What constitutes being a philosopher?

so air is a truth

Your's certain is!

hold your breath for 30 minutes...need I say more ? really , need I say more

what constitutes a philosopher is the ability to understand and see , the complexity and simplicity of things

the want to know

There have been incidents where people have been in situations where they were unable to breathe for longer than 30 minutes, and they have survived. Extreme cold that can kill you can also save your life.

Different truths can be divined from the same set of facts. So truth isn't neccesarily valid regardless of intent, as may be said about fact. What I mean when I say that there is no such thing as truth is that there is no single truth that can be said to be absolute and unquestionable.

If someone wants to tell me a truth, the best they can do is communicate the facts in such a way that I make the same conclusions and arrive at the same truth. If I percieve anything different we may not agree about what the actual situation is, even though we are both working with the same facts.

So it is true that the sky is blue, unless I want to argue the point and can come up with another truth that is equally or more meaningful.

I like that. It's poetic

Come on Cyr. It's not in the least poetic.

"The last rasping gasp of the mantis's groom" is poetic.

Or-

"If **** had value the poor wouldn't have arseholes".

Cyra, Well explained, and I agree. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

It's actually meaningless Cyr. What does each key word mean? Leaving out the "ability to understand and see" in the same way you do.

Infants qualify.

Spoken from a four year old mental giant.

I disagree

go a month then without breathing



again I disagree

so water is a fact , do you percieve water different from me



but can you is the point

North, When you change the conditions for any event, it's not the same event. 30 minutes and 30 days are not equal in any way shape or form when it's about breathing.

Are you just born dumb, or is that a learned skill?

yet the truth is evident

like it or not

There have been people who have gone months without breathing. During that time they were hooked up to a machine that supplied them with oxygen. But they couldn't survive without the machine, because they weren't breathing.
I am not arguing against the meaning of the truths you offer, I am simply trying to show that any truth can be questioned and modified.

And what do you mean "water is a fact"?
Just the concept in itself isn't particularly meaningful. Are you talking about the mix of oxygen and hydrogen? Rain? Are you thirsty?
How do you percieve water? In a number of different ways. More ways that you can think of on the go, and I am betting you even have a few ways to understand water that have no corresponding perception of the actual thing behind it. Just a theory about chemical composition of elements, for instance.

I do not mean to be condescending, but perhaps you could benefit from establishing to yourself with greater clarity the differences between fact and truth? It is a tricky distinction, worthy of philosophic effort. I still get confused at times, and have to doublecheck my references.

And I am not certain that there are no contexts in which it would be more meaningful to think of the sky in other terms that it's color. Situations where the truth "the sky is blue" holds little or no practical value because there is another truth that is of greater meaning in the relevant context.

A philosopher is someone who
1. Has a firm education in the philosophical tradition.
and
2. Works with the creation, critique or improvement of concepts used to aprehend reality, mainly in some traditional areas:
(Logic, political philosophy, epistemology, aesthetics, ethics...)

it takes from the quantum to atoms to molecules , the micro to the macro for life to exist

without the macro there is NO thought

even if every quantum particle has the ability to be alive therefore to think , the quantum needs the micro to come together to produce a macro object in order to express this thought or thinking

in a space of just quantum particles nothing gets done , all the particles are disjointed , NO coherence

it is the macro that gives order to quantum particles and in the end gives us galaxies , stars , planets , moons etc and then life where life can be , not just anywhere , but on some macro place , which hence could perhaps allow life to take hold and grow to the point of surviving to the point of advanced thought beyond just being able to survive

THAT is a fundamental truth

and THAT is where any modern philosopher should start

we need to understand that to be a philosopher is to understand reality , and its fundamental role of how and why are here , exist , in the first place

metaphysics has no role here

once we understand this then we can move forward in our thinking upon other questions or thoughts

Karaka.

Allow me to suggest you read Rorty "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature". In this he argues that your point 1 is merely the establishment of a "conversational paradigm". As for point 2 he takes the view that "philosophers" per se have no privileged status in any of the fields you include, and if anything they are followers rather than leaders, albeit they might make interesting comments on developments. This point would negate the idea that philosophers are "creative" in those fields.

Rorty's conclusions about traditional (Western analytic) philosophy are that much of it amounts to Geswatz ( Wittgenstein ...idle chatter), but that its questioning nature is "socially healthy" for the promotion of "democratic principles".

Karaka.

LATER EDIT

Allow me to suggest you read Rorty "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature". In this he argues that your point 1 is merely the establishment of a "conversational paradigm". As for point 2 he takes the view that "philosophers" per se have no privileged status in most of the fields you include, and if anything they are followers rather than leaders, albeit they might make interesting comments on developments. This point would negate the idea that philosophers are "creative" in those fields, with the exception of "political philosophy".

Rorty's conclusions about traditional (Western analytic) philosophy are that much of it amounts to Geswatz ( Wittgenstein ...idle chatter), but that its questioning nature is "socially healthy" for the promotion of "democratic principles".

Why would the promotion of democratic principles be socially healthy and what do these terms mean?