What Constitutes A Philosopher?
Hello all,
Recently I had a rather colorful discussion with a person online who, by all appearences, seemed to be quite astute. That was until we got to discussing the topic of philosophy and philosophers. Into this category, to my astonishment, names as unexpected as Bernie Sanders, Jordan Peterson, Freud et al. made their way into this man's list of people that he would describe as philosophers. Of course, my initial response was bewilderment, but it got me to thinking: Just what is it that constitutes a philosopher? Of course, I have come to conclusions about the subject, but let's chat about it, because I want to view the opinions of my fellow peers.
-G
Recently I had a rather colorful discussion with a person online who, by all appearences, seemed to be quite astute. That was until we got to discussing the topic of philosophy and philosophers. Into this category, to my astonishment, names as unexpected as Bernie Sanders, Jordan Peterson, Freud et al. made their way into this man's list of people that he would describe as philosophers. Of course, my initial response was bewilderment, but it got me to thinking: Just what is it that constitutes a philosopher? Of course, I have come to conclusions about the subject, but let's chat about it, because I want to view the opinions of my fellow peers.
-G
Comments (260)
A philosopher is a person who loves wisdom and seeks wisdom.
So when in the heat of philosophical debate it's a bright idea to, once or twice, pause and ask oneself: is this exchange a manifestation of a love of wisdom?
If the answer is no, go silent.
You are not being a philosopher.
To my mind a philosopher is someone who believes truth matters; either, because truth must be understood, or because truth must be obscured, and who constructs arguments to one of these ends!
The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
With this definition in mind, does your conclusion change at all?
Not in the least. I think philosophers can be divided neatly into two basic camps, claricists and obscurantists. They'd both claim to be engaging in the above activity, but only the former does so honestly. The motives of the latter group vary, from intellectual masturbation through to religious protectionism via various political motivations. Hence:
Quoting karl stone
I wonder, if a scientist never contributes to the body of accepted science, is he/she still a scientist?
Over the decades I've met many writers who have never written anything... :wink:
I know someone whose musical work is so far beyond those of whom you hear on a regular basis, qualitatively speaking, that it's unbelievable. Yet, most people will never know his name, let alone that he was a musician. Nothing about that makes him a musician any less. To drive this home, most species that have ever lived on Earth have been exctinct for many millenia, doesn't make them any less a species.
....yes!
Illustration: Because politicians can be split into separate camps, belief in truth defines what a politician is.
You can substitute philosopher, politician, scientist, artist, etc.
I think you are talking about different things. I am talking about calling yourself a writer when you have never written (apart from emails or texts).
The matter of being unknown or unrecognised is quite different. So is the nature of species extinction. Both have contributed in a measurable way. My writer has not.
Going back to your OP, it's a good question. I generally draw a distinction between a philosophically inclined person and a philosopher. There are people who think philosophically without going the full monty. I also think there is a difference between holding a worldview and doing philosophy, but this one is more contentious.
I am not a philosopher and I say this because I do not have a system or hold a coherent approach and nor am I steeped in the key works of the tradition.
But just as there is good and bad art I think there is good and bad philosophy - so it may well be that when someone says Jordan Peterson is NOT a philosopher what they could mean is he is not a good philosopher. There is a tendency to withhold a title from someone if they are deemed bad at it. But for me a bad artist is just as much an artist as a good one. (Actually Peterson seems to be a populariser/interpreter of other's ideas rather than an original thinker.)
I think philosophy, and therefore philosophers, is simply the asking of certain questions. This predates the word "philosophy," of course.
So a philosopher is someone particularly interested in basic questions about the world. Similar to scientists -- with the difference being that scientists restrict themselves to nature.
:lol:
So you don't see a need for any core competencies?
If you're both interested in biology and ask/answer questions about biology (and, because it's a science, perhaps conduct research), then yes. What else would qualify you, degrees? In that case, Aristotle wasn't a biologist.
It's not just a matter of interest. Philosophy, if I'm correct, consists not only in the interest, but in really asking these questions. It's engaging and struggling with the questions. That's philosophy. To some degree, perhaps we're all philosophers. If you want to label yourself "philosopher," then I assume it's more than a fleeting hobby -- but something you take seriously, that you are frequently engaged in, that takes priority in your life, that is a top value, etc.
For example?
Notice how this goes beyond mere interest?
Here is the definition of philosophy:
The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
Hope that sheds some light on things going forward.
I didn't say it was about interest -- I said it was about questions. One has to first have an interest, yes -- but that's obvious.
Quoting Garrett Travers
There is no definitive definition of philosophy. Citing a dictionary tells us exactly nothing. To consider it "especially" an academic discipline is really absurd, in my view. That too would rule out the presocratics.
Perhaps. And perhaps you owe an apology to Bernie Sanders, Jordan Peterson, Freud et al. for treating them less than philosophers :grin:
But I had a similar experience as described in the OP. Initially, I thought that philosophers were very specific types of people, but then I was surprised to learn that this term is used more loosely and broadly. It seems like it is used as another way to say "thinker", or a "thought leader".
The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
Does this change your determination of what a philosopher is?
Does this change your determination of what a philosopher is?
No, you said interest defines a philosopher. You also said someone who asks questions.
[quote="Xtrix;647760"]There is no definitive definition of philosophy. Citing a dictionary tells us exactly nothing."
Citing a dictionary tells us nothing..... No, in fact it tells us exactly what words mean. It's exactly the opposite of what you concluded.
In other words, answer the question.
Barely a glimmer.
Wiki:
Those were the good old days. :halo:
I said a philosopher is defined by the questions he or she asks, because that's what I consider philosophy. The "interest" in these questions is incidental, and obvious.
If I was to give a definition, I would go for something ambiguous, e.g. a philosopher is someone who thinks about life.
:ok:
[quote=Cratylus]:zip: Wriggle finger.[/quote]
At minimum, the courage to dialectically examine one's own assumptions and to reason towards better, more probative questions of reason's limits.
Btw, I prefer freethinker to "philosopher", and reserve the latter as an honorific for the dead (professors / PhDs aka "academic mandarins" don't count).
I tried googling the definition of that word. No results. What does it mean?
I'm asking you - but obviously not or you would listed some, hey? I was thinking some basic reading or knowledge of logic. Your definition means my grandmother is a philosopher. Ok.
Quoting Xtrix
Now this I can get.
Perhaps probative - with an 'a" - Having the quality or function of proving or demonstrating something; affording proof or evidence.
:up: Muchas gracias señor!
The rest is academic pomposity most of the time and playing with ego conflation.
Quoting Garrett Travers
No, but I'm describing what a philosopher is. You wrote:
Quoting Garrett Travers
How is that inconsistent with saying:
Quoting karl stone
I do not dedicate enough of my time and effort to the area to be able to 'debate' the details that the more seasoned practitioner (often called expert) can present.
I cannot 'debate the experts' in the field but that does not stop me from becoming a 'gifted amateur' and it does not mean that I could not come up with a 'wee gem' no one else had thought of.
I think this is true in all fields of study.
I take a rather simplistic but valid viewpoint, I think:
Humans need labels to try to make sense of the Universe.
Scientists use the scientific method to create their labels and combine them into equations and formulae and even laws and then they constantly scrutinise these labels to make sure they are still valid when they encounter new relevant scenarios and data. If a label does not hold then it is rejected.
Politicians create their labels and use them to make policies and establish doctrines, etc and all our lives are affected by their musings and their deliberations.
Philosophers create their labels. They then assess their labels and everyone else's labels from a more esoteric standpoint. They assess the wisdom and rigor of the suggested consequences implied by a particular set of labels. They ruminate about the implied meaning behind individual and combined labels. Their goal is ultimately the same goal as the scientist but from a different perspective. They both seek the big TOE. Theory of everything. The philosophers may be happier with the idea that they seek 'The real truth about existence.'
Every human on the planet uses all the labels created by all these other people to the best of their understanding and each person will mix/combine them, with labels produced by their own local dialect and create conversations and make decisions.
I am not a philosopher (although I declare a serious interest) but I enjoy entering their playpen.
I hope they don't find me too unqualified to take part.
As I said, my viewpoint is a very simplistic one:
I see a multitude of labels and I watch the need to scrutinise the validity of every one of them and the relationships between them, EXHAUSTIVELY! in pursuit of the big TOE.
I apologise for my extensive use of the word 'label'...... :naughty:
I take issue with the idea of a philosopher this statement implies. There are people on this forum who have extensive knowledge of what, usually - a few particular philosophers have said, but who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag. They are devotees, not philosophers - and if you're not careful, they'll induct you into their cult!
You are entirely correct about labels. I think the proper term is operationalization, or atleast labeling falls under that rubric. We have to categorize things to make sense of them. The most glaring example I can thing of is taxonomy. It isn't as if those labels are actually real, we made them up. However, what a marvelous aid it is in the study of species.
Great post, friend!
-G
Do I?
No, you do not.
Well I guess it's better than deliberately ignoring me!
and
Quoting karl stone
Are incompatible statements: The study of knowledge, reality, and existence is not belief in truth for the sake of it being understood, or obscured. It is the study of these things for their own sake. Just as biology is the study of life for its own sake.
Isn't it obvious?
:smile:
Ha Ha... thanks for the heads up!
If what you say has any element of truth within it then perhaps, over time, I will be less concerned about being able to hold my intellectual ground during dialogue with all comers on this forum. Hopefully, I will also never ossify and always maintain an open mind towards the viewpoints of others.
Thanks Garrett.
Yeah, I agree with all you said in your response. You sound like one of the contributors who is able to clarify aspects of academic philosophical theory. From your studies, you will know the accurate labels that I don't know. In my opinion, its not your job to explain the labels so that I can grasp their underlying concepts. That's what the like of google search can do for me. So the ownness is on me to take the time to study the meanings behind any label you present before I respond to you about it.
If I don't 'get it' after reading about it then I ask pop a question on the forum.
Such activities can only help me better form opinions on the issue under discussion.
That's probably what we are all here for!
I'm away to google 'operationalisation,' I'm not familiar with that label.
I specifically agree with your comment regarding the need or extreme usefulness of the human ability to categorise. Although I don't subscribe to Plato's use of that skill to introduce his 'Forms' and his suggestion that 'Logos' is the big TOE, or the ultimate label. I have been introduced to no evidence that convinces me of the existence of the metaphysical or the divine. Yet!
I am so going to steal the term 'intellectual masturbation,' I don't seem to have encountered (I refuse to say 'come across it'..oh,...I just did) it before. It is a great descriptor for the smug look I have often viewed on the face of one protagonist when they think they have just scored an intellectual point against another. I think I will be using that term when I see that look in someone's face again. I think its a great counter. I admit to secretly feeling that way myself, when in debate but I have always felt a little ashamed afterward. Or at least, it makes me question my own motivations and priorities when dealing with others around me.
There's often detectable traces of truth in what I say, and here it's the idea that in-depth knowledge of a philosopher's works can become a prison for the mind. I think that's true. So don't let people browbeat you with appeals to authority. I also believe there are, what I call 'obscurantists' - who, for a variety of reasons, seek to make things as complicated and obscure as possible.
Quoting universeness
You seem to have an agile and enquiring mind, but come across as a bit uncertain of yourself. I just wanted you to know, in depth knowledge of philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher.
Yep, all valid observations in my opinion.
Quoting karl stone
Thanks for your kind words. I am glad regarding "a bit uncertain of yourself,' Otherwise, the danger is 'arrogance' and even 'delusions of superiority over others.' I recently retired, so I'm old enough to at least claim to be, not one of life's neophytes.
I appreciate what you say regarding:
"in depth knowledge of philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher"
but I agree more with the general case of a comment made earlier by another contributer, in that
You can qualify as a Philosopher and demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the field but you might not be a good philosopher. Someone said earlier that 'Jordan Peterson may be a philosopher but he may not be considered a good one.' But then again it's also important to note that good/bad philosopher is within the opinion of the observer and such opinion can, of course, vary greatly.
I was more interested in his definition of a sophist, as 'one who is wise', without the 'love' aspect.
I also thought it was interesting when he said that a main difference between a philosopher and a sophist is that a sophist offered their wisdom for sale or for payment. He went on to say that this was not true of people like Socrates, so Socrates was not a sophist.
So would all teachers who accept pay today be correctly called sophists?
Could philosophers who take money for on-line debates etc also be called sophist?
Is it because money became involved in disseminating wisdom that sophistry became a word associated with an intention to deceive and someone who should not be trusted?
But is the difference you suggest enough to separate the two?
'How to be wise' as opposed to 'how to stop being unwise and by doing so, I assume, become wise', which just seems to me to be the counterfactual position. So the sophist is merely the counterfactual of the philosopher?
Is this accurate?
Reasoning?
Can one study philosophy without becoming a philosopher? Can one engage in philosophical thinking without contributing to a philosophical school of thought? What is the exact moment when one becomes a philosopher?
Excellent question, exactly the direction I was hoping this would go naturally.
Can one study philosophy without becoming a philosopher? Yes, in fact most people study many domains of thought without becoming a member of that domain. For example, I can study music all I want, but unless I compose it, recite it, play it, or develop the requisite skills to do so, then I am not a musician. The same is true for biology, or history, or art.
Can one engage in philosophical thinking without contributing to a philosophical school of thought? Of course, you may end up just drawing conclusions drawn by philosophers long ago, or conclude something unequivocally false.
What is the exact moment when one becomes a philosopher? At the very same moment someone becomes a musician: when ones knowledge, command, skill, or profiency on the subject is able to be utilized by the individual to contribute something new to the field, even if they don't contribute to it. That is what I assert.
Quoting Garrett Travers
If two people independently drew the same conclusion in the field of philosophy, would only one of them become a philosopher, the one who did it earlier than the other? Or perhaps the one who reached a broader audience?
No, they would both still be philosophers, if they meet the criteria set out in quote two there. It isn't about drawing the same conclusions, or not. What I said earlier was that you can engage with philosophical thought without being a phiosopher, the conclusion drawing bit was just an example of how that could happen. What defines a philosopher is contained in the second of my quotes you provided. Use that as a reference to quote one.
Forgive me, I made a false connection between conclusions and contributions. I meant to aks: If two people offer the same contribution to the field, would only one of them contributing something new to the field? Would this make only one of them a philosopher?
Well, no. Not if the contribution was genuinely new. For example, both Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace are both the original developers of evolutionary theory; they're both scientists offering the same thing. It's simply going to be the job of scientists, or philosophers in your example, to determine whose model is of greater value, accuracy, or usefulness. Again, what defines the philosopher is his/her command, skill, proficiency in the art, as it is only with such apptitude that philosophy can be contributed to, as a basic rule. Of course, there are times when people happen to contribute to individual fields, such as Farrady with electromagnetism, Farrady wasn't a scientist really, but he certainly contributed kind of by accident.
Do you think there is an analogy to the musical world? In the musical world, there are people who contribute by writing new music, developing new techniques and creating new genres, and there are also performers who arguably don't contribute something new to the field, but they are still called musicians for their skill and proficiency. Is there an analogy in the field of philosophy?
Maybe she is. So what? Were the presocratics "philosophers"? What were their "basic reading and knowledge of logic"?
Well in the case of the pre-Socratics these were noteworthy, perhaps epoch defining explorations of the important questions. There has to be a start to everything.
But the key thing is, if a person was still approaching philosophy like no progress had been made since the pre-Socratics and they are unaware of the key issues philosophy has raised, are they really philosophers just by asking questions?
I can't accept at this point that a philosopher is someone who asks certain questions as the sole criteria for being called one. It seems shallow. To me there needs to be a deeper level of approach and possibly some knowledge of philosophy. I am happy to hear a compelling argument against this view.
I think so, yes. But this is a minority view, and I don't pretend to speak for everyone. But apart from professionalization, I can't see what philosophy consists in if not that it's a particular kind of thinking, defined by the questions raised. If one is thinking about/turning one's attention to the question "What is a human being?" or "What is being?" or "What is the good life?", etc., then one is "doing" philosophy. That's what the presocratics were doing, that's what Socrates was doing, that's what peoples throughout history have done -- questions about death, about justice, about power, knowledge, value, and so on. Religion and science have much overlap, in this sense.
When you say "progress," I'm not sure that gets us far. We have much more written works than did the presocratics -- we have 2500 years more of history. That's true. Whether there's been progress or not is a judgment call.
Quoting Tom Storm
I can't help but think, when you say things like "knowledge of philosophy," that you have a particular view of what philosophy is to begin with -- namely, a field of study, a specialization, akin to a division of labor or academic discipline where there are experts about. That's in fact the common view: a philosopher is one who gets a degree in philosophy, teaches philosophy, or publishes works about philosophy. It's not that those people aren't philosophers, really -- it's that the term is not reserved simply for that.
How much engagement with these questions makes one a philosopher? That's the question, really. Is there some kind of time limit, where now you earn your title? I don't think so. Yet I would be leery if someone claimed to be a "writer," yet never wrote anything. If one claims to be a philosopher, but spends almost no time whatsoever contemplating philosophical questions, then I would probably roll my eyes.
Good response.
I think a level of competence is required - however that is measured (and I am not saying that I can identify what this is). Philosophy is an approach, sure, but that doesn't mean that everyone who takes this approach is a philosopher, just as not everyone who writes is a novelist.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, that's close. It's not just how much engagement but for me it's in the nature of that engagement.
Quoting Xtrix
Noted. When I said 'progress' I didn't mean progress of the 'case closed' kind. I simply referred to those ideas that have already been well articulated and are well understood (whether these are useful or deemed failures). Someone who is attempting to answer philosophical questions with no knowledge at all of philosophy is likely to not get very far unless they have other prodigious gifts. Perhaps Wittgenstein was in this category - and even he had read some philosophy.
Maybe it would help to look at an example. If a neophyte philosopher said - "I don't believe that the real world exists because only my senses tell me what there is and they are often wrong" - we'd be right to refer them to the literature to get them up to speed with some of what's been explored in this space.
For me this is the essence of the problem. Asking the big questions with total ignorance of the history of philosophy seems inadequate as a definition of philosopher.
I apologize if this is a bit of a windy post.
Thank you for articulating your view. That's a great way of looking at things, and definitely practical for the people studying philosophy. I will attempt to expand on it and articulate other views that I think exist out there. I don't think any of these views is better or more correct than any other. I accept all of them, and my only interest is to acknowledge them.
Here is how I draw an analogy with the musical world. There are three roles that I can identify:
A single person can assume multiple roles. Each role is associated with different types and levels of skills. Composers are creative people who bring something new to the world. Performers are skilful people who apply their skills for the benefit of self and others. Listeners are the people who have a taste in music. Although a lot of music doesn't require a skilful listener, I would argue that listening to the music is also a skill that can be developed.
I can see how these roles also exist in the world of philosophy, and they create different ways to view people as philosophers:
As I mentioned earlier, these views are different from one another, but I don't think that only one of them must be true, while the rest are false. My only goal is to acknowledge them.
Quoting pfirefry
That seems important to me.
Quoting pfirefry
A small scale philosopher? Is that like being partly pregnant? :smile: For me this would be best described as a person with a philosophical imagination. I would never say contributing something new is critical, but I would consider that knowing something about how philosophical questions have been approached previously is.
Haha, I couldn't think of a better way to frame it. I meant the scale of "me and the few other people who I can discuss philosophy with." The scale that is not publicly significant.
Quoting Tom Storm
Is there any way to tell if someone has enough knowledge about how philosophical questions have been approached in the past? Would it suffice if they arrived at this knowledge on their own, rather than by studying historical records?
My goal is to clarify, but not to challenge or dismiss.
I guess I disagree as a matter of definition. If one is asking big questions, one is doing philosophy. That doesn't mean it's good philosophy. Having read a little is important, as is engagement with others. So take the example of children -- they ask excellent questions. They're all little philosophers, in this respect. But are their answers very serious? "Why is the grass green?" "Where do we go when we die?" etc....all good questions, but we don't necessarily take their answers seriously.
So by definition, in my view, a person is a philosopher who engages seriously with philosophy (which I further define as thinking about these particular set of perennial, universal human questions) -- and perhaps added to that, holds these questions as utmost importance and returns to them frequently. At that point I think he or she has earned the title, just as a writer would who writes often and seriously. An average person who occasionally asks philosophical questions, just as one who can write, doesn't necessarily earn the title.
None of this is supposed to be concrete. It's all rather vague -- but it's the only way I can make sense of it without resorting to the standard appeals to academic credentials.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I like this and it is what I have in mind most of the time, and my friends.
Quoting _db
I get this, and often feel this way too. But there have to be philosophers around now too, don't you think?
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Does anyone know what the greeks meant by wisdom? What are they loving?
Quoting Xtrix
Woa. This is very general but I actually think I like it the most! Haven't come across this way of putting it that much. Do you consider YOURSELF a philosopher by this definition? What about others on the forum?
Quoting Xtrix
To philosophize is to pose (big? small? unbegged?) questions in such a way as to make explicit the limits of questioning (i.e. reason's limits).
Good question. It's hard to get too concrete about this but I am reluctant to call anyone a philosopher if they have never read any philosophy, don't know what the key issues have been, but just happen to ask some of the sorts of questions philosophy has asked even if it is often. That's all.
Quoting 180 Proof
Yes. I wonder if the matter rests in how 'to make explicit the limits of questioning' might look in practice.
Quoting Xtrix
Yeah, it may well be one of those difficult questions, like many of those philosophy covers.
Quoting John McMannis
No.
Again a matter of definition. By "big" questions, or "perennial" questions, or "fundamental" questions, I mean essentially the same as you're saying here. "What is death? What happens when we die?" Etc. Perennial questions, and certainly at the limit of our experience (although we can make educated guesses -- a long dreamless sleep would be my answer; nevertheless).
Quoting John McMannis
Thanks. I don't think it's that original, just slightly different wording of what others have said.
Quoting John McMannis
Good question. I've been called a thinker and philosopher from many people in my life. But that isn't necessarily saying much. I personally hate the moniker and would never identify myself this way. But, per my definition, yes I would be one -- as would probably most people on this forum.
Well, to build on what you've written previously, 'the history of philosophy' is indispensable as an archive of examples of 'making explicit the limits of questioning (i.e. reason's limits).'
"Being a philosopher is a sufficient (but not a necessary) condition for being a cunt."
EDIT: for the avoidance of doubt, I do consider myself to be a philosopher.
Why does this question matter? Yet another categorization attempt that is so typical of philosopher. Is that what philosophy is? The practice of demarcation? Setting boundaries? The intellect can only delineate and carve up, anatomise and atomise. Voilà, a description of typical western philosophers. Eastern philosophers would be described in another manner.
Systems like the Mars rover etc are often described as having some sort of 'decision making' ability, in that they have a lot of sensors to provide feedback. Even the most powerful computers we have, can only simulate human decision-making. Their 'decisions' are solely based on logic operations involving base concepts such as (IF, AND, OR, NOT, etc) combinations where the bit 1 represents the state 'true' and the bit 0 represents false.
Raw data like 25 has no meaning so is not information. 25 apples or Person age:25 is information.
Data+contextual label = information. This removes examples like Orange 25 which is data until contextualised by perhaps 'My entry code is Orange 25,' then it becomes information.
Demonstrating understanding of an item of information is what I would call knowledge.
Current electronic expert systems contain a component called a 'Knowledge base.'
You can enter your medical symptoms and the system will 'pattern match' with its knowledge base to diagnose your problem and then it will display advice for treatment, that it finds stored in a data file or record structure, matched to the name of an ailment. Such systems are in my opinion not 'intelligent.'
To demonstrate intelligence, a computer must be able to 'demonstrate ability beyond the parameters of its programming.'
If a computer system/robot does ever demonstrate such an ability, would it then be able to philosophise?
No emotion would be involved in such a system. Perhaps like Commander Data on Star Trek, was he/it capable of philosophy?
What is the absolute minimum an electronic system would have to be cabable of to demonstrate an ability to philosophise or perhaps even be called a philosopher?
The most philosopher bit is about 20:40 in
This makes me think of @Banno
It seems to me, that the main exchanges so far would suggest that the majority view here is that there is no objective example of a 'human philosopher.' There are 'gradations of human philosopher,' which is governed by 'level of study.' and the subjective opinions of others.
But could we create a 'better' philosopher by electronic, perhaps even quantum electronic, means?
???.....Ghosts don't exist.
I like that you always emphasize questioning, problematizing, etc.
I've been thinking about an analogy to something people are sometimes inclined to say about art, sport, warfare, literature, chess, business -- in short, every creative field: there are interesting cases where people "break the rules", where "rules" means something like "received wisdom". And just as often, people will say that you have to know the rules, have to master the standard techniques of, say, painting, or playing saxophone, or rock climbing, whatever, before you can break the rules. (And alongside this, there is recognition of the occasional masterful folk artist or untutored genius who doesn't even know the rules they're breaking. The exception that proves the rule.)
I've been thinking there may be an analogy here to philosophy's relationship to reason, because philosophy requires going beyond reason, but reason is often the best first step. I don't think reason can be self-grounding, define itself, judge itself, apply itself. There must be something more, and even if we can't pin it down, that more, that something else that might stand above or beyond even reason, is philosophy.
I've tried to articulate exactly what that is, and I'm having trouble. How about:
"The philosophical method is an investigation of the world (in the broadest sense of 'world') by the examination of concepts and their relations."
Does that work?
So by extension a philosopher is someone who does that.
Yes, Bert. You're getting closer to the mark. However, I would have you consider something. Let's say I want to get into music and I start playing guitar and learning how to sing. Naturally, there is going to be a learning curve between the time when I start learning those skill and the time when I can not only compose coherent music, but perform it in its complete form. I would say you are a musician when you have reached the latter point. I would also assert that the same thing goes for philosophy, science, art, or any other variation of productive activity or profession. Does that make sense?
My only problem with that, is that such a standard is not applied to any other profession. Meaning, people in this thread are not consistently reasoning this out. Nobody here would say there is no clear definition of a scientist, artist, plumber, carpenter, musician, etc. It doesn't make sense if everyone understands that all of those enumerated professions are distinguished by either work in the field, or the skill requisite to perform work in that field, and yet do not apply the same standard to philosophy. The reason I asked this question in the first place was because I had encountered this issue so many times, ad nauseum, that it simply had to be discussed because of how inconsistent people's views on the subject are.
It's tragic how you are so clear in your writing, yet are so often misread. I'm glad I am not so misunderstood, it must be a burden for you.
I have agreed with your definitions of 'philosopher' in general terms, but I do think the job title philosopher is 'more nuanced' than job titles such as physicist. I do think 'nuanced' is also true of job titles such as artist, musician, politician, cook etc. I personally don't consider Tracey Emin or Damien Hirst etc artists. Unless you put the word 'con' in front of the term. Yet that's the title they currently hold. Of all the people in the world who state the title politician in their job description, I think there are few who should actually be assigned as such. This is just my opinion of course but some job titles are more open to the subjective opinion of people compared to others
Quoting 180 Proof
Demonstrating an ability to express clear meaning so that all, or at least the majority of readers 'understand' what you are trying to explain, can be very difficult.
I know this, as a school teacher of 30 years experience.
One key strategy is to try to not get too inebriated with your own verbosity.
Dunno. Potential contingencies, in the aftermath of an intergrowth of two non-abelian intrinsically curved gauge fields, expressed as fibre bundles on the cotangent normalized perpendicularity, as in ophicalcite, myrmekite, or micropegmatite, relating to or being a bone between the hyomandibular and the quadrate in the mandibular suspensorium, should be implemented in mutual conservation of synchrone synergy, as an holistic collapse of the emblematic synthesis implicitly augmenting an asgardian symplectic symbolism, pervading confabulations the contemporary crisis in modern colloquial language.
We should be on guard and immanently attempt for less pretentiously loquacious talkatives; garruloussly avoiding gossipy and loose-lippened, indiscrete blabber, and aim for an objective silver tongue, so we can effectively and
efficiently adapt a communicative transparent mode of speech, instead of the chatty and loose-tongued vocalizations so blindly uttered by fellow subjects in present society, leading to incomensurable inconsistencies and incoherency.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Funny stuff. Yes for me verbosity isn't the main problem - it's the poor syntax combined with unnecessary jargon.
Yep, that's all I am saying, we just have to spoke in clear England, that much good for clear things.
I agree, and I think cromwell1 does too. I do appreciate that it's hard to discuss complicated philosophical concepts without 'jargon' but attempting to exemplify using everyday experience style examples are appreciated, if not always possible.
That's a very high standard. What reasons/believes are behind this assertion?
In my view, you become a musician as soon as you hit that first note on your guitar. I'm invested in rock music. I recently listened to two interviews with successful musicians Tom Morello and Dave Grohl. Both recalled the days they first played their instruments as the days their journeys as musicians started. Even more so, Dave Grohl started drumming even before he got his first drum kit. He had an unusual habit of drumming using only his teeth. When I'm thinking of young Dave playing songs using his teeth on his way to school, I'm seeing a musician in him.
Overall, I see this problem as an instance of the sorites paradox. It's easy to know a musician, but there is no reliable way to determine the exact moment the transition happened. Because there is no objective way to answer this question, I've settled on a subjective approach:
Someone becomes a musician/philosopher as soon as they start identifying themself as a musician/philosopher.
It's not a perfect definition, but it's practical. Its main significance is to protect a moral belief that I have. I believe that it is wrong to strip people of their identity. If someone identifies as a musician/philosopher, I think it is wrong for others to claim otherwise. It is still fine to omit this detail when it has low relevance. If someone claims to be a musician but they never play music, there is no value in referring to them as a musician. But we also should refrain from claiming that they aren't a musician. We can only make more specific claims, e.g. they are not a professional musician because they are not making money with music, or they are not proficient in music theory, etc.
My conclusion is that the following are not the right questions to ask: "What constitutes a philosopher?", "When does one become a philosopher?". Some better questions would be: "How does one become known as a philosopher?", "What makes a philosopher great?", "What is it like to be a philosopher?"
and to everyone else on this thread/site.
Enjoyed today's exchanges. Cornwell1 gave me the good giggle I needed to start my day/night Saturday session.
I am away to meet friends in town and drink alcohol until I'm forced to stop.
Perhaps after the beers are flowing well, I will ask the company.
So guys 'What constitutes a Philosopher.' They may respond or they may throw their drinks at me. I will find out soon.
Cheers Fur Noo!
:rofl:
Have a good time mate!
I am actually a musician myself, I've been writing music for years, and at heart I had always considered myself a musician even when I was in the middle of my learning curve. But, in reality unless you can actually compose, or perform music, meaning you have the requisite skills to do so, you're not a musician. You may be a musician in training, but not a musician quite. Right, you would call a sophomore physics student a phycisist, unless of course he was already capable of conducting his own expriments and formulating theories and what not. Same goes for philosophy, or medicine, or music.
Quoting pfirefry
So, if I told you I was physician you'd regard me as one, even I didn't have the training or the skill to administer medicine? Self-identification is quite a tricky subject.
Quoting pfirefry
I can actually offer a bridge here, I also don't like shattering people's identity. I would say if my son came to me and said he was philsopher, or a good friend did, I wouldn't explain to him this standard. I would entertain the idea and encourage him to dive deep into the field and become more interested in it so he could further incorporate into his identity in the hopes that one day he would become a philosopher who could theorize and promote new valuable ideas in the field.
Quoting pfirefry
I like this one good deal. I would answer that what makes a great philosopher is whether or not he/she was successful in presenting the world with a paradigm shifting epistemology that brought those who heeded it closer to a life of morality, productivity, peace, and interpersonal harmony. Which, there have been many to do date.
I am actually with you here. I went to the Cincinnati art museum a few years ago and there wasn't a piece of art in the entire damn building. So, your sentiment here is completely acceptable to me. That being said, if we jettison that kind of material from the discussion and instead focus on actually talking about the legitimate side of all these professions, the standard that I assert that defines them is the skill and knowledge requisite to perform within that given domain independent of an instructor. We agree there?
Thanks! I had a great time and collapsed into my bed in the wee small hours.
There were 9 of us, so the chat was varied, multifaceted and deep(at times).
Too much to report here. They all ridiculed the antinatalist view, however.
I think that was the only position where there was strong consensus.
I'm sure the antinatalists could find 10 supporters however (perhaps a global search would be required) to defeat my nine votes against.
We do agree there!
Awesome! Cool, making headway.
Nietzsche says that the "real philosophers are commanders and law-givers." (Beyond Good and Evil, "We Scholars")
Yes, he did. And in his time, he had good reason for saying so. However, in the spirit of Nietszche, I would the real philosopher is he who realizes the that only alternative to a value for value trade of the products of one's mind, is the rule of commanders and law-givers. And I'd say in my own time I have good reason for saying so. But, that's just saying as much in the same spirit. The acual philosopher is the one has developed enough virtue within the domain to discuss, generate, and teach within the domain with proficient command. And I think I'm closer to the mark than Nietszche.
Quoting Garrett Travers
OK, let's start from something simple and obvious: A philosopher is someone who practices philosophy. The word "philosopher" comes from the ancient Greek "philos" (= friend, lover) and "sophia" (= wisdom). This is very simple, but of course, not everyone who loves wisdom can be called a philosopher! The key word is "practicing", i.e. he must be involved systematically in philosophy, as a field of knowledge, and esp. as a profession. I guess it is the same with a scientist, who is involved systematically in science, as a field of knowledge, and esp. as a profession.
One cannot be called a "translator" because he can translate text from one language to another. He has to do that on a systematic basis, esp. as a profession.
Moreover, I believe that one must also show a lot of products of his work on philosophy. The works may be in written (books) and/or oral (lectures) form.
A writer I know used to say, "For one to be (called) a writer, he has to write a lot of books."
Exactly, Alkis. Nailed it. I may also love music, doesn't make me a musician. So, I've got an awesome question for you regarding one of philosophy's branches. If what you just described as a philosopher is true, which we can tell it is because it is consistent - even the Socratics understood that the idea of loving wisdom was an active pursuit - what does such a definition tell us in regards to ethics?
Wow! That's the fastest reply I have ever received! :smile:
Quoting Garrett Travers
Do you mean "ethics" as a branch of philosophy or as a specialization , e.g. "ethics officer", post in "department of ethics", etc.?
Did Socrates pursue philosophy as a profession?
Is a sophist a philosopher?
I posted this on p3 of this thread:
"I watched a lecture on YouTube a while ago that was the beginning of a philosophy course and that particular lecturer (A young American guy) described a philosopher in the literal translation of 'philo' meaning love and 'sophie' meaning wisdom, so as was posted earlier, a lover of wisdom.
I was more interested in his definition of a sophist, as 'one who is wise', without the 'love' aspect.
I also thought it was interesting when he said that a main difference between a philosopher and a sophist is that a sophist offered their wisdom for sale or for payment. He went on to say that this was not true of people like Socrates, so Socrates was not a sophist.
So would all teachers who accept pay today be correctly called sophists?
Could philosophers who take money for on-line debates etc also be called sophist?
Is it because money became involved in disseminating wisdom that sophistry became a word associated with an intention to deceive and someone who should not be trusted?"
I got this response from 180 proof
?universeness The fundamental difference, I think, between "philosophers" and "sophists" is that the latter tend to reason from one's position (i.e. rationalize (e.g. dogmas) ... teaching 'how to be wise') and the former tend to reason against one's position (i.e. problematize (e.g. aporias) ... unlearning 'unwise habits').
Ethics as a branch of philosophy, informed by your definition of a philosopher. What does that tell us of ethics, you think?
I can't see anything else than a philosopher specialized in ethics. As a biologist is a scientist specialized in biology. There's no difference regasrding where one is specialized in.
(If I undestand your question correctly and always within in the frame of "philosophers".)
The sophists were a diverse group. The term came to have a negative connotation but it was not always used that way. On the other hand, the term 'philosopher' was sometimes used in a derogatory sense. They were no always held in high regard. In Aristophanes' Clouds Socrates is depicted as a sophist. When Plato criticizes the sophist I take the difference to be a matter of intention. The sophist's intention is to persuade, to "make the weaker argument stronger", without regard to the truth.
Socrates not charging money speaks to the issue of benefit. He did not teach in order to benefit himself, and did not refuse to teach those who could not pay. He also did not refuse to take money from his followers.
I won't put you on the spot anymore, but I'll tell you what I think, given that I agree with your definition completely, which I do. If a philosopher is one who practices within the field, at least enough to gain enough of a command to do it independently, or teach it, or what have you. Then it appears to me that an ethicist is one who practices ethics, at least to the same degree. Just as I would say the same for a musician. Which begs the question, just how many ethicists do we have among us these days? What do you think? Am I on to something here?
I don't know exactly who was labeled 'sophist' in the classical era but the lecturer in the video I mentioned, seemed to suggest that the sophists were those who taught the young men how to be wise but they charged for their services. I take it you consider this inaccurate, perhaps I was not attentive enough to everything that was said about the sophists in the lecture.
That would be something like an "ethics philosopher". Socrates talked a lot about "virtue", which is not exactly ethics, but this subject characterized him.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Actually, I have never heard talking about "ethicists" ... I just looked that up in the Web ... Wikipedia describes such a person as "one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgment. Following the advice of ethicists is one means of acquiring knowledge." Well, priests can be also have that role, although I believe thay are quite biased and usually dogmatic.
Indeed, what makes you wondering about "ethicists"? Aren't philosophers your subject?
Generally, what the sophists taught was how to win arguments, how to persuade others to do what is to your advantage. For some this is what it means to be wise. Socrates attempted to persuade them otherwise.
No, he wasn't. His profession was stone-worker. And, although hdid not even considered himself as a teacher, I strongly believe he was a teacher. In fact, one of the best that we know at that period of time and, for a lot of people, of all time. Anyway, it seems that he was systematically involved in philosophy and he produced a lot of work in that area, not in writing but verbally, by dialoguing. (Re: Plato's "Dialogues", Socratic dialogues.)
All this makes him certainly a philosopher, according to my position on the subject.
Yes. For example, I am a philosopher by academic study, by pursuit of knowledge, and by product in writing. I focus in ethics, which is the branch that formulates reliable, consistent, and logically valid systems of moral behavior.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
And that my friend is exactly my point that I'd hoped you'd pick up on. Of course, the ethicists are here among us somewhere doing something, but they aren't among us in the sense that we generally discuss the field, say, with friends, family, aquaintances. This is a big deal. If only so many people are musicians, which means only so many people are practicing and producing music, then the state that such a recognition leaves the field of ethics and the practicing and production of sound moral systems is quite limited. And, I'd wager to say that there are FAR more musicians than ethical philosophers.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Ah, it's just my passion, I love this field, you see? I am always wondering if we can bring more people into the fold and increase the man-power associated with developing moral behaviors. I imagine you haven't missed noticing that we're in a deficit right now, by and large, eh?
It's a bit different for Socrates. Mainly because he was the first ethicist in Western history, and philosophy was still such a young concept that humans were working with. That being said, Socrates was eternally committed to developing himself in the pursuit of the good. He was always the philosopher, even in death.
I was responding to your claim that the philosopher is someone who practices it as a profession. The professionalization of the field is something worth thinking about. There are some, Thoreau comes to mind, who are quite critical of the profession of philosophy.
In the first section of the Leviathan, Hobbes delivers a hearty rant against Greek philosophers and all who followed in their footsteps. The short version: They are a bunch of wankers, free to wander about gardens without trousers while discussing problems that don't really exist.
I take this to be an invitation to look more closely at Hobbes in light of the ancients, and the ancients in light of Hobbes.
I liked that. I am also of the opinion that ethics are based on rationality.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I guess this was always the case ...
Quoting Garrett Travers
Ethics is one of my favorite subjects too.
And yes, I think it is evident that "we're in a deficit right now" regarding moral behaviors.
There are many reasons for that, as well as a lot to say about developing moral behaviors, which looks like a good subject for a next topic of mine. I don't want to "kill" this one! :smile:
I always enjoy hearing about the 'beginnings' of our attempts at founding a 'civilisation' or the earliest city-states etc. The case of Socrates is very interesting considering the fact that we have no actual writings from him. Everything we know about him is sourced from others writing bout him. So we are dependent on the accuracy of their reports. I think there were probably many people before Socrates and even contemporary to him who could be described as 'ethicist' or 'wise man/woman.' That's another issue I feel we don't give enough airtime to. Wise women such as Hypatia.
I think it's probably unfortunate that classical Greece and Rome had such a massive impact on our modern civilisations in the West. I think a much more nuanced approach would have been better.
Most of the very early indigenous groups from the aboriginals to the Aztec, Minoan and Shang cultures had a much better respect for the Earth's resources than the Romans and Greeks.
I think early city-state-type settlements from The Akkadians, the Phonecians, Earliest Persians etc had many pearls of wisdom to offer, which were probably destroyed by early morons such as Alexander the great(dickhead).
We should teach that our first and biggest mistake was the idea that progress and uniting peoples could only ever be achieved by conquering them, enslaving them and stealing everything they had.
I think that we should stop admiring early Greece and Rome.
I think it was mimicry of these moronic cultures that started us on the incredibly bloody path to the destructive cultures we have today. I might be being a bit harsh on the Romans and Greeks. It may well be that such behavior was inevitable due to our Darwinian experiences in the wild but it is such a real shame that we valued and respected our greatest warriors rather than our greatest thinkers.
The braun can always kill brain approach proved to be such a costly way to progress.
How much better would it have been if early civilisations could have grown together and eventually have united in peace instead of through violence. I think we would be a far more harmonious species today and would not always be on the brink of our own destruction.
Ten thousand years of slaughtering anything different from what some local. tribal, tough guy, F***wit leader considered 'the only way to do things' is why we are in the state we are in now.
If only we could all see that it was these dimwitted, totally wrong f***** up early decisions that we must stop emulating and repeating. We based our civilisation on some of the worse elements of those early ones. Rich, poor, money, divine right of kings, rule of the strongest, conquest as a means of expansion, etc, etc
wrong! wrong! wrong!
What do you mean with this? Can you give an example?
Quoting Garrett Travers
The "he" as philosopher is indeed in spirit with Nietzsche (not Nietszche...).
As said, "especially as a profession". I mentioned also other factors that can qualify someone as a philosopher ...
Quoting Fooloso4
Well, this is his opinion! :smile:
Here are some of the many references containing a contrary opinion, which I could easily find:
- Philosophy as a Profession
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24435126
- Professional Philosophy
https://portfolium.com/entry/my-professional-philosophy
- Is philosophy a profession?
https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/is-philosophy-a-profession-yes-its-a-serious-question/
...
You can find more if you like ...
You can also see the subject of professionalization from a practical viewpoint, in reality: How do you call philosophers who use philosophy for living, by writing books or delivering lectures about their own philosophical ideas? OK, let writing aside, because you could call them professional "writers". But what about lectures? Would you call them a professional "lecturers"?
Anyway, "professionalization" is not a main issue in this topic. As it often happens in these discussions, we have deviated from the main subject of the topic, which here is to determine what qualifies someone as a philosopher. .
Most non-philosophers that shouldn't be considered philosophers don't conduct proper arguments or try any kind of evaluation of their own argument, they just present opinion pieces.
That is the difference.
Now, it's difficult to frame all philosophers within this framework since much of the proper methods are what we've arrived at in modern times. So many old and dead philosophers cannot be judged in the same light. But the question is what constitutes a philosopher and we can only conclude for today's people and at this time, the methods of philosophy are much more strict and focused than ever before and philosophers are only the ones who follow that strict method and constantly put their own argument under scrutiny.
Full disclosure: I am a philosopher by profession. I have a PhD in philosophy and many years of teaching before I retired.
I have always been reluctant to call myself a philosopher. I think of myself, my colleagues, and my teachers as students of philosophy. I prefer to reserve the term for those rare individuals who have on the historical scale fundamentally shaped our way of thinking.
Thoreau observed that professors of philosophy go to work, come home, and live lives indistinguishable from their neighbors. He saw philosophy as a way of life, the art of living. Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living.
I used to say that philosophy was a transformative practice, but unfortunately that has become hackneyed.
I would be interested in your opinion of Jordan Peterson? If you were willing to give it?
Also, do you think neuroscientists such as Sam Harris can bridge any gap between Science and philosophy, can anyone be called a 'Scientific Philosopher?'
It's probably already been said but I like your play on fool lo sofour(4) or foolosopher. :rofl:
It's actually a funny thing in the history of philosophy. It is general accepted and not disputed that Socarates in fact did live, however it's kind of an unspoken agreement in the field that its very much possible that he's a fictional character
Quoting universeness
Hypatia is among my favorites. One of the few true female philosophers we've had. We haven't had many for some reason. But, yes, the "pre-Socratic' philosophers Thales, Anaxagorus, Anaximander were all before Socrates, but they were very much concerned with metaphysics. I've not found myself too interested in them I have to confess.
Quoting universeness
That is true in many regards, the Aztecs were particularly impressive. Tenochtitlan was a marvel of an ancient city. However, I am a bit reserved on concluding that earth's resources were really regarded by any people like we view them today. Respect of such things has come in many forms throught the millenia.
Quoting universeness
This has been the standard from the as far back as Babylon on before. When humans became a food producing species, it became clear that humans were split between two types of people, producers and consumers. But, this recognition caused another split, laborers and opprotunists. The game quickly became to the victor go the spoils, and the devil take the hindmost. Early Greeks and Romans have many things to be admired for, they weren't even remotely the most destructive, or savage people. The Huns used to have contests to see who could slaughter the most babies in raids. Try to remember human standards back then as established by the pathetic brutes that rather snuff out the torch to have sovereignty for themselves, instead of letting the human mind flourish in freedom. We are all better people than these monsters. Most of us...
Quoting universeness
I thin you are being harsh. Greece was the first "civilized" place on the planet, not that standards for such were high, which is why it ended up leading to the Roman Empire being the world power. The path of blood began long before the phonecians and lydians etc. ever even landed in Greece. And it was specifically the Greek philosophical tradition that has kept the West from remaining stuck in its post-Roman tribalism and mysticism, even if Christianity still vitiates the tradition in ways most don't even go about noticing. Valuing warriors was necessary to keep the brutes at bay. It wasn't the thinkers running the show in any of these realms. The thinkers had to hide. Sound a bit familiar? Thinking really wasn't valued as it is today until after the fall of Constantinople and the idea of Christendom as a unifying ideal fell apart before the world. That's when Machievelli, and Galileo, Copernicus, Michelangelo, Newton, Leibnitz, all came out of hiding, so to speak. The world could think for the first time. And it was DIRECTLY inspired by the Greek philosophical tradition.
Quoting universeness
The weak and pathetic mystics of muscle don't care about consciousness, only how it can serve their own sovereignty. There are far fewer thinkers on this earth than those who can't stand the fact that to think is to live. They hate life and will take it from you before they are forced to face that reality, and the responsibility attendant upon it.
Quoting universeness
We will get there in time, it is inevitable. We've made strides, man, vast strides just in the past 80 years alone. The collective awareness of evil is what needs to be the focus. And we have to beat those who would seek to convince people that domination of any kind is justified. There are still many, many people who hold this opinion, it's on display every time we go to vote, every time another shooting happens, and every time you hear about tribal affinity. Ethics is the only hope humanity has, we must all strive to be philosophers if it means our asses.
If you want an example of a contemporary sophist Peterson comes to mind first. At some point he began to garner attention and has milked it for all its worth.
Quoting universeness
I would look to someone like Patricia Churchland to do that with regard to neuroscience, and Sean Carroll for physics. They are not the only ones, but they do write for the general public.
I think Harris has become a willing victim of his own success, giving his pronouncements on all kinds of things simply because he has an audience.
You may be the first to have commented on my forum name.
Do me a favor and provide more context on which statements these quotes were pulled from, there's too much for me to sift throught to find them to give you a proper response.
I think it goes back much further. Do we chastise the Lion for slaughtering a baby deer and consuming it or killing the cubs of a rival? It's 'law of the jungle stuff'. I'm sure there were many savage members of our evolutionary lineage right back to our common ape ancestors. I think terms like human monster/brute etc became valid when our triune brain began to coalesce into individuals who started to 'measure' behavior against emergent phenomena such as morality/ethics. A battle has ensued ever since between emergent morality/ethics against our 'law of the jungle' beginnings and I think the first mistake we ever made was to allow the braun of the few to dominate the brain of the many.
It's such a shame that the brains of the many did not group together from the start and kill those who wanted to be king of everyone else.
Do you think he struggles with his own sanity?
Quoting Fooloso4
I really like Sean Carroll. Listened to a great podcast between him and Carlo Rovelli on Loop Quantum Gravity etc. Excellent stuff.
Do you think there is any sense/value in the title 'Scientific Philosopher?'
Quoting Fooloso4
That does surprise me, it's so cool and well-chosen. The self-deprecation you employ, considering your academic background suggests a humorous and modest persona, which is always refreshing to encounter.
I don't know. I have not read anything by or about him in a long time. I usually do not watch videos, although sometimes I do put them on 2x speed and read the closed captions along with the audio. Perhaps it is not his sanity that he struggles with but his need to remain in the public eye.
Added:
Quoting universeness
I do see some value in it.
Quoting universeness
I see I have you fooled! The work of a foolosopher.
As was always the case, and why the brutes used mysticism and force to stifle human thought. They knew, being the only people enjoying sovereignty in themselves, that humans generate concepts like leaves from a tree. The reason why we don't group, is because we have separate views of what constitutes ethics, and unless we can coalesce around the primacy of the individual human consciousness from whence all morality comes, we never will.
I watch a lot of his YouTube stuff. I think he is very intelligent but he seems to me to have tremendous internal struggles. I watched an old video chat between him and Stephen Fry where It seemed to me that Jordan spent most of his time holding back the tears.
Quoting Fooloso4
:rofl: So perhaps not so modest after all. Nothing wrong with "keepin em all guessin" as long as the intent is not nefarious.
Well, we have had 10,000 years of tears to understand this freaking message.
I get it, I am ready to be called an Earthling, no more nations, no more ethnicity, no currencies, no rich. None of that BS.
Just us! as one species, looking out towards the vastness of space. Grown-ups AT LAST!
"No Gods, No Kings, Only Man." - Andrew Ryan
You're talking my utopia here, pal. I'd give anything for people to snap out it, love themselves, understand the breadth and deapth of consciousness, build ethics up, reinvigorate literature, and make music. We'll get there, or we'll create a place that guarantees it. Either way, I couldn't be more thrilled to be alive now in the fight to make it so. I'm working on ethical epistemologies, finishing my degree, planning to build a school, writing my first novel, and composing music when I can. That's where love of consciousness is found, man, in creation. Doesn't matter what it is, only that you did it because your god damn being demanded it. Let the world destroy itself, but leave something behind for it when she blows.
I'm standing beside you Garrett, singing the same songs, determined to ensure a better way.
All power to you!
It was never about the ethnics, its always been about the ethics!!
That's it, brother!
(Sorry I missed to reply on this)
I'm surprised that you are using present time ... I couldn't think that sophists have survived to this day! :grin:
(Except for the term "sophism", which we know more or less what it means.)
Regarding philosophy always, I always --since school-- connected "sophists" to pre-Socratic philosophers, represented mainly by Protagoras. As I didn't care much about the subject --I still don't :smile:-- I allowed it to remain as such in my mind. But thanks to your bringing it up, I found the occasion to refresh my memory and acquire some further knowlede on it.
What I realized is that there's a lot of disagreement between the opinions on whether sophists were philosophers (among other things) or not. Yet, one cannot deny that e.g. Protagoras and other known philosophers were and are still considered "sophist" philosophers!
So, my answer to your question --asuming always that you are referring to ancient philosophy-- is "Yes".
Anyway, my interest on the subject is consumed at this point! :smile:
Very good. Among other things, this proves that philosophy can indeed be a profession! :grin: (There are some doubts about that in this thread; I can't remember from whom.)
Quoting Fooloso4
Why do you 1) refer to the past and 2) consider that "unfortunate"?
For me it has always been --since College-- a 100% transformative practice!
My response will be addressed to anyone who might be interested:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I use the present tense for two reasons. One, I do not regard the issues raised as simply of historical importance. If we are to understand Socratic philosophy, which I regard as no less relevant today than it was then, we need to consider the question of the relationship between the philosopher and the sophist. Second, although we may not typically use the term 'sophist', it is evident that those who "make the weaker argument stronger" are still around.
Socrates criticized the sophists for requiring pay for their services. Professional philosophers do the same. Are the really professional sophists then? Is pay what distinguishes the philosopher and the sophist, or is the no clear distinction? Plato raises the question, but the answer he provides is not so clear cut.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Plato identifies Protagoras as a sophist, but we should not take this to mean that he simply rejected his teaching. Protagoras' influence on Plato was considerable.
I think you mistook a remark by me to mean that. My point was that we should not consider the profession as a necessary condition for being a philosopher. The profession is a relatively recent invention.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
What is unfortunate is that the phrase has become hackneyed. We now find it just about everywhere. All kinds of ordinary things are proclaimed to be transformative. It is part of the hyperbolization of language. Ordinary things are now "awesome", "amazing", "incredible". It's linguistic inflation.
The real philosopher is a he? You haven't heard my mum and wife talking! True philosophical riddles!
What's a value to value trade?
For the most part, yes. However, the greatest of them wasn't. But, they are not common, women philosophers. And none exist right now in the public worth mentioning. But, if it makes you feel better, I can rearrange my statement to he/she.
Quoting Schootz1
There are many possible value for value trades. For example, I recognize your sovereign human consciousness as the source of all possible moral actions by dint of its nature. Meaning, for me to assume that I have any right to impede your expressions or desires, that do not impede mine or another's, is the first example of interpersonal immorality. Meaning, for us to interact, we must provide value between eachother, in whatever form that may be. To interact, we have to have a proposition of interaction, be it services, a philosophical conversation, a product. The only alternative is asymmetrical value of consciousness, which is where the psychopaths play.
I see. OK.
Quoting Fooloso4
You are right. I also find that Plato's answer is not so clear.
I have already said that I am not interested in the subject of sophism and sophists, but I have to add an important element about sophists that was missed from my last comment on them: deception or an attempt to deceive. From what I know, sophists used good rhetoric and apparently logical statements or arguments that were based on fallacies. However, they managed to "pass the message" to the other side. That's why the term "sophism" today is connected to that element. Ofxford LEXICO defines "sophism" as "A clever but false argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive." And this is exactly how I always undestood that word. I personally don't use it, but statments like "Thus is just a sophism", are not uncommon at all. In fact, in Greek it is quite common. Naturally, since the word comes from ancient Greek "sophia" (= wisdom). We use it though more in the form of "sophsitry": "I wonder what kind of sophistry will you come up with this time!", "What you are telling us are all sophistries!" and so on.
Do we have proffesional sophists today? Such a thing makes you only lauph. But we have lawyers! :grin:
Quoting Fooloso4
Maybe so. I have no idea! :grin:
I'm curious if academic philosophers get seriously involved with issues like
What's the big mystery about time?
?
Some do. It might be addressed in a course on metaphysics, or philosophy of science, or in a course on a particular philosopher who talks about it. I would not be surprised to find graduate level courses specifically on time.
I'm familiar only with Bergson and his debate with Einstein. The amateur, Peter Lynds, brought this into modern times with his controversial article about the nature of time in Foundations of Physics Letters in 2003. But he didn't question an underlying nature of time, only that it occurred in intervals and not instants.
I have not read the thread on time, but I assume it includes such things as the block theory of time, McTaggart's A series and B series, which are discussed not only here but in some philosophy classes.
The thread goes well beyond recognized perspectives into imaginative realms.
Philosophy & the philosopher, if they're any good, embody an important sub-division under the rubric of entertainment.
The philosopher, if s/he's any good, entertains the general public with explorations of the deep & intriguing questions.
Nietzsche is a name that rings loud & long within the public's imagination because he is a very entertaining writer. The drama, the emotionalism, the sweep & direction of human history and the high stakes of the Ubermensch gambit have many of us enthralled. Moreover, the fact he was a handsome man who cut a dashing figure didn't hurt.
The deep shade covering part of Nietzsche's character & legacy embellish his memory with a frisson of darkness & evil. Was he the metaphysician who empowered Nazism?
Entertainment is, arguably, the most important human behavior of them all.
Three of the perennial questions posed by philosophy are: What's the meaning of life? What's the purpose of life? What makes the good life?
Oftentimes, the big three questions are used as hammers to bash philosophy. Pie in the sky! Pretensions of the leisure class! Ivory tower speculations entertained by eggheads! Now that you've solved the problems of the world, can you come down from Mt. Olympus and get a real job?
Not to worry fellow travelers. Philosophy has a simple, one-word, unpretentious answer to the big three questions.
Entertainment. Yeah. That's what we're supposed to be doing whilst we live. Telling stories to each other & keeping ourselves entertained. And that is what we're doing, most of the time.
Gather a bunch of folks into a great hall & make them wait for something, say, an important event of some kind or other. Before long, the great hall is buzzing with exchange of narratives flying about every which way.
We must fill up our time with entertainment!
As a human being, it is your duty to be entertaining!
The successful performing artist lives as a god because s/he brings interest, excitement & diversion into the lives of others.
To be entertaining is to be noble.
A philosopher fails not when s/he embraces wacky concepts supported by faulty logic, but rather whenever s/he is dull, boring & sleep-inducing.
Who are the great philosophers? They're the one's who get read by the general public, generation after generation.
Great ideas & great philosophy are two different things because great ideas presented in a bland, dull, impenetrable narrative IS NOT READ. So who knows about it? No one. Philosophy is not great until it is read about & known by the general public.
Question - What is entertainment? It is education in its highest manifestation. Public, formal education, alas, all too often is NOT entertaining. Ever had a good teacher? They were entertaining!
The above statement is the popular definition. Below lies the boring definition. (Forgive me.)
Entertainment is the bi-directional -which is to say, dualistic - experience of the witness to a transformative - which is to say, life-changing - narrative.
Here's what I mean by bi-directional: when you entertain me, I have a simultaneous experience of two opposing connections: a) I'm drawn out of myself by interest in the life of the main character of the story (that's you); AT THE SAME TIME b) I'm pushed into myself by self-identification with the life of the main character of the story (that's me).
Simultaneous bi-directionality leads to TRANSPORT. When I experience transport in response to a narrative, I'm de-localized by interest in the other person, but at the same time I'm centered within myself by interest in my identification with the other person.
We're not happy when we're just ourselves. We're happy when we're just ourselves, and at the same time, paradoxically, not just ourselves. That's entertainment! That's sex!
People my age have Beatlemania for an example of transport. The four mop tops pulled us out of ourselves with their difference, la (that's supposed to be French). Also, they pushed us more vividly into ourselves through our identification with their difference, la
An earlier generation had Elvis. A later generation had Michael Jackson.
Question - Who's transporting today's young people?
Firstly, fellow traveller, let me start by saying: thank you for the entertainmaint. This was one of the more, perhaps the most even, unique responses I've been provided on this subject, and I enjoyed it very much, even found myself agreeing in places where there was no reason to. You are correct in many assertions, as I've been known to tell people, education is an art form, not a job. A profession, not a practice. There's more magic to it than simple data relay, or, in the case of our public schools, critical compulsion relay.
It's not a simple to task to teach people how to emerge from and as themselves in a manner appropriate to the nature of the world and their place in it, while also eqipping them with the necessary skills to equip themselves with the necessary knowledge and virtue they will need to navigate it. In fact, that's due in no small reason to the fact that most primary curricula are entirely devoid of the philosophical arts altogether, without which, the glue that holds all fields of study in coherence is not recognized, or noticed, and thereby neglected.
However, I'm afraid, interesting as it was, that I must disagree with your post, kindly, of course. You see, what you described was a philosopher, but only a certain type of philosopher. There have been many who were entertaining, who were also not very good philosophers, such as Voltaire, Frank Herbert, or C.S. Lewis, all of which were great in the authoring division of relaying philosophical information, but not really strong philosophers themselves. There have also been many, considered great, philosophers who were not very entertaining, such as Kant, Wittgenstein, even Nietszche himself is hard to drudge through some times.
Being entertaining in one's work, philosophical or otherwise, is an individual trait that comes as a result of enjoying one's work, as well as being proficient at relaying it. Much like professor Sugrue, whom you can find on youtube with a very high recommendation from me, or Alan Watts, with the same recommendation.
What is entertainment? Loving life in whatever manner that love comes to you. For the philosopher, the love of life induced by the pursuit of knowledge, and the helpless expression that emerges of it thereafter. But, yes, I've had a couple great teachers, all were incredibly entertaining.
Quoting ucarr
This is a deeper question than what a post of the nature from that which it comes lets on. To put this into perspective, I have a buddy that I've known for almost a year. I was speaking to him the other day, just about music, but think about this. We were speaking about music and he says, "Drake is the G.O.A.T." Of course, my initial, internal response was nauseous recoil, but I asked to clarify, "What do you mean?" To which he simply responded with the same assertion of Drake and goats. It occured to me at that moment, almost by reflex, that, no, Joseph Haydn is actually the G.O.A.T. in all manners technical, or otherwise, but also that this young man of 28 has probably never heard a single concerto, or symphony of his.
The point: Entertainment is transporting them. Hijacking their cognitive ins-and-outs, as if through some sort of Barney-level, low-resolution default mode relaying coaxial cable, and throttling their natural ability to recognize beautiful patterns, exchanging Sgt. Pepper for Keeping up with the Kardashians. Why? Probably for the same reason the controllers left philosophy out the primary curricula: ensured lack of awareness. Perhaps I am mistaken, though. I leave that to the imagination of my fellow travellers, like you.
Nonetheless, great post, friend!
-G
Quoting ucarr
Sleep deprived students with an attention span that can be measured in seconds may find something dull, boring & sleep-inducing that requires alertness, attention, and hard work.
Quoting ucarr
The general public has never been equipped to read or understand great philosophy. The demand to be entertained is one of, but certainly not the only reason they are ill-equipped.
I think you’re saying for any philosopher, being able to entertain the audience with emotional gratification coupled with the excitement of learning is an added-value attribute that serves the mission of philosophy (as well as education in general) as a grace note, lovable, but non- essential.
This argument is formidably sound; it’s familiar to most us.
I have a lament, probably familiar to you. It concerns the package in which the contents are delivered.
In the performing arts, delivery is critically important, even if not of the same status as content. Consider the standup comic. If s/he flubs a line reading of a joke – especially if it be the punchline (barring a great ad lib) – the joke (and sometimes the comic) is dead.
Even with a letter-perfect delivery, sans great timing – sometimes improved for the audience of the moment – the joke might very well land with a thud.
Likewise the singer. On paper, more than one great song looks like next to nothing. Why is it a great song & perennial favorite? It’s the packaging, the delivery by the performing artist.
Here’s an ad lib question from me. Considering the importance of delivery, which is to say, packaging, in the performing arts, is there an existential difference between storytelling for entertainment and storytelling for science (i.e., philosophy)?*
*Might this be a serious question under aesthetics?
How come the scientists & the philosopher-royals get to stand up there in lecture hall and drone on in monotone as s/she slogs through bland techno-babble, devoid of enlightening metaphors, and permanently divorced from anything resembling wit?
This brings us to another familiar argument: the dialectic of form vs. content.
There’s evidence science does have an aesthetic standard. We’ve all heard about the elegance of simplicity pertaining to equations & theories.
Seems to me the reason is obvious why everyone knows Einstein’s equation, whereas Schrödinger’s equation?
There’s an important distinction needing to be made here, as the difficult & the boring are very different things.
Just now, we’re evaluating the boring, not the difficult.
Quoting Fooloso4
I suspect you proceed from the premise that entertainment has no truck with communication of important (and therefore serious) ideas & information.
Sam Beckett’s Godot, when performed in prisons, usually lands forcefully with audiences there; they enjoy it as much as other audiences. Given that prison audiences oftentimes include some of our most educationally-deprived citizens, this tells us something important about capacity of comprehension by the general public.
Most everyone has heard, and enjoyed, Gershwin’sRhapsody In Blue. It’s everywhere because the public likes it. No need to be a chamber music habitue to appreciate Gershwin’s sublimities.
Is the demand for entertainment a matter of indifference to the cognoscenti?
I say meeting the demands of the general public, in any field, establishes the most correct yardstick for measuring success.
Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist who focused on spacetime, quantum mechanics & black holes, would seem to be a poster boy for the difficult. True enough. If the general public is ill-equipped for the difficult, how come A Brief History of Time was a best seller?
From the cognoscenti to the skid row bum, and all points in-between, people are the same.
So why not talk to everybody, if you have something to say? Doing that successfully, however, entails being interesting, as in being entertaining.
It also entails that everybody has the same capacity to grasp the essential content of the ideas. They don’t. We live in different worlds. Put differently, we interpret ideas
in accordance with a larger worldview that each of us carry around with us. A given culture consists of many worldviews that often don’t understand each other, as our politically polarized times demonstrates. If a philosopher or writer or scientist offers an idea that we cannot assimilate within our worldview we will reject or misinterpret that idea, or it may simply be invisible to us.
It does t matter how many ways you try and package the content of a given philosophy. You could translate it into poetry, have it delivered by a stand-up
comedian or by corporate-style bullet point presentation. The central problem won’t be the delivery or language or style, but the readiness of the recipient to assimilate it into their worldview.
The ‘everybody’ you talk about is a fiction. It can take hundreds of years for segments of a given culture to grasp the ideas of a certain era of philosophy. Conservative America is a long way from understanding post-Hegelian thought, which is already 200 years old, and you can’t blame it on the messenger.
They are, but it is often that case that because a work is difficult the reader finds it boring because they are not persuaded that it is worth the effort.
Quoting ucarr
It is not that it one or the other but that the demand to be entertained may disqualify a book or lecture or discussion of works that are not found to be entertaining from the get go.
Quoting ucarr
Doesn't that depend on what one finds entertaining?
Quoting ucarr
Should we stop assigning Plato or Aristotle in philosophy classes because most students do not find them entertaining and will not read them? Perhaps a more important measure of their success is that they are still read and written about thousands of years later. That only a few students in class
Quoting ucarr
Do you think everyone who had a copy read it let alone understand it? Such a work may spark an interest in someone who goes on the pursue such matters, but a popular presentation should not be mistaken for the work of theoretical physics.
Quoting ucarr
And yet only a small percentage will read philosophy. Do you think that is the fault of the author or those who teach the texts? People are not the same with regard to what they find entertaining or interesting. Are you a teacher? A student? Does everyone in your classes find this stuff as entertaining as you do?
I think history will take care of Plato and Aristotle for good or ill, regardless of anything else. Perhaps 'entertainment' was the wrong word? I think @ucarr might mean 'engaging'. Some philosophy can be highly engaging, which for me seems a more redeemable and useful term.
Anyone? Is there no question about the quality or level of sophistication? Is my illiterate cousin Tony a philosopher? He often ponders the meaning of life and wonders if he's in the matrix... as he packs another bong.
Why does there need to be a minimum level of sophistication of thought?
Your cousin tony is no less a philosopher than anyone else who contemplates life.
Simply because you see no value in another's ideas, or see their ideas as completely incorrect does not make them any less deserving of some consideration. Whether the consideration is simply to disprove them or demonstrate their incompetence is irrelevant.
I apologize, my definition was incomplete. A philosopher is anyone who contemplates the meaning of life and metaphysical questions for enjoyment. Anyone whose hobby is contemplation.
There are situations where someone with no formal training in something are particularly good at it - say a mechanic. In those circumstances I have no issue with calling someone a mechanic if they can fix several broken cars without any issues. In terms of philosophy I wouldn't call someone who has literally never read a single work of philosophy from cover to cover a philosopher under any circumstances just like I wouldn't call someone a mechanic merely if they have only read books about how to fix cars.
This may seem contradictory in some terms, but to someone who has read enough philosophy and/or has a reasonably decent analytic mind they can see what I am getting at here. That is the 'practice' of philosophy requires engagement with current ideas be they oppositional or otherwise (oppositional is likely more fruitful though).
Contemplating the meaning of life is nothing at all if there is no give and take. For two people in a room discussing such we could say what they are doing is 'philosophical' but that doesn't make them philosophers. Perhaps they are on their way to becoming more involved with philosophy but the threshold from not being a philosopher to being one is not really a line at all any more than we can say with any conviction that x amount of water molecules are needed for water to be considered 'wet'.
(2 water molecules)
Just writing doesn't make one a writer, writing as a hobby and writing simply because one enjoys writing makes one a writer. There needn't be any level of aptitude or knowledge, just as we call one who enjoys playing video games a gamer whether or not they are good at it. The act of enjoying and practicing philosophy makes one a philosopher.
As an example, I use myself. I have never read a full work of philosophy, by your standards, I am not a philosopher. I, however, would call myself a philosopher as I philosophize as a hobby and enjoy thinking about philosophical concepts. (And not to sound egotistical, but I would say I have a better understanding of philosophy and a better ability to analyze something philosophically than most)
No. Many serious philosophers do not enjoy the work. They are compelled to enquire and may in fact find the work hard and frustrating.
In one way yes. In another no. If no one reads it then you're not really much of a writer and people would probably say that you think you're a writer rather than actually call you a writer.
I would still say of such a person that they enjoy writing though and encourage them to do what they enjoyed. That doesn't make them a writer in everyone's view though unless we're talking on a superficial level.
If no one sees one's work is that work any less impressive or important, is an artist whose art is only discovered after their death only an artist after the discovery?
Saying something doesn't make it true. I wouldn't call you a philosopher or a serious thinker looking at your posts. Someone curious and likely to dig further in the future? Yes. Go for it! I wish you the best even though it may sound like I am not offering much encouragement here.
I don't waste time sugarcoating things for people as I don't think it is useful for them.
While a useless definition, I define wetness as the quality of being saturated in water. This definition does define nearly everything as being slightly wet, so on the smallest possibly scale, only 2 molecules need to be touching for either to be wet.
I would say the artist example is directly related to your point, you said that if no one reads someone's writing then they are not a writer, by that same logic if no one sees someone's paintings they are not an artist. If that same person's paintings are discovered after their death, were they any less an artist before dying? Does a title only apply if what the title references is experienced by others?
Our definitions differ in that you consider mine to simplistic and all-inclusive, and I consider yours arbitrary and with no objective way to determine who deserves a title. Can you provide some way to determine what makes one a philosopher more specific than "to be part of a tradition"?
If someone does surgery they are a surgeon, surgeons aren't defined by knives, they are defined by surgery.
1. Brain (truth/verum)
2. Heart (good/bonum & beauty/pulchrum)
Can one who is unintelligent not practice philosophy? If the practice of philosophy does not make one a philosopher, why must there be other characteristics to define a philosopher?
And what of the founders of philosophical schools, who didn't engage with previous generations of philosophers? What of Thales, who had no predecessors to engage with? If they are philosophers, then is only dedication to the field required? Can one not be dedicated to a field without education in the field? If one requires education in a field to be considered in the field, how can one found a field or school of thought?
How do you know this? :eyes:
Why do you ask me about being "dedicated to the field" when I wrote dedicated ... to reflective / contemplative discipline-as-a-way-of-life?
Confusing yourself – shadowboxing – with a strawman.
Given current knowledge, historians consider Thales the first philosopher, if that's the case he had no predecessors.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I assumed you meant dedication to the discipline of a reflective/contemplative way of life as meaning philosophy. If not do elaborate.
Given that I didn't feel like posing each question, waiting for the answer, and responding after, I asked the next question under the assumption that the answer was disagreeing. Had you answered in a different way than the following questions were assuming I would've asked different questions.
Okay, no shame in it, you simply do not know – no one, in fact, knows – that Thales "had no predecessors." Appeal to ignorance. Neither you nor anyone else knows who his predecessors might have been (if he had had any). Calling him "the first philosopher" (Aristotle believed this a couple of centuries after Thales' had died) does not entails – hasty generalization – that he had "no predecessors", only that none have become known to his posterity.
Then what of the nameless first philosopher? Whether or not Thales was the first is irrelevant to my point.
While I won't go so far as to say one has to be a genius to do philosophy, it goes without saying that philosophy is not for everyone; whether this is a matter of preference/intelligence is debatable. Perhaps both!
Take me for example. I'm an average Joe and I find some topics inscrutable. Makes me wish I were smarter.
Actually it's your definition which is arbitrary as it sets no criteria or competence at all and therefore is not even a definition. You'll remember you originally said:
Quoting CallMeDirac
Pretty arbitrary.
Then you added that it was a hobby and enjoyment was part of it. Pretty arbitrary.
Unlike you, I am not attempting to define what a philosopher is. I am simply proving feedback that competence and knowledge is a very important component of any potential definition. Defining philosophy isn't easy but I know it isn't just anyone who has deep thoughts about life and being.
I think this is a good foundation:
Quoting 180 Proof
That's still irrelevant to my point. Why is the engagement with previous generations of thinkers necessary, and if it is necessary to be a philosopher what about those who could not engage with previous generations?
But why is competence necessary to be a philosopher, why does one have to be competent to be a member of a field?
Surely that can't be a serious question? Would you use a mechanic who isn't competent? A plumber? Would you use an accountant who can't add up or use financial software packages? Would you call a person who knows next to nothing about philosophy - epistemology, metaphysics, logic - a philosopher? Or do you not take philosophy seriously enough to consider competence a criterion of value?
I think we are done here. We're going around in circles.
Elbow patches on a jacket?
No that's English literature. Philosophy is a comb over and a black turtleneck.
Indeed. Since I don't bother with either much anymore I keep forgetting who is whom?
As I don't own a jacket (much less one with elbow patches) or a turtleneck (not even a black one and have a full head of hair I figure I just don't qualify to field answers and only try to post questions.
That occurred to me too, but I wonder if it has something to do with television and video. Sesame Street is educational and entertaining. It was fast paced and visually and auditorily stimulating. There now seems to be a preference for content delivered via video rather than books.
Quoting Joshs
Quoting Joshs
Quoting Joshs
Quoting Joshs
The statements above contain an excellent summary of the daunting challenges facing any person seeking to communicate in depth.
Is not communication in depth the main project of the philosopher? If so, then, as I believe, the project to communicate in depth is a good way to define both philosophy & the philosopher.
What is communication (in depth, or otherwise)?
Jon Anderson, vocalist for rock band Yes, sang it to us when he sang, "Don't surround yourself with yourself."
This is the challenge posed to all of us by the effort of communication.
As a philosopher, don't you want to reach as many people as you can?
Josh presents us with a brilliant elaboration of the work before us as both human beings & as philosophers. But look at his attitude, as evidenced below,
Quoting Joshs
He sees clearly the work that needs doing, and yet the clarity of his vision seems to be in service of a cynical despair about the possibility of success.
Of course it's impossible to be a philosopher. That's why everybody laughs at us. We're errant fools for trying.
"Any bloke wit common sense knows 'ees better off quaffin' a pint 'n tryin' to explain the world."
Donald O'Connor, of Singin' In the Rain told us about storytelling, "Make 'em laugh!"
Alrighty then. Who's got a couple of post-Hegelian jokes?
Just an aside - When you're destroying one of my propositions, try to do it with some of the wit shown above. :blush:
Perhaps. Nonetheless your "point" is irrelevant as well.
Quoting CallMeDirac
You ask highly intelligent and thought-provoking questions. More power to you. A Person-On-The-Street type of philosopher is much needed. Perhaps you can join the ranks of those who keep philosophy street-level.
When your child takes her first steps, it ain't ballet. But you, an inveterate walker, stand there, ready to catch her when she falls forward into your arms.
When the philosopher-royal, momentarily bored by the priesthood, steps out of bounds of university for a Sunday walk, but nonetheless refuses to dialogue with the curious rabble, suddenly affrighted; s/he reaffirms the public face of philosophy*: ill-tempered snobbery.
*In this context, philosophy refers to higher learning without regard to a particular discipline.
"Paine!" barked Don the Don. "How will you ever become unemployable if you keep drifting off like that!"
Fair Damsel - Oh, Leibniz. Your monads are so devine!
Leibniz- Alright, baby! Lemme show you what I've got upstairs. We'll plot the curve of this spiral staircase as we ascend.
And you still refuse to answer
Everyone else is called a nerd, suicidal, or neurotic.
I think it is important to highlight two key facts about "what constitutes a philosopher?"
1. Own philosopher. I mean, the person who is interested in the discipline of thought which comes from Ancient Greece. I guess we want from this person a good analysis and ability of reasoning when we debate with him about all categories related to philosophy itslef: ethics, virtue, time, death, uncertainty, etc...
2. Academic philosopher. Those who pursue a degree and then reach a PhD in philosophy or "liberal arts". I guess these are the one who are able to put more worked arguments on the table to confirm or confront the theories which constitutes philosophy. They also tend to write some interesting articles or books in prestigious areas as universities or editors.
What should we expect from a philosopher? I guess both are good and acceptable. But in my opinion, I want in my university a teacher who owns a PhD in philosophy.
I am just about to slice off some pieces of chicken from a carcass btw just in case you assumed I didn't know my way around a knife or how to slice through flesh.
A thinker is a thinker. A philosopher sometimes isn't much of a thinker at all. Some philosophers dedicate their lives to scholarship only. Meaning they study and analyse the works of other's before them and/or critique contemporary works (be they standalone works, other commentaries or other scholarly works).
Philosophy is a very broad category as are many other fields. In fact today there seems to be a bigger emphasis/attraction to broader knowledge rather than expertise in one particular area. Discussing that is not merely a philosophical area it touches other parts of the humanities and each has something to offer to the discussion.
Some who produces art is not necessarily an artist in any meaningful sense of the term when it comes to appreciation. If I open a restaurant and produce food people spit out and demand refunds for does that make me a chef/cook? I may be trying to be a chef/cook but if literally no one swallows my food other than myself can I really claim that title with any degree of seriousness when asked about my ability to produce food for mass consumption. I don't think so somehow.
There are other areas where one act is deemed lawful in one situation and not lawful in another. The most obvious example being killing a fellow human. In war it is encouraged whereas in peaceful societies it is frowned upon (to say the least). For these kinds of reasons simply stating that someone is or isn't this or that needs to be done carefully and in agreement with the consensus and from there you can then perhaps to question the consensus view by applying critique of it. Such can be viewed as political, philosophical, or anthropological lines of questioning (to name but a few) that engage with reviewing the said consensus and investigating more closely some fringe ideas/views.
I have nothing to say about how someone was viewed a century ago other than through making some judgements based loosely on historical evidence. If someone today calls themselves an artist and no one has even looked at their work, and/or those that have do not view it as worthy of that label, then I would not be inclined to call them an artist at all. Why would I? I would still encourage them i fthat is where their passion lies though and perhaps may discover that they have an artistic eye if not an ability to produce anything much of note.
... from .
:up:
This is something that needs to be questioned rather that perpetuated. Although they did not call it philosophy, China and India had advanced traditions of thought to rival the Greeks.
Well, yes. My answer was based on a Western point of view. I guess in this side of the world, philosophy is taught starting with the Greeks.
Asian and Indian culture/philosophy is more specific because sometimes is even unknown due to their complexity. You have to get deeper to understand it
Understood. It is the Western point of view that needs to be challenged.
It is ironic that many accept Thomas Nagel's "view from nowhere" and yet it is only works from a specific somewhere that are read.
I do believe you just made this up, to be honest.
Philosophy.
Dennis
Franz: The sophist just wants to win contests whereas the philosopher seeks what they do not know.
Don: How does this "argument from ignorance" work if the adversary rejects it as a thing?
Paine: What thing? Either the philosopher is honest about what they do not know, or they are not.
Don: Are you saying the whole enterprise revolves about the sincerity of the participants?
Franz: That would be nuts. That would suggest that all the advancements of knowledge over the centuries was somehow bound up with the character of certain people.
Paine: So, Franz, how would you test for the difference between people to confirm or deny your proposition?
Don: That is enough from both of you.
And that is not "thinking"?
Like mathematics, in modern philosophy it might be difficult to come up with truly original ideas.
That isn't what I said. If it was a rhetorical question remember to leave the '?' out next time.
After all you have to be on the outside looking in so see the whole picture. Not being overly academic and fairly new to studying philosophy, I am not yet over encumbered by other philosopher’s ideas and thoughts. But I think Bertram Russell wrote that Science is fact, religious belief is Dogma and Philosophy is the bit that tries to tie it together. He may have put it a little better.
I think most people from all backgrounds think philosophically about the things that happen in their own lives and with social media their thoughts and ideas are easy to see.
And if Philosophy is the bridge between Dogma and Science, and today’s largest religion is social media the you only have to look at Twitter etc to see our new latter-day Philosophers in the making.
This is a muddy and unsophisticated view which has been refuted in this thread whenever it has come up. Which is not all that often since it is a pretty reductive account. It's not 'perceiving life in general' - it is thinking about matters philosophically and with rigour.
Quoting GBG
Or the well read, who may have little formal education. Autodidacts. Almost impossible to be a philosopher without knowing the traditions and having an understanding of the mistakes or achievements already well understood.
Quoting GBG
Clumsy. If you are 'looking in' you are clearly not seeing the whole picture - you are looking into an enclosed space. To see the whole vista you need to be looking outside at the view
Quoting GBG
If you are an absolute genius there is a small chance this may be possible, Generally speaking it is unlikely that you or anyone you know will have an original philosophical idea that hasn't already been explored many times, untangled and redefined. Expertise cannot be underrated. Philosophy builds on the accumulated wisdom of others.
Quoting GBG
You need to do better that "I think" in philosophy. Check your source. And it is Bertrand Russell.
Quoting GBG
That is called reflection, or having an opinion, it is not philosophy. What is their position on the problem of induction? Intentionality? Husserl's notion of epoché? The Gettier problem in epistemology?
Quoting GBG
Ideologists, sophists or influencers with worldviews are not philosophers. There's a big difference between opinions and philosophy. Having an opinion on life no more makes you a philosopher than going on an overseas trip makes you an ethnologist.
Magician re: pseudo-problem —> pseudoscience
Sophist re: dogma —> pseudo-questions
Philosopher re: answers —> questions
:chin:
I think you have two major commitments. The social and the intellectual. When I think of contemporary Philosophers today they have academic discipline to the extent they have acquired the power of study, research and discourse for authorship.
They often have the talents of professorship and public speaking. They are often committed to utility subjects like Psychology and Virtue Ethics in their social discourse. They are often prolific writers and are found writing discourse on historical political figures, characters in works of fiction, symptoms in the human condition found in psychoanalysis, and problematising contemporary life on deficiencies in human psychological development and the lack of education in the formation of principles and coherent moral reasoning.
Part of their social commitment is to teach matters on process philosophy which provide the tools for logical reasoning which if practice allow the users to find common cause in the good of society. You can engage in the project of a public philosopher when you become proficient in the communication and social projects which attain others belief in your work.