What qualifications do "philosophers" need ?

A question that often nags me too. I wish there was a way to remove the romanticism from philosophy and remind its practitioners that ornate platitudes are not ends in themselves, and that philosphers are useful (i.e. capable of teaching people things) only to the extent that they hold themselves to the same standards of accountability that all scholars do (or should). If all a philosopher wants to do is define things in prettier language than the layman is accustomed to, fine; but if a philosopher wants to make claims about how the world works, he or she needs to back up these claims with evidence. There should be a way to test these claims; something needs to be at stake for philosophy to matter.

None whatsoever, some might say. A Ph.D in philosophy others might suggest. If you want to know what education a philosopher might need, then that's a whole different question. Study the careers of Quine, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, Plato, etc.

Shapeless:

Don't. Don't read any of that guff.

Just party.....

Heh... now that's a philosophy I'd like to test. Be back in a few days!

A few proposals for your comments.

(1) A willingness to examine ones own personal and cultural conditioning.

(2) A willingness to explore the status of the axioms behind any proposition.

(3) Some knowledge of the classical debates in philosophy such as "the mind body problem".

I ask this question because many contributers to this philosophy forum fall short in one or more of these areas.

The only problem I see here is that I imagine there could be someone who comes to this forum, as a philosopher let's say, who has 3 entirely different proposals. To which you, for example, fall short of. Now I personally enjoy your posts, my point is merely that when considering the topic title, with regards to online/forum discussion, no such "qualifications" exist in any objective sense. Philosophy can mean so much to so many different people of such varied backgrounds be it academic or otherwise though.

Re: What qualifications do "philosophers" need ?
Patience, clear thinking, skepticism, internet access, spell check, humor, and most importantly
.
.
.
.
.
.
beer nuts

ashers

I agree these are not "formal qualifications" and of the three, the third is usually the poor relation. However I would argue that 1 and 2 are essential, and willingness to read up on 3 an acceptable substitute.

Chumley,

I like your list but would probably fail on "patience" ! (For example I can't be bothered going into a whole rigmerole with our friend shapeless above about the status of "evidence" with respect to "perceptual set".)

Fresco,
Whelp, you know one whole hell of a lot more about the subject than I do, and I have always appreciated your insight and patience with me.

beards.

beards are a must, except for frenchmen, then they can have those insouciant looking mustaches.

its also the reason there have been so few great female philosophers.

I think you just need to think critically, even of your own beliefs. I don't think reading others' philosophies is a requirement for being a philosopher. It may help, but sometimes it may do the opposite.

Maybe reading the basics about critical thinking, etc would help. Understanding the meaning of words that other philosophers use may help too if you're planning to analyze their works.

I think a thick beard and thick glasses are a must.

Hmm, gonna have to start growing 'em.

Well I fail on the beard but can offer a hairy chest.

Another important asset is a bunch of philosophical excuses for not doing jobs like mowing the grass....e.g. "What does it matter in cosmic time"...or "I do not wish to commit vegicide".

Mark me as a stoic when it come to cleaning the house as all external conditions of life can and must be endured.

I prefer the Leibniz route myself. It is simply contained in my concept that I don't mow the lawn; if you don't like it, have your monads call my monads and we'll do lunch.

Chumly:

'Beer nuts?'

No way. Not unless they're still in the plastic pack.

Dont you know that most guys don't wash their hands
when they return to the bar from the john?

I wouldn't touch naked nuts with a barge-pole...

Coherst:

I love that 'ecstasy of understanding.'

But you know what? That kind of understanding
has always eluded me. For me, understanding is a kind of relief, rather than an ecstasy. It gives me a break from my general experience of cluelessness.

Or, to put it another way:those 'eureka' moments are like buoys, markers in the ocean of clulessness that typifies my conscious experience....

It's fun being dumb!