What constitutes being a philosopher?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I meet more philosophers among the uneducated that among those who study the works of great thinkers.

I met a man once who had earned himself the title of doctor in philosophy. He claimed to be a philosopher, but I am afraid I have to disagree with him. This is my conclusion after engaging him in a little philosophic conversation. He wasn't capable of giving any answer aside from one he'd read somewhere. I read his books afterwards, since I had the suspicion that he wasn't taking me seriously, and therefor not applying himself. But his books consist of strings of quotes, tied together by short paragraphs where he tries to tell us why we this philosopher is relevant here and that one there.

As I see it, a person who has great knowledge of all the ideas of the major influential thinkers isn't a philosopher by virtue of this knowledge.
If he is, the you would have to call a person who loves poetry a great poet, regardless of wether or not this person is capable of producing great poetry.

So what makes a person a philosopher?
Do you have to have your own book published in order to fit the title?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 14 • Views: 16,878 • Replies: 192

What constitutes being a philosopher?

Critical and independent thinking that is argued rationally within the framework of empiricism.

Anything less is just spooge!

1 Reply

So you cannot be a philosopher without mastery of the spoken word?
Without knowledge of the empirical frameworks?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

A philosopher is one who seeks vantage points which might give a clearer view of existence, beyond that which can be described by ordinary language and logic. By definition such vantage points are transcendent of normal language, empiricism, rationality and even existence per se. The viability of such a search is itself an issue for philosophers.

0 Replies

@Chumly,

rationalism and empiricism are often inconsistent with philosophical thought.

2 Replies

lots of really good pot

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

dyslexia,

I offer a slight correction ...

"rationalism and empiricism are often deconstructed by philosophical thought"

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd, the question wasn't what makes you FEEL like a philosopher. If that were the question I would be inclined to agree with you. Wink

But seriously, the way I understand it so far, all you really need to fit the description of philosopher would be an ability to think independently of the framework any issue is presented in?

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

Who says Mr. philosopher's claims are anything more than castles in the sand held together with spooge if you exempt "critical and independent thinking that is argued rationally within the framework of empiricism"?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Let me know when (what you call, not what I call) "philosophical thought" alters the sun's light output.

1 Reply

@Chumly,

Nice challenge !

The philosopher might respond by pointing out that your word "light" presupposes a "sighted" organism and therefore the inseperable linkage between the "existence" of "observer" and "observed".

As for "output" I am certain I have read somewhere of a cosmological theory in which the sun is a net"receiver of energy" (something to do with dark matter perhaps). The point is that both "input" and "output" also presuppose something about "observer status" which philosophers delight in investigating.

"Knowledge" may be more than the mere pragmatics of prediction and control.

0 Replies

And thus, in light of fresco's latest post, chumly's challenge made no sense at all Wink

Perhaps philosophy is limited to a kind of "internal" organizing of the sensory input that reaches us. A kind of spirituality without any adherence to the dogmas that would push it over into the realm of religion.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

....perhaps... but "sensory input" still implies a dualistic world-view in which "external events" impinge on "an observer". That is the world view with which most of contemporary science operates.

However, biologists such as Maturana, and physicists such as Bohr and Bohm have questioned the nature of "external events". Maturana sees "cognition" as "informationally closed", and the concept of "non-locality" in physics implies that that "consciousness" might be better understood as a "field" phenomenon rather than an individual awareness.

Consider this. A recent nature documentary (Attenborough,I think) pointed out that the behaviour of an ant colony was highly suggestive of how individual neurons "co-operate" in the brains of higher organisms. Watching an ant colony respond to a threat was exactly lke watching a single organism engaged in co-ordinated multi-tasking. The seething mass of ants suddenly could be pictured as a unified" brain" oozing around its environment. And so the philosopher extrapolates by asking "What of the individuality of man ?".

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco

Through my "philosophic" activities, with the aid your you and many others, and as a result of trying to live with an awareness of the process of experiencing itself, I have come to accept the idea that the dualistic world view is nothing more than a "function of the human condition" more or less as truth. It is not nessecarily an ultimate truth about the world itself, and it is perhaps not even the best way for humans to percieve.
I deal with these things on a very non scientific level. What I have to go by is largely my own experience. And in this experience, I find that my understanding is enhanced, and understanding new things comes much easier if I consider this dualism that creates differences between percieved objects a side effect of what I am. I've been at this for a while, and "holistic perception" becomes more and more effortless.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Ability to wonder, ponder, ask questions.

To be a good philospher = not to ask stupid questons!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

A necessary condition of being a philosopher is the ability to philosophize. As Wittgenstein writes, philosophy is an activity, not a theory, so happening to know about, and even being able to discuss, philosophical theories, much less adhering to some philosophical theory, need not make someone a philosopher, and such a person need not be a philosopher. By the way, a very good sign that someone is a philosopher (someone who is able to philosophize) is the understanding to the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, which includes the ability to apply such an understanding when one is philosophizing.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Quote:

By the way, a very good sign that someone is a philosopher (someone who is able to philosophize) is the understanding to the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, which includes the ability to apply such an understanding when one is philosophizing.

No that merely defines one as a binary logician. A philosopher is one who understands both the uses and limitations of such logic.

1 Reply

Too many people think that criticizing ideas and tearing down original thinkers is what philosophy is all about. But it is creating ideas and indulging in original thinking that is the very essence of philosophy.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
By the way, a very good sign that someone is a philosopher (someone who is able to philosophize) is the understanding to the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, which includes the ability to apply such an understanding when one is philosophizing.

No that merely defines one as a binary logician. A philosopher is one who understands both the uses and limitations of such logic.

But all I said was that it was a very good sign that one was a goodphilosopher that one understood and could apply the notion of sufficient and necessary conditions. But nowhere did I say that there should be no limits on the application of the notion. I suppose, though, that you don't think there should be limits on the understanding of the notion. So, what I would say is that understanding the notion of sufficient and necessary conditions is clearly a necessary condition of being a good philosophy, but not a sufficient condition because a good philosopher needs also to understand the limits of the application of that notion, but since there are no limits on the understanding of that notion, such a limit is not a limit on the philosopher. I hope you agree. (Your ascription to me of the view that I believed there were no limitations on the use of the notion of sufficient and necessary conditions is, I fear, shows that you are committing the straw-man fallacy of attacking me for holding a position I do not hold. I hope you agree).

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Pull the other one !
Your diatribe merely serves to emphasise your pedantry. It is supercilious to assume that any respondent on a philosophy forum need be reminded about a sub-topic of an elementary logic course. And the fact is that your history of posting implies that YOU are fixated on binary logic in what you assume is "philosophising". It seems you haven't a clue about its limitations!

1 Reply

What constitutes being a philosopher?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know