What constitutes being a philosopher?

@Chights47,

But a person may greatly appreciate the works of Shakespeare, for instance, without being able to produce any poetry at all. We wouldn't call such a person a poet.
Lately I've been thinking to myself that most people seem to care about answers only. They don't mind being told the answer. A philosopher is one who thinks the questions are more important.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

But a person may greatly appreciate the works of Shakespeare, for instance, without being able to produce any poetry at all. We wouldn't call such a person a poet.
Lately I've been thinking to myself that most people seem to care about answers only. They don't mind being told the answer. A philosopher is one who thinks the questions are more important.

As far as your example with poetry, it would be like calling a quadriplegic an athlete just because he has a great appreciation for a sport. In that sense it doesn't really make a lot of sense (at least not to me). I think what's required in order to really be able to understand philosophy and to participate in the discussions, is wisdom. Anyone can have an appreciation for it and revel in the quotes full of wisdom, but only lack the proper amount of wisdom in order to create their own.

I think the reason for there being more "uneducated" people seeming more like philosophers, is because I think that intelligence is actually the counterpart of wisdom. With intelligence we learn to know things, with wisdom we learn to question it. Intelligence leads to passive acceptance, while wisdom leads to resistant denial.

I like the questions, but I love the pursuit for the answer most, the answer doesn't really matter, it's what leads up to it. Questions, in and of themselves, are kind of pointless in my opinion.

1 Reply

You are a philosopher from the moment that you are consciously trying to figure out the real truth about life, death, and the meaning of everything and nothing all at once or in seperate incidents.
If these concepts are related or not, and if they are to be understood or grasped from a personal or societal point of view all depends on the philospher's perception or lack thereof.
Yet perhaps a true philosopher understands the meaning of his existence by whims of his mind; the truth may come to him as he's walking down the street and observing his whereabouts.
Truth may be absolutely simple, yet it could also be intricate.
Ultimately, a philosopher could argue about the veracity of the truth he has discovered, but if one is truly wise, one keeps the truth that he's come to terms with and accepts it as its own, and one is even wiser if one accepts that there might not even be pure truth out there and that we may only ever grasp only a parcel of it because it may be too much for our human and mortal minds to comprehend.
To ponder upon these ideas and concepts or notions might not make one a philosopher, but it does bring one to question, investigate and then head out on a quest for truth.
To know an answer is to be knowledgeable. To question an answer is to be smart. To come up with another explaination that can have several meanings all the while holding only one, all of which depending upon who is interpreting the said explanation and hence being a contradiction, is being a philosopher.
After all, most philosophers come up with questions rather than answers, and perhaps that is the downfall of each and every philosopher: to come up with questions that might not be answered until well after their end.
Maybe a true philospher is one that instigates an introspective and contemplative spark in others all the while having to juggle with new concepts and old ones, creating an tight rope for contradiction. Perhaps truly understanding contradiction is where the future of philosophy lies: how can one thing be negative and positive at the same time?
Interestingly, humans are walking contradictions, desiring peace and yet waging wars, demanding equality while seeking superiority for themselves, helping others to cheer themselves up or be regarded as good people.
Final idea: philosophers could simply be those who say maybe, who understand maybe, who are comfortable with the incomfort of maybe.
Hope that maybe someone out there found this interesting. Have a good day!

3 Replies

@PolkaDotsThoughts,

Nice work. Very Happy

0 Replies

@PolkaDotsThoughts,

Yeah that sounds good, something like my approach to defining a kitten. I do not ask what is the essential nature of a kitten; I ask what shall we call a young cat?

0 Replies

@PolkaDotsThoughts,

Excellent sentence in answer to the OP:

Quote:

You are a philosopher from the moment that you are consciously trying to figure out the real truth about life, death, and the meaning of everything and nothing all at once or in separate incidents.

0 Replies

@Chights47,

Quote:

As far as your example with poetry, it would be like calling a quadriplegic an athlete just because he has a great appreciation for a sport.

I think you got that backwards. I said that we don't call someone a poet just because they like to read poetry.

We don't call someone a philosopher simply because they like to read philosophic texts and have a lot of knowledge about philosophers.

For instance, one professor of philosophy here in Norway (I forget his name), falls outside of the category 'philosopher' the way I see it.
He did his doctorate on Kant, and has published several books. The text is always quote upon quote from some old philosophers, tied together by a few words between each quote. Words like "...and as we see, *some philosopher* thought about this slightly differently...", and then next quote.

I talked to him once. I searched him out and quickly found out that this person couldn't relate to any subject unless it had been examined by some philosopher he knew about. Then he could tell me exactly what those philosophers thought about it.
But if the issue hadn't been examined by some other philosopher, he couldn't even bring himself to take it seriously.

He is no philosopher. He's just a jukebox playing old songs to echo off new walls.

This is, of course, a grey area. You can become a professor of literature, and no one expects you to be able to write a classic, because it is understood that 'professor of literature' and 'writer' are two completely different things.
Sadly this distinction is more blurry when it comes to philosophy.
There is a huge difference between 'professor of philosophy' and 'philosopher'. The first requires years of education. The second only requires a certain disposition in the nature of a human being.

(Edit: Looking back I see that I've already shared the story about this 'philosopher' in this thread. Oh well. A little repetition never hurt anyone. )

1 Reply

Philosophy is truly the language of the Universe. When you speak, it's either through misusing the sound of your voice, or through the vibrations of the Universe. There's a flow to those who speak above mere sound and communication, in a way they are above common day communication, to the point that they are no longer conversing with you, but rather, cutting through you with every word that shakes your existential grounds. Information has been captured in such a profound way by some men, that they truly never were men in the end, but something beyond mere body and brain, that felt and achieved this state of knowing so much, that life was easy, but within that easy was this center of pain they would enter every day to reevaluate themselves to adequately assimilate their everyday experiences and aggregations to such an unprecedented level, that they appear as aliens or gods among men.

Truly, the difference between a personal man and a philosophical man is that the philosophical man lives genius, while the personal man only gets strokes of it.

2 Replies

@One Eyed Mind,

Unfortunately most of what you write is pedantry. It is possible you have been exposed to some of the esoteric literature (such as Gurdjieff) in which "vibrations" play a significant role. However the idea that such vibrations are "electromagnetic" is at best simplistic and according to such literature "ignorant". So too is the idea that "information" is human observer independent.

Once again, I applaud your attempts to think out of the box, but if you wish to communicate here you cannot adopt a supercilious cosmological stance based on your personal fixation with metaphors like "the eye".

1 Reply

@fresco,

It's how the Universe works. I'm sorry you cannot get over your ego to see the world's cosmic design as I do.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

One Eyed Mind wrote:

Philosophy is truly the language of the Universe. When you speak, it's either through misusing the sound of your voice, or through the vibrations of the Universe. There's a flow to those who speak above mere sound and communication, in a way they are above common day communication, to the point that they are no longer conversing with you, but rather, cutting through you with every word that shakes your existential grounds. Information has been captured in such a profound way by some men, that they truly never were men in the end, but something beyond mere body and brain, that felt and achieved this state of knowing so much, that life was easy, but within that easy was this center of pain they would enter every day to reevaluate themselves to adequately assimilate their everyday experiences and aggregations to such an unprecedented level, that they appear as aliens or gods among men.

Truly, the difference between a personal man and a philosophical man is that the philosophical man lives genius, while the personal man only gets strokes of it.

Philosophy is for man, and for man only.

Mathematics is a better language for the universe anyway.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

You obviously don't understand that self/ego is deemed to be "an illusion" by those who delve into holistic aspects of what we call "the universe," which you unconvincingly attempt to do. From this viewpoint your "I which is sorry" turns out to be merely a member of an argumentative committee which you call "self". The other members, when left to their own devices, will probably be shaking their heads at the ludicrous picture of their more vociferous colleague eager to mount his soapbox and utter his platitudes.

1 Reply

Rather than distinguish between the properties of the (essential) nature of the philosopher, I would prefer a discussion of philosophy in general* or comparisons between philosophical perspectives regarding specific problems.

* As I recall Arthur Danto's discussion of the nature of philosophy he said that any examination of the nature of philosophy was itself necessarily a philosophical exercise.

0 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

Ding, I'd like you to look into "Riemanns Hypothesis". This formula is demonstrating that the Universe we live in is existing on both, real and imaginary mathematical units. This is why fear/ignorance is so "infinite" and why the world even has the ability to create concept/object.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Are you sure? Because when someone understands something, they explain it, they don't condescend someone who already had explained it.

I know what the ego is, I wrote a massive poem for the ego. What have you done?

Quote:

The Subatomic God

If you look closely - very close - there are great things hidden inside the thresholds of reality, that we could never experientially fathom. A heart of existence that is not one, but many. The very emergence of sense, personality and life.

The quicker the heart; the quicker the span of life.
The slower the heart; the slower the span of life.

The greater the body; the greater the pain.
The smaller the body; the smaller the pain.

Life exists to and fro; a form and faculty, as above, so below.

All in one; one in all.

The world is not a design; for it is incomplete. Such is what makes us feel, incomplete.
The heart yearns - the heart oughts.
The brain wants to know - wants to have.
The world is empty, and so we, too, are empty.

Personality is life.
Personality is color.
Personality is form.
Personality is.

A mirror that is clear and unprecedented, is no different than a mirror that is painted black in blindness.
We see ourselves in both.
One has form; the other does not.

A rock is nothing, but personality liveth within us giveth the rock something.
A rock cannot move, and yet it moves when we ought and yearn for it to move.

A dog cannot flip and do tricks on its own.
A dog is but a dog, and yet it is more than a dog when we ought and yearn for it.

Human experience, is more than naught of what it already is.
It's greater than itself.
Yet it is not greater than the Universe.

The Universe communicates in more than one language.
The human communicates in more than one language.
Coincidence?

Dogs had liveth prior to humans.
Dogs revere to humans.
Is it dog?
Or is it something more?

Life is, without being itself.
A myriad living in perpetuate strings of vibrations and projections.

So are we - without what we are.
As a child, unbeknownst to us being all that is.
We liveth without knowledge - without meaning.
Personality - is all that was.

Why ought - why yearn for a mask?
Why fight - why start fires?
Why stand - why reach?
All that is - all that can be
Is.

Liveth not through yourself.
Liveth through the world.
The ego is not self.
The ego is the unself.
The ought - the yearn of what cannot be.

Be empty - yet be full.
Drink without expectation - in experience; not of.
Look around you - do not veer away.
All that is, will come, will be - always.

Make a reality out of your dreams - not a dream out of your reality.
Speak for what you do not know - not what is thought to be known.
Remember more of what you have yet to remember - before you remember what you already can.
Liveth not for what can be - liveth for what is.

The world is naive; benign - not alive, not being.
All that is gained, can be lost by what is gained.
All that is lost, can be found by accepting what had been lost.
The heart can only fall, when it clings.
There is no letting go - there is only holding on.

The world outside of us, does not care - yet we care for it.
The world inside of us, does care - yet we despair it.

Do not climb - crawl.
Be weak.
Be vulnerable.
Be fearful.
Not to others.
To yourself.

Embrace what never could be.
Embrace nothingness.
Embrace darkness.
Remember when the lights were out.
Remember when your heart was lost.
Remember when your mind was not yours.

Forget not what is.
Forget all that was thought to be.

Forget yourself.
Remember what you are not.

You speaketh as many words as the world.
All noise.

Lend your hands to others.
For you cannot use such to hold yourself.
They will restore your love.
You will remember.

Others not being people - others being the parts of you.
Let it be - don't fight it.

The shadow yearns and oughts for all that you've given up.
You yearn and ought for all that you've made up.

We are gods; we are voids.
We are, without being.
We are, without seeing.
We are, without needing.

All that is discovered - was yet to be to us, but always been to what is.

The seeing - the unseeing.
Both, equally disparaged.

A blind eye - a keen eye.
Both, equally abused.

It does not matter what we have, or don't have.
What is - being not what isn't, is what we cannot have.

The human experience, is not ours.
It is for the Universe.

A lock of hair, is only ours when it's a part of us.
When such is severed, we disown thereof.

We are not a part of - we are in part.
We are not being - we are the result of being.

What made the dinosaurs, made dogs and birds.
All that once was, still is, but is no more in form of what was.

The water that is, is more than what appears to be.
It is reflection.
It is consciousness.
It is flow.
It is emergence.
It is form.
It is life.
It is personality.

The more you piece yourself together; the more the world falls apart.

Lest you obey the masterless.
Lest you let go.
Lest you face the shadow.
Lest you escape the light.
Lest you escape yourself.
You have failed personality.
You have failed reality.
You have failed corporeality.
You have failed humility.

A teacher of not what isn't.
A teacher of what is.

The imagination is form, like water.
It is not the cup.
The cup is the Universe.
Without the cup - there is no form to that cup.
Reality is.
Imagination is all that isn't.

Idealism is irrelevant.
Realism is relevant.

What we feel, is not what is.
What we feel, is what isn't.

What we know, is nothing.
What we think we know, isn't.

Everything that is, was once a singularity.
All that is, came from a singularity.

A heart so complex, came from a singularity.
A society so constructed, came from a singularity.
A world so cogent, came from a singularity.
All that is given without beginning, cannot be.

The Subatomic God, is not one.
It's not a thing.
It is.
It's form.
It's young.
It's in the making of.
It's constant.

Everything, is nothing of what isn't.

Nothing, is everything that isn't.

The only puzzle that can be better understood when left in pieces.
The more you try to complete it, the more it cannot be.

One cannot question themselves without questioning the Universe first.
One cannot reflect, without an outside force.

The Universe is our mirror.
The Universe is our heart.
The Universe is our mind.
The Universe is our life.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

Quote:

What have you done ?

You will find a few of my poems by researching my posting history. Unlike you, I tend to think rhyme and structure are at least as important as content. Alas, nowadays, it seems that anybody can write down a bunch of musings and call it poetry.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Condescending me again, I see. I can already say that you're not here to learn - you're here to lie.

2 Replies

@One Eyed Mind,

Quote:

Condescending me again

I suggest your grammar speaks for itself and makes "condescending" superfluous.

0 Replies

@One Eyed Mind,

BTW I don't believe you have a clue about what the Riemann Hypothesis is about. (I think your grasp of "imaginary numbers" is likley to be at the same level as a graffito on the toilet wall of the maths department at one UK universities: "God is the Square Root of Minus One").

Much more interesting to philosophers is the general problem of the ontological and epistemological status of mathematical models, of which the work of Riemann provides but a few examples. The fact that attempts to "prove" Riemann's Hypothesis might raise doubts about "The Law of the Excluded Middle" could be another* nail in the coffin of traditional logic. That point is something of a problem to naive realists looking for "causes", despite the fact that traditional logic already makes little sense in established quantum theory.

* (See the work of Piaget, Paul Cohen, and Gödel on the status of "logic")

0 Replies

@One Eyed Mind,

One Eyed Mind wrote:

Ding, I'd like you to look into "Riemanns Hypothesis". This formula is demonstrating that the Universe we live in is existing on both, real and imaginary mathematical units. This is why fear/ignorance is so "infinite" and why the world even has the ability to create concept/object.

I'm aware of the Riemann Hypothesis. Don't get what you're trying to prove with it.

The world doesn't create concepts. We do.

1 Reply

What constitutes being a philosopher?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know