What constitutes being a philosopher?

I would like it better if he had said "thought about thought". Words are meaningless without thought, and they express it only imperfectly.

My billygoat's got a beard.. It's not white though. And stroking it tends to lead to a completely different kind of "meditation"

Whose thought? Sounds and marks are not words unless those sounds and marks have meaning. If that is what you mean, I agree. Talk, of course, consists of words, but that does not mean that talk consists only of words. If someone utters the words, "proclivity drinks procrastination", that is not talk. We can think about thinking and be doing psychology, not philosophy.

What constitutes being a philosopher?

The "Zetetic" study, the infinite search and nevertheless recognising the Dogma, the Law, or simply what it is True and happens to be. (To be with it...)

...the inner need of ORDER.

A Philosopher is therefore a searcher who asks more then it dares to answer...but that can consent himself to answer !
The Goal for Philosophy is at such light the goal for one self, or "true Salvation"...

Clarity, Pax, or Rest through the path of dynamic thinking, our own thinking...the process MUST be personnel !

Information on the History of Philosophy it is a tool, and must be distinguished as such, it is not Philosophy !

...and often a tool more restrictive then really informative, unfortunately...

Nevertheless, memory, testament, or the epistle, as path made real by mankind must be respected and should be known in conformity with our own apt judgement !

I mean that some thoughts can only be expressed imperfectly with words, and you need endless modifications of your statements to clarify particular meaning of words in your context. To take one concept and write about it is to divide it up into many contrasts which supply information that can be used to rebuild the concept.
This is reflected in the idea that only knowledge can be shared through words, and as such they cannot directly contribute to the love of (philo) wisdom (sofia).
They can only supply you with more information for your thought to process in what is perhaps the only purely philosophic activity.

I would say that the goals of philosophy are themselves a subject of philosophy. Any consideration about philosophy is in itself a subject of philosophic thought.

I have said many times here on a2k that studying what philosophers through the ages have written does not make you a philosopher, but a historian with an emphasis on ideas. Sadly, I have spoken with both students and professors of philosophy who fail to see the meaning in this statement.

As long as the individual continues in their quest to seek truth can be considered to be a philosopher. This would be my definition.

I am wary of the word truth. There is no such thing. But on second thought that is perhaps a "fact" that speaks for your definition more than against it..

"..." on "fact" because I mean it as a phrase, not to suggest that the consideration actually is fact.

I agree that truth is a very subjective word, but applied universally to arrive at what can be considered fact is our aim, isn't it? We still must rationalize what is fact, but it would be based on "universal agreement." A conclusion that has no counter argument.

Is the sky blue?

In that case if I keep looking for a restaurant that stays open after midnight in my town so I can get some dinner after work, that makes me a philosopher?

Would you be willing to say that was true? If not, then why are you posting it?

everything I say is a lie.

In your simple world, yes.

It looks like kennet isn't distinguishing between fact and truth at the moment.

There are, in fact, two senses of the word "fact":

1. "Fact" is synonymous with "truth". When Joe Friday of Dragnet famously says, "Just the facts please, Ma'm" when talking to a crime witness, he is asking her to give him only the truths about she is aware of, with no embellishments. In the sense, a fact is what makes a true statement true ("true" here is the adjective, and "truth" is the noun). Facts or truths are what make true statements true, and the absence of which make false statements false. So, truths or facts are what are sometimes called, "truth-makers".

2. But "fact" is sometime used differently to refer not to truths, but rather to just those truths that we know are true, So, in this epistemological sense of "fact" a fact is proper sub-set of all truths, namely only those truths we know are true.

kenneth, Fact and truth are not always true. Think about religions.

I think ci. must have that famous reference book "What an Underbred Cinders Wench Would Say To Just About Everything." There's ten pages on responses to a stare. "ave yeh got yer eyeful?" is the most common.

If ken thinks about religions like you do ci. he's bound to come to the same conclusions you have.

I think you must mean that what we believe are fact and truth are not always true. And that is, of course, true.

spendi, Your posts have no value, add nothing to the discussion, and you're just a plain pain in the butt.

Good.