You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

What makes a good philosopher? (If you consider Nietzsche and Marx to be good)

dussias September 25, 2020 at 13:12 2875 views 4 comments
Treating philosophy as science.


(I think)

Comments (4)

180 Proof September 25, 2020 at 13:17 #455908
Clear, concise, cant-free anti-sophistry (i.e. demystifying bullshit via dialectics).

Quoting dussias
Treating philosophy as [s]science.[/s]

Bullshit. (e.g. Wittgenstein, Popper, Meillassoux)
Philosophim September 25, 2020 at 14:45 #455917
1. Sound Logical thinking

This is probably the pillar of professional philosophy.

2. Clear Communication

Language is a tool to convey our ideas. You should use the most simple and clear terms to convey your idea. The less time people spend trying to figure out what you are saying, the more time you get to discuss about the idea itself.

3. Relatability

You may be using clear and logical language, but if you do not relate to your audience, you will be ignored or misunderstood.

4. Premises grounded in reality

You may have a very interesting and logical theory, but if it is not grounded in reality, it is pointless. See Leibniz' Monad theory versus atomic theory.

5. Humbleness

This means knowing your limitations, acceptance of criticism by others, and the willingness to admit when one is wrong. These are the people who become masters at the craft, and never stop improving and learning.

There are almost certainly more attributes to add. But for myself, every philosopher I have read and spoken with who I respect and value has had these five attributes.
Outlander September 25, 2020 at 15:20 #455926
All the typical stuff mentioned .. but also being able to have a dialog of considerable length with someone who holds an opposing view. Not everyone can do it.
dussias September 26, 2020 at 14:00 #456313
Quoting Philosophim
You may have a very interesting and logical theory, but if it is not grounded in reality, it is pointless.


Elaborate, please.

Quoting Outlander
Being able to have a dialog of considerable length with someone who holds an opposing view. Not everyone can do it.


Greatly underestimated skill.

Quoting 180 Proof
Clear, concise, cant-free anti-sophistry

Might we adopt this as a new definition of philosophy!? Quite good.