Failure is Essential for Growth

Three Things Necessary for Growth: Failure -then- Regrouping-then-Bold New Starts You can’t have growth without failure, and you can’t live a great life without growth.

Three Things Necessary for Growth:

Failure -then- Regrouping-then-Bold New Starts You can’t have growth without failure, and you can’t live a great life without growth.

1. Try bold plans (others doubt your likely success; seems like a longshot)

2. Fail

3. Regroup, Rethink, Diagnosis/Prescribe

4. Start Again Genuine Fails Come from Genuine Attempts (get your soul crushed…so you can learn/relearn/relearn that you can ‘come back’ smarter and stronger)

The Relevance of Reason and the Curious Absence of Logic in Public Schools:

Reason is relevant because it allows human beings to be independent thinkers. However, this being the case, why don’t public schools teach Logic?

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth- in a word, to know himself- so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.”

― Pope John Paul II

Three Tips to Make the World a Better Place

Three Tips to Make the World a Better Place (By being more rational): 
1. Be wary of your emotions
2. Learn your fallacies
3. Be wary of doctrines that you really like. (Are you being uncritical?)

Check out some related articles, here: 
Commonphilosopher.com
https://commonphilosopher.com/…/%ef%bb%bflearn-your-fallac…/

https://commonphilosopher.com/…/%ef%bb%bfhow-to-refute-an-…/

https://commonphilosopher.com/…/intro-to-logic-for-commen…/…

What Would You Suffer For?

Question One: What are you willing to suffer for?
Question Two: What is more important continual suffering, sweat, and sacrifice?
Question Three: Why do you gladly suffer and fight, when others quit, cut-corners, and complain?

https://commonphilosopher.com/2019/07/09/what-would-you-suffer-for/

High-Value Test: What are you willing to suffer for, with dignity?

Question One: What are you willing to suffer for?

Question Two: What is more important continual suffering, sweat, and sacrifice?

Question Three: Why do you gladly suffer and fight, when others quit, cut-corners, and complain? 

This will clue you into what your vision of life is.  What is your motivating ‘why’? This defines you as a person, and as a leader.

To quote Nietzsche, “if you have a ‘why’ you can survive of almost any ‘how’. 

Twilight of the Idols (1889), section: ‘Maxims and Arrows’)


“In some ways, suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment, it finds a meaning, such as the meaning of a sacrifice.”


Viktor Frankl

Just as everybody is a leader of some sort, everybody has a vision of life, of some sort too. And these to aspects are related.

But some leaders are ineffective, and some leaders influence people in the wrong direction. Hitler was an effective influencer, but evil, for instance. 

If you want to be a good leader, even a good person, you need to know what your ‘vision of life’ is.

You probably don’t want to drop everything you’re doing and start studying history, philosophy, and theology.

Are there some shortcuts? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that you can wrestle with telling questions that reveal things about yourself. No, in the sense that such revelations don’t remove the necessary soul-searching and contemplation in order to discover, what you do believe, should believe, and can believe.

Yet, there are such things that I’d call ‘high-value’ tests. For instance, a way that you can see what you think is materially valuable might be to imagine that you discover your house is on fire. What do you grab first? For instance, if you grabbed your cat, and ignored your children…well…that would quite concerning. Regardless, this thought experiment allows you to consider what is truly valuable, though not exactly in a material sense.

In the context of leadership, consider the fact that great leaders can transform meaningless drudgery into meaningful and inspirational activity…but this is only possible…if one has a great vision of life. 

To this end, ask yourself this question: “What will you suffer with dignity for?” Your answer will be revealing. If you are not willing to suffer for anything good, then you clearly have nothing to lead with. If you only have petty or small aims, then only petty and small sacrifices are the limit of your influence. 

But if you have a grand vision, of what is great, and noble, and wonderous, as well as a clear idea of what is wrong (the obstacles of the vision), then you might have a suitable vision of life that can justify getting through the low points of life, and work, etc. 

Living an admirable life requires us to work through suffering. Leadership requires navigation through suffering preeminently. Those that follow look to you as a lighthouse for guidance. Do you have any light to give?

Stories to Check Out:

Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning

Consider great trials, and the heroic persons that went through them (and why):

  • Saint Patrick of Ireland, who went back to his slave-captors to share the gospel with them. See my article here.
  • Socrates, who drank the Hemlock, since it was somehow unjust to escape the lawful punishment of the court. He thought it was better to suffer injustice, rather than commit an injustice himself.
  • Saint Thomas More, who died at the behest of King Henry VIII of England, because he refused to bend his religious principles in order to give the King another divorce.
  • Martin Luther King devoted himself to non-violent civil disobedience, despite violent attacks on himself.
  • Jesus suffered and died for sinners, despite His innocence, and His disciples committed themselves to spread the gospel despite the inevitable exiles, trials, and martyrdom, that such ministry required.

Are You the Center That Holds? Three tips to be a Transcendent Leader:

First, have a Transcendent Vision: You need a vision that is grand. Don’t have one? Study those that do. Study philosophy and theology, and what I’d call ‘good fiction’ (which is also, controversial fiction)

Second, have Transcendent Standards: You need rational prejudices, such as Truth, Goodness, and Justice.

Third, have a Transcendent Stability: You’re a lighthouse, not a superman. As a leader, you don’t have to be able to do everything. Rather, you have to be a stable point that directs the parts towards the whole. You guessed it…you need a stable transcendent vision to do this. You need convictions that are invincible. Recommendation, start with the great Leaders. 

Books to Read to Get a Vision: 

Books to Read to Get Transcendent Standards: 

  • Read good philosophy books that explain why Truth, Goodness, and Beauty, are objective features of reality (is this a contentious statement? Yes, but I do believe that this is right)
  • Read about great military struggles. (I reject universal pacifism and hold that some violence is justified

Books to Read to Get Stability: 

I have found that stability comes with mental preparation, mentorship, and rigorous reflection. This requires investment. Even reading fiction is a kind of investment. If you take the stories seriously, in the sense you are a character in a story, and not just escaping from your daily grind. For instance, you have priorities, aims, standards, and a vision of reality that motivates you. Are you heroic? Why not? If you take good stories seriously, then they are not mere stories, but hypothetical thought-experiments for your actual life. Resolve to be the hero: take the necessary steps, and you’ll become the leader that you invest yourself in. 

Thanks for listening. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.


You Need to Read! Reasons to Read Daily, for Health, Wealth, and Wisdom

Here are some reasons to read (notes from the video post):

  1. Read for Wisdom:
  • Wisdom is knowing and understanding the truth, which includes what is good in life (in general), and what is best in life, given your circumstances (in particular). 

2. Read for Joy: 

  • Aristotle ”The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet” (from Diogenes’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers)
    • Reading is only bitter in the beginning, I’d submit, once you are proficient in reading, and know what is good to read, reading is then transformed from drudgery to pleasure. The words are means to the ideas and reality, at first it is hard to see, but with polishing, the glass in transparent, and you see through it, to the reality itself.

3. Read for Character Development

  • Pat Williams: “Good character is the accumulated deposit of good moral choices.” (21 Great Leaders, Ch. 10 on Washington)

4. Read for Prudent Investing (i.e.Wealth): 

Interesting articles to check out: 

Books to Buy/Borrow: 

You are not just a bunch of cells, you have a spiritual and moral dimension, if you neglect it, it will show. 

A better title would have been, though longer: “You need to read, study, reflect, build conviction and habits, and invest your resources (time, money, energy, life)” However, setting up a time to read is the first part to doing these other things. 

A question that naturally emerges….how do you know if you’re reading the right things? Good question….but that must be reserved for another day, and another post. 

Hope you have a great Sunday!

False Liberalism and Adler’s Educational Prophecy

Mortimer Adler argued that certain trends in education were emerging back in the late 1930s and 40s. He argued that there was a distinct difference between true liberalism that he advocated for from what he called ‘false-liberalism.’ In addition to arguing at length about those differences, he set out certain consequences that he thought would follow.

If you’ve studied education and philosophy, you’ve likely come across the name John Dewey. Adler was a critic of Dewey’s educational program. What is interesting for us, living in 2019, is that Dewey won the popularity contest, for the soul of education. There are probably a few pockets in the U.S. that favor Adler, but it is the minority. In this context, it is very informative to see what Adler was on about all those years ago because Dewey’s ilk has become the regnant influencers in education.

So, what did Adler say?

He distinguished true liberalism from liberalism by showing that true liberalism cultivates the authority of reason, whereas false liberalism cultivates reverence for the State. Where the dignity of man is placed above the State, the false-liberal encourages humans to be used as means of the State (rather than ends). The true liberal believes in objective truths that unify and transcend our differences, but the false liberal reduces the student to ‘might makes right’ since the authority of reason is subordinate to that of the Super-moral State (or even absent).

According to Adler, true liberalism fights two types of tyranny: the tyranny of the passions over rationality, and the tyranny of the State over its citizens. Through disciplining the mind to criticize all things, even the authority of the State, its purpose and purview, a properly liberal education frees men from the shackles of emotional bondage: they can think carefully, logically, and not be overwhelmed by fallacious reasoning, with subjective appeals by tyrants that stoke envy, fear, and false promises. Therefore, true liberalism is about freedom, and the freeing of the mind from irrational, as well as being able to morally resist the growth of political tyranny.

The reason why should be obvious: a citizenry in full command of their rational faculties is not swayed by emotional-laden appeals, full of false promises, and invalid arguments.

This, of course, is not all to do with politics though. Living a happy life is a very different aim than being a ‘productive citizen.’ A free person may oppose the government, leave the country, or challenge the views of the colleges. A truly liberal educator would only inquire if the reasoning was well-founded and valid though, not inquire whether it fit with a party narrative.

In sum, a truly liberal education serves its students in a robust sense, their very thriving conditions (eudaimonia, or ‘happiness’ in an objective sense of ‘flourishing). It dangerous substitute claims to be liberal but is actually a counterfeit: it promises freedom but delivers the bondage of emotions over the self, and the State over its ‘subjects’ (though the word citizen might still be used). The false-liberal society may change the definitions of words (see 1984). Additionally, the false-liberal society will applaud the mastery of social problems –not by developing mastery over the emotions–but by the chemical evasion from the discomforts of cognitive dissonance and malaise (see Brave New World).

  • What type of education will you favor?
  • Did education’s shift from liberalism to false-liberalism engender the twin tyranny of emotions and the State?

What do you think?

For a more complete discussion on this, see Adler’s book on Reforming Education.

Some short articles on Mortimer Adler can found here:

Intro to Political Economy Without the Labels

Let’s consider two political-economic theories. Since the terms normally used have been hijacked so that there are too many emotional connotations, it is hard to get anywhere with the common terms (unless you’re talking to an audience willing to do a bit of research). Rather, I would like to describe two types of competing theories without using potentially misleading terms. So, here it goes (I won’t reveal which theories are which until the end).

Let’s consider two political-economic theories. Since the terms normally used have been hijacked so that there are too many emotional connotations, it is hard to get anywhere with the common terms (unless you’re talking to an audience willing to do a bit of research). Rather, I would like to describe two types of competing theories without using potentially misleading terms. So, here it goes (I won’t reveal which theories are which until the end).

Both theories have moral and empirical dimensions. The moral issues relate to whether a given action or policy is just or unjust. The empirical dimension relates to whether a return-on-investment is ‘worth it’ (generating the effects that are aimed at, considering the cost). The empirical dimensions are in some ways easier to decipher but in other ways very easy to be misled. The misleading data usually relates to inappropriate conclusions from data or cherry-picking pieces of data that distort the interpretation of the whole.


Theory I

Theory I has a historical-moral foundation about how State governments have ‘gone wrong.’ This would include all of the major civilizations, from ancient Rome, through the feudal states of medieval Europe. The rough idea is that governments have a specific purpose, and this purpose is to respect boundaries that come from human nature and/or God. The governments throughout human history go wrong precisely in that they take on tasks that are outside of their proper bounds. So, here we have a theory of government that also connects to a theory of ethics. The ethics portion relates to the evil of coercion. Since it is evil to coerce another free person to do what you want, against their permission, and these theorists sought to minimize social evil, they sought to minimize coercion. Their solution, then, was that original coercion (violence and force) is the only justification of government force, so that only when there is force initiated by someone, is the government then–and only then– within their proper place to use force against the offenders that initiated the force. In sum, Theory I is about the minimization of force and coercion, and thus also, keeping the State in its proper bounds, so that it doesn’t go rogue (serving the ruling elites instead of its citizenry).

This has been the moral dimension of Theory I


Theory II

Theory II is more difficult to explain because the moral and empirical dimensions are overlapping and confused. Where the return-on-investment is concerned, if the results are favorable, then the moral standard is satisfied. So, in Theory II’s conception of moral justification the very fact that it promises to produce a given result satisfies both the empirical and moral standards (since the moral and empirical issues overlap). The concern for coercion is either minimized, or held to be radically different from the depiction made by Theory I. Theory II advocates emphasize favorable aspects that make human societies better, and adopt the policy that they think promises the best outcome without any concern for coercion, since in their view the coercion is justified if the outcome is favorable. For instance, taking money from the rich is permissible, even if they came about their wealth through perfectly just ways, such as hard work, long-term investment, and family cooperation.

Lady Justice, Case-Law, Right, Scale, Court

Evaluating the Two Theories
These theories operate on different theories of government, justice, and economics.

The first theory aims to minimize coercion, with clear boundaries of the State’s job. The second theory aims to maximize well-being, regardless of theory I’s worries about justice. According to Theory II, it is just if everything is equal, no matter if there needs to be coercion for ‘make it happen.’ Correspondingly, according to Theory II society is unjust if there is too much inequality, regardless of the historical cause of the distributions. Theory I is not worried about differences of outcome per se as long as all transactions are historically just, and there is no coercion.

Theory I’s account of justice fits perfectly with our basic moral intuitions, but Theory II’s account does not fit. For instance, if I give a million dollars to an orphanage, then Theory II would endorse this policy. The fact that the money was stolen from a bank does not matter to Theory II. Theory II regards the State as a kind of super-moral authority, above regular citizens (somehow the ‘whole’ has some special power over individuals if it is for the ‘common good’). On Theory I’s reading of justice, this is not the case. Only if the bank first stole the money, could it rightly take the money, and even then, it would be expected to return it to its rightful owners. Theory I does not regard the State as a super-moral authority. Rather, it is a servant of people, with very tight reigns on its proper sphere. It can only coerce when coercion was initiated towards its citizens first, without which, it cannot justly do anything.

This is the thumbnail sketch of the moral dimensions of Theory I and II. The empirical dimensions are about what actually happens when these ideas are put into practice. As mentioned, this is both easier in one sense and much harder in another sense. For instance, a country might call themselves Theory I or II, but defenders of a given theory might deny that they ‘really’ are specimens of their professed doctrine. This can be frustrating because it would be nice to simply look at history, and say, ‘that has been tried, and it failed horribly.’ It becomes even more complicated when popular audiences don’t precisely know what the key aspects of these theories look like, so one side can blame the other, and the reverse, simultaneously. In fact, this uncomfortable and frustrating fact is part of the motivation for writing this short piece.

There is a lot of data to support the fact that Theory I actually provides better results than Theory II, on empirical grounds, but this argument should be kept separate in our minds. The moral argument for Theory I stands alone, and if right, shows that Theory II is immoral at its root (regardless of what is promises or delivers). There are great worries about Theory II on empirical grounds in that the overall aim of Theory II does not actually occur. The core problem though, considering that most people will not sort through the data and the competing works of literature, is that improvements are happening in the world, regardless of the policies in place. For instance, sometimes a policy can be instituted, where the target effect is getting better without the policy. Think of technological improvements. You can imagine a sneaky CPA siphoning out money from a very successful account, but only when great gains are made. Since the great gains are still seen, the unseen portion of the theft is left unattended. In short, bad policies may have damages and injuries to a system, even though nobody knows about them because it isn’t about what is obvious, rather, it is seeing the contrast to what would have been otherwise. (for an excellent discussion along these lines, see Bastiat).

Statue Of Liberty, Landmark, Liberty, Statue, America

Beyond this introductory analysis, one would need to consider economic theories in light of the 20th-century history, especially theories of value (labor theory vs productive-competitive theory), the competing theories of libertarianism and egalitarianism, and the problems associating to making decisions in groups (the information problem).

I will be adding additional links below for articles and books, for those that are interested in getting a more in-depth understanding of the issues. If you didn’t surmise this already, Theory I represents the libertarian free-market doctrine, and Theory II represents the socialist-egalitarian doctrine. Allowances must be made for ignoring many nuances that exist within any philosophy of political theory. Advocates of both sides might seek to correct things in this brief article, but brevity requires broad strokes. There are important variations of both positions. However, if the Libertarian theory is right, then the big-state egalitarian is wrong, on moral grounds. Secondly, there is a mounting body of evidence that the free markets are simply better at delivering prosperity than socialist-egalitarian policies. Again, there are difficulties for us in deciphering the data though, since one part of a thriving society might obscure the fact that injustices are being made, and citizen’s rights are being trampled.

Related Issues for Research:

Theory of Value, Theory of Alienation, Misunderstanding Boom/Bust Cycles, Centralization Problems: (1) Information (2) Incentives (3) Totalitarianism,
Hayek: The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents–The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2)

For strictly philosophical arguments: Rawl’s Egalitarianism: A Theory of Justice, Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia


Please Stop Misrepresenting Statistics: Correlation is not causation.

Repeat after me: Correlation is not causation. No, really: Correlation is not causation. It may have something causal to it, or it may not. It might have something informative, or it may not.

Oh my goodness, I can barely stomach watching the news, or watching social media posts…the statistical fallacies are basically palpable.


Repeat after me: Correlation is not causation. No, really: Correlation is not causation. It may have something causal to it, or it may not. It might have something informative, or it may not.

A disparity in a statistic does not have causal power because mere statistical correlations are not inherently causal at all!

A true statistic does indicate something, but it is not obvious what that something is.

Case 1: 100% of serial killers drink water. Should we infer that water leads to murders, murderers, etc? Why not?

Case 2: If you and Jeff Bezos were in a waiting room for something, the average net worth for those in the at waiting room would be around 50 billion dollars, assuming you are worth around 0 billion. Should we infer that you do, or should have 50 billion dollars? No. But why not?

Case 3: 100% of the top cartel family is wealthy (this cartel derives its income from prostitution, violence, drug trafficking, etc).  Are we justified in concluding that a member in the top cartel derives money from nefarious means? If yes, then why?

Case 4: 30% of group A are incarcerated. This is 10% more than some other class B. Should we infer that there was a miscarriage of justice? If yes, then why?

To talk about these issues meaningfully, we have to distinguish two types of cause: Agent causes, and natural causes (non-agent causes). Agent causes have to do with the choices of free agents (humans with free will). The other type of cause does not have a direct bearing on our choices (at least not in any obvious, direct, and explanatorily rich way). If we make these distinctions, then we can easily tackle these four cases.

In case 1, the difference between serial killers and non-serial killers has relevant relation to whether they drink water (it has to do with a set of actions, pursuits, etc, of different agents, choosing different paths in life).

In case 2, the average wealth of 50 billion dollars has no bearing on your because wealth has nothing to averages. Rather, it would need further information about previous choices, investments, property, etc. Importantly, there is no obvious insight into mere averages, and we are guilty of hasty generalization if we try to sneak in any other ideas without justification.

In case 3, the wealth of a given cartel member is stipulated to be ill-gotten because of the historical provenance of wealth creation. In other words, the fact that money was ill-gotten has nothing do with the numbers and percentage, it has to do with the quality of free will actions on behalf of the agents. The numbers themselves provide no helpful information…because….mere statistical correlations are not necessarily causal, nor even explanatory, without further information.

In case 4, we are not justified in concluding anything about group A or group B at all because none of the relevant information is included. It says nothing about the choices, the laws, the process by which they were incarcerated. The idea that they should be equal in every way is astonishingly naive.

I have many ideas on why some get misled by statistics, but this is a long enough post. Let’s make the world less crazy with fewer fallacies. Please. Seriously. Please.

As a last-minute qualification, the wrinkle is that some correlations might indicate something causal. However, the issue here is that there is a good reason to not jump to conclusions. For instance, taking cyanide does lead to death. But this simple point here is that we are not justified in making an automatic jump between correlation and causation.

For other posts on voting, social media, logic, citizenship, and philosophy.

For a more in-depth look at statistical fallacies go here.

For a good video introduction to statistical fallacies go here, in the context of the social sciences, Jonathan Haidt (start towards the end if you only want the correlation/causation discussion).

Related Articles:

Other Articles from CommonPhilosopher:

Good Philosophy is Servant Philosophy: Mesoteric and Exoteric Philosophy: A mission statement

Here is my understanding of what a good philosophy might look like. Three types of education need to be in view. To see these three, first start with two: Lay philosophy versus Professional philosophy.

Here is my understanding of what a good philosophy might look like. Three types of education need to be in view. To see these three, first start with two: Lay philosophy versus Professional philosophy. Professional philosophers operate at a very high level, in the sense that the works that they consume, produce, and engage in, require many years of investment before the works can be understood. Contrast this with what I’d call Lay philosophy, which is basically what one might encounter in a good introductory survey course in philosophy. I say ‘good’ because a good intro course is built in a way to be challenging but still accessible, and the bad course doesn’t actually provide a helpful introduction to philosophy that really helps the student.

If I could rename ‘lay philosophy’ with ‘exoteric’ and ‘professional’ with ‘esoteric’, then we’ll be getting somewhere. I think that philosophy influences people a great deal, but it does so in a very roundabout way. It is like that rudder in a great ship. If you were watching somebody in the depths of a cruise ship, it might appear that they are not doing much (working on machines, servicing them, etc), but this would be a mistake. The whole ship relies on the engineers in the ship. This is an imperfect analogy, but important. Philosophers influence other people in the university, which in turn, educate others, like those in education. So, esoteric philosophy is that hard-to-understand expert philosophy, and exoteric philosophy is for public consumption. ‘Ex’ summons to mind ‘outside,’ and ‘eso’ invokes ‘inside’ or ‘into’. In the middle, is ‘meso’ which simply mean ‘middle.’ As a philosopher, I wish to be a mesoteric philosopher that straddles the esoteric and the exoteric, between the high-level abstruse philosophy and the lower-level introductions to philosophy.

In many ways, I think that the exoteric and mesoteric philosophical levels are more important for society. Consider the political divisions, the crises of education, and so many other issues. Much of these things would be far different if the majority of the populace had access to what I would call good philosophy, that simplifies, unifies, and clarifies, our growing body of human knowledge. That is, in my estimation, philosophers should provide a way to understand how all of the bodies fit together (unifying), while carefully showing how each province of knowledge is different from another (clarifying differences) and simplifies hard-won wisdom into accessible statements that help a people live meaningful, resilient, rewarding lives. (See Adler, Maritain)

In this sense, I think philosophy should be a kind of service to people. But this is an odd position to have for an academic, as most academic, in terms of numbers derived from polling data, don’t like the free market (except for good economists). Free markets are about goods and services, where a person thrives if and only if, a one helps other people thrive, providing them with something that enriches their lives. Additionally, free markets are about rational persuasion and voluntary transaction (if I can’t convince you that my information, services, or products are worth your time and money, then I don’t get your support). I think that philosophy is a great benefit to humanity, to those that get acquainted by it and enrich lives. As such, if I’m ‘market-facing,’ as economists call it, then if I provide a good product (my philosophy), then success will be reflected by my support from voluntary transactions from responsible adults that value what I’m providing. In this case, I desire to occupy a space in the exoteric and mesoteric market space for philosophers (which I’d guess, is not exactly saturated). Contrast this coerced transactions, where a body of persons, assign the worth of somebody’s goods or services, and those goods or services don’t have responsive feedback from the market. Think about the cost of an x-ray or the way a professor is hired. The costs and processes ‘behind the scenes’ aren’t in the open, and the usually the only way things get checked by the public is if something goes terribly wrong (x-ray machine explodes, or professor gets involved in a scandal). However, free-market mechanism directly relates to the product being provided. I will provide some articles on the free market later, but for my present purposes, I think that good philosophy is a great benefit to all, and that it can be defended and promoted in the free market. And this, is basically what my philosophy is about. I’ll provide a bunch of philosophical articles tailor to my audience, which is interested in clarification, simplification, and unity, to their own lives. If you like what you see, you can buy my books later on (you won’t have to buy a $100 book, because the academic superpowers decided that you should add that to your mountain of debt).

So, welcome the CommonPhilosopher.com. I will be improving the site, adding meaningful content, and expanding the media. If you want to support me, you buy amazon through my ‘Patron support’ Amazon swoop. You don’t pay more, but I get a small portion of your purchase. If you like what I write about, then check out my recommendations for books. If want me to address something that you’ve wondered about, add a comment or email me.

Have a great day!

Check out my posts on economics, politics, logic, wine, and even Easter.