What constitutes being a philosopher?

@spendius,

That's vs all other forms of government. It should be self-explanatory for such a well read individual as you claim to be.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Were it actually to be self explanatory, as you assert, there would have been no need to blurt that out to hide the obvious fact that you can't explain it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

No; I'm only responding to you. That should be self-explanatory.

0 Replies

@spendius,

...In one word, it protects diversity Spendius...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

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?

I would argue that you do need to know, to a certain extent, the history of philosophy, whether it be dating back to Aristotle, or to the present age. But of course, and I would agree with you on this notion, simply knowing about the history of philosophy is not a necessary condition for being a philosopher. In fact, it is rather sufficient.

So what precisely constitutes being a philosopher? Well we could say that it necessarily requires thinking; but thinking as directed towards what? Perhaps at ourselves? Perhaps as to what we ought to do? Or perhaps as to what we may hope for? I think I'll leave that for you to ponder.

And no I do not have a book to fit the title. Why is this even required in the first place?

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

It would seem to me that "rational argument" is a very subjective one, and "what constitutes being a philosopher" can differ from person to person. Just look at the subjects of religion and politics; it's a myriad of conclusions by all manners of people, and it matters not what their IQ or philosophical beliefs. Each of us believe we have the correct answer to these topics, but you wouldn't know it by the diversity of opinions surrounding them.

I say, to each their own.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It would seem to me that "rational argument" is a very subjective one,

How exactly is a rational argument a subjective one? Is there a differnence between a rational argument that is subjective and one that is objective? What exactly constitutes subjectivity?

Furthermore, I do not see why you add "rational" to "argument"; perhaps you mean "rational" as in a sound argument, in which case you might (although probably not) be on to something.

cicerone imposter wrote:

and "what constitutes being a philosopher" can differ from person to person. Just look at the subjects of religion and politics; it's a myriad of conclusions by all manners of people, and it matters not what their IQ or philosophical beliefs.

Ah, but would you not argee that there are essential properties in order to be a philosopher, namely, being able to think?

Also, I do not understand the premises from which you draw the conclusion. Perhaps that a philosopher has varying beliefs from other philosophers? This seems right, but this is merely a sufficient (accidental) property, namely, having a specific set of beliefs. I do not think, however, that you have demonstrated that philosophers lack essential properties that make them what we call philosophers.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Each of us believes we have the correct answer to these topics, but you wouldn't know it by the diversity of opinions surrounding them.

I say, to each their own.

Of course you would know it, especially if the person specifically said that they had correct beliefs regarding the supposed "topics" (whatever they may be). However, belief, as I take it, is most certainly not as strong as knowing, so I would imagine that we would have little reason to accept "correct beliefs".

I say, wiggity wiggity woo.

2 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

It's because "rational" is in the eye of the beholder. Why do you think there are so many different opinions on politics and religion. Most believe they are "rational," but they are essentially subjective determinations based on their own values and thinking. That makes it "subjective" in every meaning of that word.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's because "rational" is in the eye of the beholder. Why do you think there are so many different opinions on politics and religion. Most believe they are "rational," but they are essentially subjective determinations based on their own values and thinking.

Well I would imagine being rational constitutes some type of subjectivity, in particular, an individual (subject). But I have the strange feeling that you do not mean this.

Would you not say that there must be a subject in order for there to be rationality? What would rationality look like without it?

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

I'm not qualifying who philosophers are; even philosophers have different takes on what they believe to be rational on one topic or another. Philosophers also engage in politics and religion. They have their own opinion on what to believe or not to believe. I believe what I believe from my pov.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

We're going around in circles.

Ding, What religion do you believe in, and why do you believe you are rational in your choice?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

We're going around in circles.

Ding, What religion do you believe in, and why do you believe you are rational in your choice?

I do not have a religion with which I can readily assign myself.... Nope, cannot think of any.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm not qualifying who philosophers are; even philosophers have different takes on what they believe to be rational on one topic or another. Philosophers also engage in politics and religion. They have their own opinion on what to believe or not to believe. I believe what I believe from my pov.

Do you mean "rational" as in "sound"?

Could you believe in something else from someone else's point of view? What would this look like?

2 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

No, I mean rational as in using what one thinks is good reasoning. You can also use the dictionary definition if you prefer.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

No, I mean rational as in using what one thinks is good reasoning. You can also use the dictionary definition if you prefer.

Well would not good reasoning also be sound? Certainly we want premises in our arguments to be true, as well as our conclusion. This is what soundness is. So if there is not a direct correspondence between the two, perhaps they are corollaries?

What one thinks is good reasoning... So perhaps using logic? So using logic is a corollary to good reasoning. But not simply 'using' logic, but using it properly, i.e., making valid arguments.

Or am I mistaken?

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

The word "sound" for this discussion doesn't fit right for me, but if that word fits your definition better, be my guest.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Ding an Sich and C I

Honestly I don't think that you know what you are talking about, you guys does not reflect any deeper knowledge of psycology and neurology.

Ignorents, idiots, retards, psycos and skitzo ..etc ..etc, usually won't have a clue that they'r utterly wrong in the ramblings and ravings. Cyracuz and Pentaqle Queen is 2 excellent examples of 2 clueless people, sure they will have a extensive knowledge about philosophy, but without rationallity they'll only dispense beautiful rethorics which many naive people will agree with, and won't find utterly stupid.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

...I believe that was exactly what Einstein did with Relativity...and his argument was not only logic and sound but it seams also to be true as far as we can tell...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

Hex

you should change your signature to Forum Heckler

And take some advice, since you are trying to "dispense beautiful rethorics which many naive people will agree with"... It helps to get the spelling right. Wink

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

So what makes a person a philosopher?

As stated by Bertrand Russell: "I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine." I think people who think along these lines would be considered a philosopher...maybe not a practicing one who debates their ideas with other people, but who entertains those ideas.

1 Reply

What constitutes being a philosopher?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know