Log In   or  Sign Up for Free

Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

Humans-Only Club for Discussion & Debate

A one-of-a-kind oasis of intelligent, in-depth, productive, civil debate.

Topics are uncensored, meaning even extremely controversial viewpoints can be presented and argued for, but our Forum Rules strictly require all posters to stay on-topic and never engage in ad hominems or personal attacks.


Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
#337049
GaryLouisSmith wrote:
You are definitely a guy who loves definitions. Your problem is that you cannot make them come together in one Overall Definition. They remain fragments of some Whole, which you can never reach.
in a reply to Consul. I 'll speak for myself not for Consul.

There is either something, or an unlimited collection of somethings, or both.I understand GLS believes in an unlimited collection of particular things each unconnected causally with each other.

As unconnected causally each particular thing does not necessarily exist and is truly random.

Truly -random is at odds with theism (including polytheism) and pantheism. Pantheism and theism have order as the basic axiom. Order, for pantheists, theist, and most atheists, is real not mind-dependent.

GLS lauds chance. Gary, do you believe in ontic randomness and personal choice? How so?
#337050
Belindi wrote: August 31st, 2019, 6:10 am GaryLouisSmith wrote:
You are definitely a guy who loves definitions. Your problem is that you cannot make them come together in one Overall Definition. They remain fragments of some Whole, which you can never reach.
in a reply to Consul. I 'll speak for myself not for Consul.

There is either something, or an unlimited collection of somethings, or both.I understand GLS believes in an unlimited collection of particular things each unconnected causally with each other.

As unconnected causally each particular thing does not necessarily exist and is truly random.

Truly -random is at odds with theism (including polytheism) and pantheism. Pantheism and theism have order as the basic axiom. Order, for pantheists, theist, and most atheists, is real not mind-dependent.

GLS lauds chance. Gary, do you believe in ontic randomness and personal choice? How so?
I love it when people try to lecture me on what theism and religion REALLY are. Then since I don't match their ideas on the matter I must be wrong. Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, there might be other ways of looking at the world? Or did you get your ideas out of some encyclopedia and you think that encyclopedias are the voice of wisdom for us today, even though they were written by some college graduate student who needed some money.
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
#337052
GaryLouisSmith wrote: August 31st, 2019, 12:23 amYou are definitely a guy who loves definitions.
"Definitions are important because without them, it is very easy to argue at cross-purposes or to commit fallacies involving equivocation. As the experience of attorneys who questioned former US president Bill Clinton show, if you are, for example, to interrogate someone about extramarital sex, you need to define what precisely you mean by ‘sex’. Otherwise, much argument down the line, you can bet someone will turn around and say, ‘Oh, well, I wasn’t counting that as sex.’ Much of our language is vague and ambiguous, but if we are to discuss matters in as precise a way as possible, as philosophy aims to do, we should remove as much vagueness and ambiguity as possible, and adequate definitions are the perfect tool for helping us do that."

(Baggini, Julian, and Peter S. Fosl. The Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. pp. 31-2)
Location: Germany
#337053
GaryLouisSmith said: I think you are objecting to my extremism.
No, extremism does not bother me, I am just trying to find some consistency in your views. A philosophy that is completely inconsistent cannot be called a philosophy, merely a curious contrivance.

Forms are orderly things, otherwise they would not be formulaic, especially if they are eternal, which requires an even higher degree of order. And yet you say you believe in pure chance.

So my question is an obvious one: How can eternally orderly things, especially god-like things, exist and act in a random universe. Surely you can see the enormous contradictions there? For one, what sort of God is powerless to order anything, how can he if he lives in a random universe? Nothing he says goes, heck, he can't even order lunch.

Imagine the god randomly walking into a restaurant on Mt. Olympus, God: "Waiter, bring me the roasted wild boar with asparagus." Waiter: "I'm sorry sir, I will not fill your order." God: "What do you mean, I am a god, what I say goes! If you refuse, I shall strike thee down with a bolt of lightning!" Waiter: "Pardon me, sir, but we do not take orders from anyone here, gods included, for you see, we operate on pure chance, therefore our menu is completely unpredictable, it changes from one moment to the next."

God: "Surely ye jest! What sort of way is that to run a house of victuals!" Waiter: "You must have been away a long time, sir, this universe has operated randomly for billions of years now. As a matter of fact, lightning rarely occurs here, since it is much too orderly a process. When it does occur, it may or may not be accompanied by thunder and if it is, the thunder may occur before or after the lightning. Boy did that change rankle the god Thor, he really raised hell about it, but being powerless to command the winds or lightning, it didn't worry us."
#337064
Felix wrote: August 31st, 2019, 2:19 pm
So my question is an obvious one: How can eternally orderly things, especially god-like things, exist and act in a random universe.
Here I’m going to attempt to explain my ideas about pure chance, Platonic Forms and my theism. What I have written so far has been heavily criticized as being full of inconsistencies. I have been accused of not really understanding the very idea of God or of a Platonic Form. Oh my! I love a good brawl.

My defense is going to rely heavily on Bertrand Russell’s notion of Propositions. Propositions must not be confused with sentences, in spite of common usage. Take a sentence, any sentence. Slightly rearrange the words but only enough so the sentence has the same meaning. Adverbial phrases and clauses can be moved about easily. Change active to passive. Give a artsy or poetic feel to it. Those many sentences or expressions all refer to the same proposition. Remember I am using the word “proposition” in the Russellian sense. Now translate the sentence into different languages, into computer language, into Morse code and hieroglyphics and weird icons. It is still the same one proposition, but expressed differently.

So now what about that so-called proposition according to Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore and other early Logical Analysts? Most importantly it is non-linguistic, non-mental and eternal. That may seem odd, but that’s the idea as it existed in early Logical Analysis. It is a Platonic Form. Russell was a Platonic Realist. He was in rebellion against German Idealism, which tended to think of propositions and psychological or social constructs. A proposition was an eternal thing external to the mind. And certainly external to the brain. There are other interesting aspects to the idea of a proposition, but that’s enough for what I have to say here.

Now for the act of writing. Devise some way of generating a random collection of words. When I was teaching English, I used to have the student perform the following exercise. Arbitrarily select a page out of any book or magazine. Close your eyes and run you finger down the page. On impulse stop and copy down what word it has landed on. Do that until you have built up a collection, which you may want to arrange in a number of columns. Now stare at those columns until sentences form. Write them down. Eventually, you will have a paragraph or a poem. Or maybe a mantra.

My students, I discovered, were afraid of that exercise. They would fidget and often couldn’t do it. Today I understand why. It is an exercise in the paranormal. Or, if you want, the gods prowl in the doing.

The essential thing is that you just stare at the collection of things gathered by pure chance until you “see” something. Maybe you have done the same thing with the abstract patterns in a curtain or in the paint on the wall or in some twilight bushes outside your window. Anyway, what you are doing with words is you are waiting for an eternal proposition to appear. Words will come together into a sentence. It will no doubt be not an ordinary sentence. It will be somewhat queer. It will need interpretation. And that is where the reader must do his part. Reading is just as mystical as writing. And you will probably be afraid of it.

Whenever you look as a religious/paranormal artifact, you will always see that it is strange, skewed, queer, even ridiculous. Hindu idols are particularly odd. And the Vedas are very difficult to make sense of, if there is in fact any sense there at all. Pundits have been called on to give it meaning and cover over the inconsistencies. It’s the same with the New Testament.

Do propositions, in the Russellian sense, exist? Eternal things and true. Can we conjure them up? Are they sexual beings?

I, of course, answer, Yes, to all those questions. I write philosophy, an exercise in magic. The rationalist among us will disagree. But we need such a one, such a stick in the mud, so we can orient ourselves.

I like to stare at the form of a boy. A sexual thing. And wait. Sentences form and I write them down. Sexual feelings are important for making the eternal appear.

The Kantians will think it is psychological and the positivists will think it is sociological. The skeptic will wave his hand and mutter. And the moralists will call the police.



My point in all that is that in order to write the eternal Platonic Forms you must first have at hand some objects or words gleaned by pure chance from your surrounding. You must totally let go of your ego as the author of what you will eventually publish. You must let the words write themselves.

A jhakri, a Hindu shaman, will put rice grains on his drum, throw them into the air and then look to see where they land among the religious idols. Then he read them. Pure chance is somewhere in every religious ritual. It is our connection with the other world.

Btw, if you look at a magical mantra, you will see the same maddening, non-mental, non-linguistic, eternal thing. impossible to understand. It exists external to any person or mind that utters it. And they can be very dangerous if not chased away when the shaman dies.
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
#337065
GaryLouisSmith wrote: August 31st, 2019, 10:48 pmMy defense is going to rely heavily on Bertrand Russell’s notion of Propositions. Propositions must not be confused with sentences, in spite of common usage. Take a sentence, any sentence. Slightly rearrange the words but only enough so the sentence has the same meaning. Adverbial phrases and clauses can be moved about easily. Change active to passive. Give a artsy or poetic feel to it. Those many sentences or expressions all refer to the same proposition. Remember I am using the word “proposition” in the Russellian sense. Now translate the sentence into different languages, into computer language, into Morse code and hieroglyphics and weird icons. It is still the same one proposition, but expressed differently.

So now what about that so-called proposition according to Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore and other early Logical Analysts? Most importantly it is non-linguistic, non-mental and eternal. That may seem odd, but that’s the idea as it existed in early Logical Analysis. It is a Platonic Form. Russell was a Platonic Realist.
"Singular propositions (also called 'Russellian propositions') are propositions that are about a particular individual in virtue of having that individual as a direct constituent."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop ... -singular/

As for the ontological difference between Russellian propositions and Fregean propositions, see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop ... ar/#FreRus

Russellian (singular) propositions ("R-propositions") correspond to Grossmannian (singular) facts ("G-facts"). This is what William Vallicella calls "the hybrid abstractist" view: Singular R-propositions or G-facts are composed of an abstract, transcendent universal not existing anywhere in spacetime and a concrete thing (object/substance) in spacetime instantiating/exemplifying such a universal. That's why they're ontological "hybrids": one part is abstract, the other one is concrete.
Note that Grossmann regards such a fact as a whole as an abstract, non-spatiotemporal entity too (with a concrete, spatiotemporal part). However, if its concrete part isn't eternal, the abstract fact containing it isn't eternal either.

Finally, an R-proposition or G-fact isn't (as a whole) a "Platonic form" (= transcendent universal); it just has one as a (proper) part.
Location: Germany
#337066
Consul wrote: August 31st, 2019, 11:54 pm
GaryLouisSmith wrote: August 31st, 2019, 10:48 pmMy defense is going to rely heavily on Bertrand Russell’s notion of Propositions. Propositions must not be confused with sentences, in spite of common usage. Take a sentence, any sentence. Slightly rearrange the words but only enough so the sentence has the same meaning. Adverbial phrases and clauses can be moved about easily. Change active to passive. Give a artsy or poetic feel to it. Those many sentences or expressions all refer to the same proposition. Remember I am using the word “proposition” in the Russellian sense. Now translate the sentence into different languages, into computer language, into Morse code and hieroglyphics and weird icons. It is still the same one proposition, but expressed differently.

So now what about that so-called proposition according to Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore and other early Logical Analysts? Most importantly it is non-linguistic, non-mental and eternal. That may seem odd, but that’s the idea as it existed in early Logical Analysis. It is a Platonic Form. Russell was a Platonic Realist.
"Singular propositions (also called 'Russellian propositions') are propositions that are about a particular individual in virtue of having that individual as a direct constituent."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop ... -singular/

As for the ontological difference between Russellian propositions and Fregean propositions, see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop ... ar/#FreRus

Russellian (singular) propositions ("R-propositions") correspond to Grossmannian (singular) facts ("G-facts"). This is what William Vallicella calls "the hybrid abstractist" view: Singular R-propositions or G-facts are composed of an abstract, transcendent universal not existing anywhere in spacetime and a concrete thing (object/substance) in spacetime instantiating/exemplifying such a universal. That's why they're ontological "hybrids": one part is abstract, the other one is concrete.
Note that Grossmann regards such a fact as a whole as an abstract, non-spatiotemporal entity too (with a concrete, spatiotemporal part). However, if its concrete part isn't eternal, the abstract fact containing it isn't eternal either.

Finally, an R-proposition or G-fact isn't (as a whole) a "Platonic form" (= transcendent universal); it just has one as a (proper) part.
What is your point? How does that relate to what I wrote?
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
#337068
GaryLouisSmith wrote: August 31st, 2019, 10:48 pm
A jhakri, a Hindu shaman, will put rice grains on his drum, throw them into the air and then look to see where they land among the religious idols. Then he read them. Pure chance is somewhere in every religious ritual. It is our connection with the other world.
But does the Hindu shaman view the pattern in the rice grains as chance. Despite having been over there and dealt with them a bit, I don't know the answer. But in relation to other shamans and tarot readers and I-ching throwers and...others who use what looks like chance phenomena to read the future or the underlying processes or the causes, the idea is not that the actual arrayment of cards or coins or yarrow stalks is random, but for the reader to get a real answer they need to relinquish conscious control of the outcome so that the underlying pattern with come through the objects. It's not chance, it will be an arrayed linked and embodying the structure of whatever is being asked about. You could look at it as part of the shaman extending themselves from ego to something larger in part by doing something the ego cannot possibly control. The shaman cannot possibly choose how the grains will arrange themselves, the way he might choose a move in chess. Can't be done: so either gods or spirits or his higher self or his entire long trained organism or combinations of these will control the rice grains such that they reveal the underlying structure of the client's questions or needs or problem. It is part of allowing the presence of something/one more complicated and knowing through what isn't actually a random act, except to the ego of the shaman. It is a going beyond that. Most shamans would have other methods also to bring in agencies beyond the mundane I that chooses where to put cans of soup on a shelf after shopping.

Now perhaps you are right, perhaps it is all chance. I just doubt they would see it that way.
#337069
Karpel Tunnel wrote: September 1st, 2019, 1:05 am
GaryLouisSmith wrote: August 31st, 2019, 10:48 pm
A jhakri, a Hindu shaman, will put rice grains on his drum, throw them into the air and then look to see where they land among the religious idols. Then he read them. Pure chance is somewhere in every religious ritual. It is our connection with the other world.
But does the Hindu shaman view the pattern in the rice grains as chance. Despite having been over there and dealt with them a bit, I don't know the answer. But in relation to other shamans and tarot readers and I-ching throwers and...others who use what looks like chance phenomena to read the future or the underlying processes or the causes, the idea is not that the actual arrayment of cards or coins or yarrow stalks is random, but for the reader to get a real answer they need to relinquish conscious control of the outcome so that the underlying pattern with come through the objects. It's not chance, it will be an arrayed linked and embodying the structure of whatever is being asked about. You could look at it as part of the shaman extending themselves from ego to something larger in part by doing something the ego cannot possibly control. The shaman cannot possibly choose how the grains will arrange themselves, the way he might choose a move in chess. Can't be done: so either gods or spirits or his higher self or his entire long trained organism or combinations of these will control the rice grains such that they reveal the underlying structure of the client's questions or needs or problem. It is part of allowing the presence of something/one more complicated and knowing through what isn't actually a random act, except to the ego of the shaman. It is a going beyond that. Most shamans would have other methods also to bring in agencies beyond the mundane I that chooses where to put cans of soup on a shelf after shopping.

Now perhaps you are right, perhaps it is all chance. I just doubt they would see it that way.
I have no argument with what you wrote. Your interpretation is as good as mine. I threw up the metaphysical pieces' they fell and now you and others interpret. I suggest that you let the interpretation come through you and speak for itself. I sense that you are trying to control it with you rational mind. I don't think that will work.
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
#337071
GaryLouisSmith wrote posted a piece that began
Here I’m going to attempt to explain my ideas about pure chance, Platonic Forms and my theism. What I have written so far has been heavily criticized as being full of inconsistencies. I have been accused of not really understanding the very idea of God or of a Platonic Form. Oh my! I love a good brawl.
Gary then went on to describe particulars of a method he used to teach English students.It's very good.

I understand this creative method which I was taught when I was an undergraduate.Divination is a combination of chance and choice, and is formalised intuition like in I Ching. Intuition is a shorter way to understand natural and social environment and is much used by poets and other artists.
Without intuition we would all learn very slowly indeed.

Combining chance and choice is a description of how we can recognise, among other intuitions, Platonic Forms and when we make a good intuitive choice from chance array we might get a sense of harmony and of truth even sometimes divine truth.

Pythagoras in his mystical mood had interesting theories about divine harmony, theories which influenced Plato.
#337072
GaryLouisSmith wrote: September 1st, 2019, 1:17 am I have no argument with what you wrote. Your interpretation is as good as mine. I threw up the metaphysical pieces' they fell and now you and others interpret. I suggest that you let the interpretation come through you and speak for itself. I sense that you are trying to control it with you rational mind. I don't think that will work.
Lol. This was me participating in a philosophy forum. I don't think like that when I throw the bones.
#337076
GaryLouisSmith: A jhakri, a Hindu shaman, will put rice grains on his drum, throw them into the air and then look to see where they land among the religious idols. Then he reads them. Pure chance is somewhere in every religious ritual. It is our connection with the other world.
I am familiar with the word association and divination techniques you mentioned but I see them as psychological tricks to turn off the rational thought machine and let intuition operate. The conclusion that they are a means to access Platonic forms is quite a judgemental leap - and one would first have to assume that Platonic forms exist.

Esoteric knowledge, being partially or mostly ineffable and nonrational, cannot be expressed in common language, one must rely on vague metaphors and symbolism to convey it. And without an experience of what is hinted at in such writings, they will appear to be nonsensical. For example, Sri Aurobindo was confounded by certain spiritual experiences he had, and was later surprised to find that their meaning was explained in ancient Vedic texts. His book, The Secret of the Vedas, was the product of his intensive study of those texts.
GaryLouisSmith: Russell was a Platonic Realist.
Not the naive literal form of it to which you subscribe, Consul's references make that clear.
#337079
Felix wrote: September 1st, 2019, 3:44 pm
GaryLouisSmith: A jhakri, a Hindu shaman, will put rice grains on his drum, throw them into the air and then look to see where they land among the religious idols. Then he reads them. Pure chance is somewhere in every religious ritual. It is our connection with the other world.
I am familiar with the word association and divination techniques you mentioned but I see them as psychological tricks to turn off the rational thought machine and let intuition operate. The conclusion that they are a means to access Platonic forms is quite a judgemental leap - and one would first have to assume that Platonic forms exist.

Esoteric knowledge, being partially or mostly ineffable and nonrational, cannot be expressed in common language, one must rely on vague metaphors and symbolism to convey it. And without an experience of what is hinted at in such writings, they will appear to be nonsensical. For example, Sri Aurobindo was confounded by certain spiritual experiences he had, and was later surprised to find that their meaning was explained in ancient Vedic texts. His book, The Secret of the Vedas, was the product of his intensive study of those texts.
GaryLouisSmith: Russell was a Platonic Realist.
Not the naive literal form of it to which you subscribe, Consul's references make that clear.
You are standing right in the center of the philosophical storm. There is a real problem there. Are they really just psychological matters as you have suggested? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychologism/ . I don’t think so, but that can be argued. One doesn’t assume Platonic Forms; one argues for them. I have done my share of arguing.

I don’t see how anyone could find a meaningful explanation for anything in the Vedas. I love the Vedas and I have tried to translate a bit of them into English, but they are wild. There is no clear-cut rational meaning to anything there. He may have seen his experience mirrored there, but not explained in any commonsense manner.

Yes, Russell was, at times, a Naïve Realist. I respect Consul’s erudition, but, philosophically, he and I usually don’t see eye to eye.
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
#337084
Felix wrote: September 1st, 2019, 3:44 pm
GaryLouisSmith: Russell was a Platonic Realist.
Not the naive literal form of it to which you subscribe, Consul's references make that clear.
What's "the naive literal form" of Platonic realism?
Whatever, to be historically precise, the early Russell (e.g. in The Problems of Philosophy, 1912) was a Platonic, transcendent realist about universals; but later he became a sort of Aristotelian, immanent realist about them in the context of his bundle theory of particulars.

"For my part, I hold that a 'thing' is nothing but a bundle of qualities[.]

The qualities of which, in my view, 'things' are composed would count traditionally as universals."

(p. 147)

"[A] 'thing' must occupy a continuous portion of space and time[.]"
(p.150)

"'Particulars', therefore, will be those bundles of qualities which include enough spatio-temporal qualities to insure that they occupy one continuous region."
(p. 151)

(Russell, Bertrand. "The Problem of Universals." 1946. Reprinted in Russell on Metaphysics: Selections from the Writings of Bertrand Russell, edited by Stephen Mumford, 143-159. London: Routledge, 2003.)

"The later Russell’s universals are immanent like Aristotelian universals, but they are not Aristotelian in the above sense; a universal is not dependent on a particular, according to Russell. A universal, for example, ‘red’, is fully present at one point-instant, similar to Aristotelian universals. However, Russell’s universals do not belong to or depend on a particular; they make up the particular. And neither are his universals non-spatio-temporal."
(p. 6)

"In ‘On the Problem of Universals’ (1946), Russell explains that on his view a thing is a bundle of qualities. Qualities are universals, but they are not transcendent universals; that is, they do not reside in some third realm. They exist in the actual world. These are called immanent universals in Armstrong. Immanent universal properties do not need a subject such as a substratum to be exemplified. Rather, immanent universals are multiply occurring entities or repeatable entities. One quality may exist in more than one place, or rather, in more than one perceptible area. Russell writes, ‘The colour itself exists wherever (as we should commonly say) there is something that has that colour’ (HK [Human Knowledge, 1948] 303). Universals are multiply occurrent entities in space-time. As Kinney also notes, a universal for the later Russell is something which can recur or ‘that which can exist simultaneously with itself in disjunct [disjoint] loci’ (81). It is not the case that there are independently existing universals and their spatio-temporal instances. Rather, there are spatio-temporal qualities (IMT [An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth, 1940] 102).

However, qualities as immanent universals are different from qualities understood as scattered individuals. On the latter view we have one particular, which has parts wherever we find the quality in question. But on the former view, there is one universal which is wholly present wherever we find the quality in question.

Immanent universals are not abstract in the sense in which transcendent universals are abstract. Transcendent universals are not in space-time, but immanent universals are. But when I say they are ‘in’ space-time, I do not mean it literally. Space-time is the result of the relations between complexes of compresent qualities. A complete complex of compresent bundles of qualities (universals) is itself a point-instant. Russell writes, ‘Complete complexes of compresence are the subjects of spatio-temporal relations in physical spacetime. . . A complete complex of compresence counts as a space-time point-instant’ (HK 304)."

(pp. 47-8)

(Mclean, Gülberk Koç. Bertrand Russell’s Bundle Theory of Particulars. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.)
Location: Germany
  • 1
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 124

Current Philosophy Book of the Month

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2025 Philosophy Books of the Month

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II
by Dr. Joseph M. Feagan
April 2025

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)
by Maitreya Dasa
March 2025

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself
by Monica Omorodion Swaida
February 2025

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science
by Lia Russ
December 2024

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

Zen and the Art of Writing

Zen and the Art of Writing
by Ray Hodgson
September 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

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

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 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

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


Is there something different about the transgende[…]

There is no "Rule" that can be compose[…]

Pantheism

Part of the division between protestants and catho[…]

One way to think of quantum mechanics might be tha[…]