and scientific society.
Not so. True knowledge is independent (not "dependent") on the subject (person/experimenter). Experientially derived knowledge/truths are never trustworthy to yield 'true' knowledge. ...can't get objectivity from subjectivity!
User avatar
detail
Posts: 171
Joined: June 1st, 2019, 1:39 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by detail »

If experimentally derived knowledge , which has the advantage of beeing replicable, is not the truth how can one achieve absolute truth , where all axioms are then just based on subjective affirmation and the objective truth is perhaps a tautology but the premises for a non-tautological expressions if it is in need of axioms can not be shown? Objective truth is o.k. if its a tautology of logic but many of the interesting truths require an outward assumption depending on the view of this world.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:Not so. True knowledge is independent (not "dependent") on the subject (person/experimenter). Experientially derived knowledge/truths are never trustworthy to yield 'true' knowledge. ...can't get objectivity from subjectivity!
detail wrote:If experimentally derived knowledge, which has the advantage of being replicable, is not the truth…
Firstly, "experimentally derived knowledge" is "subjectively" derived knowledge. And secondly, the "replication" of subjectively (or experimentally) derived knowledge does NOT yield objective "truth" (true knowledge).

For example, if we subjectively witness the magician cut the woman in half at the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday night shows, does this mean she was 'really' cut in half? And if we "replicate" our subjective experiences, and stay and watch the next 5 shows that, in-turn, yield the same exact result (woman getting cut in half), does this now make this 2-piece woman more 'real''?

If we replicate our same hallucination/dream over, and over, and over again, does this somehow make the truths/objects of our hallucination/dream more 'real' (objectively/independently true) each time?

No. The "replication" of subjectively derived knowledge is NOT a valid means to objective knowledge.

detail wrote:...how can one achieve absolute truth, where all axioms are then just based on subjective affirmation
An "absolute truth" is not dependent on "subjective affirmation". An absolute truth is a piece of knowledge (that Descartes was searching for) that is impossible to doubt/deny. It is the singular piece of knowledge that needs no supporting premise(s) to vouch for its truthfulness.

detail wrote:Objective truth is o.k. if its a tautology of logic but many of the interesting truths require an outward assumption depending on the view of this world.
"Interesting truths" are not necessarily objective truths. Those truths reliant upon "outward assumptions", or subjective "views of the world", are not trustworthy to be considered "true knowledge" (objective truths).
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by RJG »

Note: this discussion was started in another OP, and moved here for relevancy.
RJG wrote:I believe 'real' truths can be known; are "accessible", not through science (or subjectivity), but through logic (and objectivity).
Steve3007" wrote:You believe that only logical certainty can lead to anything that you regard as real knowledge. Fair enough I suppose. But this belief doesn't seem to have got you very far. In the 7 years you've been posting here you don't really seem to have got beyond Decartes' cogito ergo sum. I talked to you a while ago and you cited it as an example of a "real" truth that is logically irrefutable because to refute it would be to contradict oneself.
Nonsense. Now you are just making up stuff. Go read my last OP "How does one find True Knowledge" to see my real view on "cogito ergo sum". - in short, it is an unsound, logically incoherent statement. The logical flaws include:

1. Begging-the-question (pre-assuming the conclusion) --- "I" is contained in both the premise statement ("I think"), and conclusion statement ("therefore I exist"). Descartes pre-assumes the conclusion in his starting premise statement.

2. The premise statement ("I think") is false. -- The conscious act of "thinking" (authoring/creating one's own thoughts) is logically impossible. We can only 'experience' thoughts, not 'create' them. - Note: this error led to Descartes false belief in dualism (both body and mind entities).

BigBango is on the right track. "Experiencing" is at the root of everything. "Experiencing exists" is the foundational statement that Descartes was searching for (but never found); it is the starting seed to all true knowledge.

From this starting statement, we can logically derive many truths, including the existence of an 'experiencer' called "I"

RJG wrote:For example, when we experience seeing a ghost flying about, it is our 'experience'-of-the-ghost that is objectively true, and not necessarily the ghost himself.
Tamminen wrote:No, it is only subjectively true. And even so, you can only be sure that you just had an experience of seeing a ghost.
The existence of the "ghost" is subjectively true. The existence of the "experience" (of-a-ghost) is objectively true. It is objectively true because it is IMPOSSIBLE to deny/doubt -- for any attempt to deny our experiencing would first require that we deny our experience of denying. It is impossible to deny (or doubt) the truth that "experiencing exists", therefore it is "objectively" true.

"Experiencing" itself is objectively true, whereas the content of the experience is subjectively true, (...which may or may not also be objectively true, depending on logical/objective confirmation).
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021