What makes good philosophy?

Interesting....I suppose that if people were not philosophers, I'm not quite sure who would be, but I can certainly see philosphies developing around the observation of animals and the natural world. I think what most likely makes a good philosopher is a person who is a good observer, a good questioner, a good listener, and a person who is willing to bend their opinion to a good challenge. Incidentally, I missed the thread, so I have no idea if you are being sarcastic or not rufio, I hope not.

i always thought that all individuals were philosphers in their own right....even it's a philosophy that they don't share with anyone, or that is litle known beyond their households.

Like, a small bit of my philosophy is that gentle spanking is sometimes needed in rearing a child.

is this not a personal philosophy and if not, what would be considered one?

Me? Sarcastic? Of course not.

Seriously, it's an honest question, though.

Then you shall get honest answers. I think I'm with onyxelle on the point that it seems inescapable to NOT have some sort of personal philosophy.

my philospophy is EDIT: i thought better of it.....it was an add homonym

onyxelle, I suppose you caught that joke of mine then

yup

I would consider a philosopher; any person who introduces, or expands on an nonfactual idea or opinion in such a way as to provoke further thought. If a persons "philosophy" leads me to consider the validity of my own beliefs, than they, by my definition, are a philosopher.

As for who is a good one or not; I would tend to rank philosopher's roughly in order of how much thought their respective philosophies provoke.

As for Ayn Rand (who, by the way, is the subject of the aforementioned tangent); she very definitely provoked a great deal of thought.

Personally, I'm a follower of Reverend Wing F. Fing.

Fing, Reverend Wing F.
"F--- Yes! A guide to the happy acceptance of everything. Shepherd's Press. (Self-Help)"

"This book bills itself as, ?'The only self-help book you will ever need'. It chronicles the transformation of a down-and-out lower middle-class American man named Norris who assumes the identity Reverend Wing Fu Fing, shepherd to the lost sheep of the world. One day, after he has lost his latest job and he feels utterly despondent, Norris suddenly experiences an epiphany of sorts: He realizes that it is far easier to say, ?'Yes' to almost any question than, ?'No'. Thus begins a truly bizarre odyssey which takes the newly-christened Reverend Wing Fu Fing through a series of brushes with the law, sexual escapades, and strange social encounters that rivals Joseph Heller's Catch-22 in its layers of complexity.
Underneath the highjinks and escapades are some genuine gems of social commentary, as well as wry hints at psychological symbolism. For instance, at one juncture in the text three sisters who bear an uncanny resemablance to Freud's id, ego, and superego make an appearance. While this book probably doesn't quite live up to its billing as ?'the only self-help book you will ever need,' it does provide a refreshing dose of parody of the current self-help literature, while simultaneously showcasing some genuinely powerful experiental scenes and making a number of useful global political and social points."

Excellent book, heh heh.

A good philosopher ?
I don't understand the question.

It's like asking : is gravity good ?

How can you possibly judge ? What criteria do you look at ?
It's implying that there is some sort of moral high ground to be gained from having more ideas or more to say on a particular subject.
It sounds like it's basically rooted in ego, so saying is someone a good philosopher is almost like saying who has the biggest mouth.

I'm still no nearer to understanding the question.

Well, I tend to think of philosophy as more of an art not a science in terms of its derivation, anyway. So there is good philosophy and bad philosophy, just like there would be good debate and bad arguments, good logic and bad... and so forth, regardless of the content of the debate or the logical argument.

I would concur that there is an art to philosophizing.