Are Philosophers Generally Selfish?

This is back on the thread's original topic (which is not to say the detour was without its charms.)
What is this "selfishness" I hear so much about? That's an endless or beginning-less thread in itself.
Do thinking-types enjoy time alone? In my experience, yes. Do they obsess over material goods for pleasure or status? In my experience, no. Do they want to impose their ideas on their minds of others? In my experience, yes, but some of them (us) learn not to. Or at least to do so in a less obnoxious way.

We are, in reality, and off course, all philosophers, but I think that admiting to yourself you are a philosopher is a great and helpful step anyway =)

I keep wondering why people keep saying that everyone is a philosopher-much less "of course" (if that is what you are saying). Even if everyone can hum, not everyone is a musician.

Indeed its hard to decide what is selfish, after all its supposed to be a bad thing, but can we really blame someone for just wanting to live their life in peace without having to worry about others? Its something we all want.

A humming person is in that moment a musician even if s/he doesn't realize that s/he is humming.

There are amateur philosophers, professional philosophers, beginning philosophers, novice philosophers, bad philosophers, good philosophers. It's hard to exclude anyone except those who have absolutely no pretensions of being a philosopher and even then someone could engage in philosophy without knowing it to be philosophy and in that passing moment s/he would be a philosopher.

A humming person is in that moment a musician even if s/he doesn't realize that s/he is humming.

I keep wondering why people keep saying that everyone is a philosopher-much less "of course" (if that is what you are saying). Even if everyone can hum, not everyone is a musician.

Its a trick to make philosophers seem less alien before the general populace... =)

Not everyone is a musician from the "job" point of view, but everyone has the ability to be one. This is the meaning we use then we say everyone is a philosopher, that is, the point of view of ability, not profession. Since nobody works as a philosopher (as far as I know), how can we decide if a person is a professional philosopher or not? =)

My best bet is that people who make a living out of selling books/other content where they expose their ideas are philosophers.

A person who is tone-deaf cannot become a musician.

I doubt they would be much good, but deaf composers and blind painters are easily conceivable.

Tone-deaf people can hear perfectly well. Beethoven was (to say the least) a great composer, and he composed his Chorale Symphony when he was stone deaf.

The average post in this forum seems to argue against the previous, is this truly the best way to teach, i dont personnally have a problem with this method of deduction, however it must deter a large number of potential philsophers from wanting to put forward their beleifs due to fear of acceptance by the community

The average post in this forum seems to argue against the previous, is this truly the best way to teach,

i dont personnally have a problem with this method of deduction, however it must deter a large number of potential philsophers from wanting to put forward their beleifs due to fear of acceptance by the community, would it further society to be more accepting of inferior judgements in order to benefit the thought process in the long run as it would encourage more people to think, but at a lower level?

by gaining knowledge are we creating greater inequality and damaging society, or are we leading the way to a utopia by striving towards it?

Or is philsophy just a waste of societies time, when we could be helping those truly in need rather tahn benefiting a select fews knowledge?

I don't think forums like this one are going to replace college courses on philosophy any time soon, which is good because I don't think that discussions on these forums teaches as well as the average introductory philosophy course can.

I agree with Reconstructo...

And by my personal accounts, at least, the people that take philosophy and pay for it usually don't apply it to themselves - they just get the grade, most of the time.

If I go after philosophy, and join the discussion, instead of listen to lecture, and don't aim for a certain grade - does or doesn't that make my pursuit of it more genuine?

The average post in this forum seems to argue against the previous, is this truly the best way to teach, i dont personnally have a problem with this method of deduction, however it must deter a large number of potential philsophers from wanting to put forward their beleifs due to fear of acceptance by the community, would it further society to be more accepting of inferior judgements in order to benefit the thought process in the long run as it would encourage more people to think, but at a lower level? by gaining knowledge are we creating greater inequality and damaging society, or are we leading the way to a utopia by striving towards it? Or is philsophy just a waste of societies time, when we could be helping those truly in need rather tahn benefiting a select fews knowledge?