What qualifications do "philosophers" need ?

coberst,

I also agree with Doggeral that "ecstacy" is somewhat misplaced. Your lengthy contribution endorses my points 1 and 2 above, but if these are followed to the limit they would imply that "understanding" itself is a concept subject to philosophical analysis. This is not to say that "eureka moments" don't occur but for me these are associated with recognition of the "elegance" of ideas.

Here's one qualification:

Puppies for sale - -Will you send this back?



A farmer had some puppies he needed to sell. He painted a sign advertising the 4 pups. And set about nailing it to a post on the edge of his yard. As he was driving the last nail into the post, he felt a tug on his overalls. He looked down into the eyes of little boy.


"Mister," he said, "I want to buy one of your puppies."


"Well," said the farmer, as he rubbed the sweat off the back of his neck, "These puppies come from fine parents and cost a good deal of money."


The boy dropped his head for a moment. Then reaching deep into his pocket, he pulled out a handful of change and held it up to the farmer.


"I've got thirty-nine cents. Is that enough to take a look?"



"Sure," said the farmer. And with that he let out a whistle. "Here, Dolly!" he called. Out from the doghouse and down the ramp ran



Dolly followed by four little balls of fur.


The little boy pressed his face against the chain link fence. His eyes danced with delight.


As the dogs made their way to the fence,



the little boy noticed something else stirring inside the doghouse.
Slowly another little ball appeared, this one noticeably smaller. Down the ramp it slid. Then in a somewhat awkward manner, the little pup began hobbling toward the others, doing its best to catch up....


"I want that one," the little boy said, pointing to the runt. The farmer knelt down at the boy's side and said, "Son, you don't want that puppy. He will never be able to run and play with you like these other dogs would."


With that the little boy stepped back from the fence, reached down, and began rolling up one leg of his trousers.


In doing so he revealed a steel brace running down both sides of his leg attaching itself to a specially made shoe.


Looking back up at the farmer, he said, "You see sir, I don't run too well myself, and he will need someone who understands."


With tears in his eyes, farmer reached down and picked up the little pup.


Holding it carefully handed it to the little boy.


"How much?" asked the little boy. "No charge," answered the farmer, "There's no charge for love."


The world is full of people who need someone who understands.


It's National Friendship Week.

Some type of opiate is a must-have.

Can't be a philosopher if you're too grounded in reality (which, it turns out, doesn't exist)

When you see a kid and his mother arguing about something and the mother says...

"Look, please do this for me, I gave birth to you, I looked after you, I brought you up..."

...and the kid responds...

"I didn't ask to be born, in fact, just what is exist...."

...you know you're onto a winner

I wanted to say something about an open mind and ability to doubt your own position and long held ideas but I've come across more than my fair share of people who were both narrow minded and well receieved in debates. They stuck, steadfast, to their opinion but they argued it with panache.

Being well received is the equivalent of winning a popularly contest.

the primary need to become a "philosopher" is appropriate attire, possibly a well trimmed beard, bookcases preferably of walnut with leather bound volumes of greek literature as well as D.H. Lawerence and as least one Baretta Golden Snipe over-under shotgun on the wall. A decanter of port as well as 30 year old single malt scoth whisky and a 12 pack of long-neck bud in the cooler. A minimum of 1.7$ mil in stocks/bonds and an estate exceeding 1/2 acre with 3 car garage containing a Volvo and and Acura. Also, one should not have any experience in the outdoors of reality. Afternoon tea should consist of some abhorent concoction such as suchong or Lipton Green.

I don't really mean debate in a literal sense, more net debates and discussions on forums like this. Being well received is only the equivalent of winning a "popularity contest" if the majority involved equates popularity with intelligence or good form.

Also, well received in the sense that, yes, they weren't too willing to admit fault or indifference on a subject, rather they loved arguing a point but personally speaking, I've found these people to be highly useful as a form of benchmark on my own thoughts. They don't hold anything back as it were. Horses for courses I guess, extremes are never pleasant though.

fresco wrote-



Isn't that just introspection?Which everybody can do.

It's a question of how far the examination reaches.
If it's only as far as allows you to think you've done it then everybody is a philosopher.

Give us a concrete example of the depth of introspection which you consider constitutes a philosophical approach.

Couldn't you be accused of being a phoney if you didn't conclude that you were nothing but a cunning and vicious articulate rat and that it followed that professional philosophers are nothing but inventors of word schemes designed to persuade weak-headed people that they should provide all your essential services whilst you sat on your fat arse putting your fingers together meaningfully whilst gazing into some imaginary distant perspective as pissed as a fart waiting for a TV company to ring up to ask you to come on an arty programme to woffle for a few minutes at £200 a time to add to your already bloated salary with taxis and hospitality suites thrown in to pump up your self importance and allow you to feel superior to intensive care nurses and overhead cable repairmen.

(Google D.M.Armstong or Materialist Theory of Mind fresco).

One such introspection I have had concerns the possessive adjective "my"
as in "my land"....."my child". In our culture "property" is safeguarded within a legal system which in terms of rights and obligations, but a Marxist might say "property is theft". By extrapolition the "self" can be seen to be a "social construct" with different connotations in different societies. The continuity of "self" may not entirely reside within the continuity of personal consciousness. An array of "names" may imply an array of "selves" appoaching the Jekyll-Hide scenario.....etc.

Yes.I go with that.

My money.My blood.

It all belongs to the goverment doesn't it?

I think the Marxist idea mentioned is a distraction.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Spendius,

The Marxist dictum implies that "personal rights" are "restrictions to others". For example all countryside fences in the UK epitomize this...apparently this is not so in some Scandinavian countries.

I don't quite see "the government" as some anthropomorphic entity with designs on our "possessions". However. the more dictatorial the style of leadership the more correct you might be.

Interesting questions surround the concept "my child" involving conflicts of "rights of parents to indoctrinate" versus "rights of children not to be indoctrinated". Much religious strife could be ascribed to the ascendency of the former over the latter.

----------------------------------------------------- -----

I bracket the foregoing as an aside to the main thread. I would be quite happy to further debate those issues elsewhere.

Okay.

Go back to "cunning and vicious rat" post.

The question pertains to "qualifications", not "credentials."
I know people with Ph.D.s in philosophy, but for some of them it is merely a license to work at teaching the literature of their field. By contrast, I know philosophers with no such "credentials." Nevertheless, these individuals possess the "qualifications" listed by Fresco above. For these philosophers life/reality is an urgent analytical problem, one they must engage daily with the passion of the artist in his thirst for beauty. By the way, I know of no great artists who have academic degrees in their field (or any field in many cases).

JLN, All good points. PhD's don't guarantee skills or workable knowledge in any field; it's only scholastic.

The philosophical temperament sees as problematical what the non-philosophical temperament (e.g., the naive realist) takes to be obvious..

Here's a good lesson in "philosophy." Just received from a friend in Tanzania.


The people who make a difference !
"Now I see why powerful people often wear sunglasses - the spotlight blinds them to
reality. They suffer from a delusion that power means something (it doesn't). They suffer from the misconception that titles make a difference (they don't). They are under the impression that earthly authority will make a heavenly difference (it won't).
Can I prove my point? Take this quiz.
Name the ten wealthiest people in the world.
Name the last ten Heisman trophy winners.
Name the last ten winners of the Miss America contest.
Name eight people who have won the Nobel or Pulitzer prize.
How about the last ten Academy Award winners for best picture or the last decade's worth of World Series winners?
How did you do? I didn't do well either. With the exception of you trivia hounds, none of us remember the headliners of yesterday too well.
Surprising how quickly we forget, isn't it? And what I've mentioned above are no
second-rate achievements. These are the best in their fields. But the applause dies.
Awards tarnish. Achievements are forgotten. Accolades and certificates are buried with their owners.
Here's another quiz. See how you do on this one:
Think of three people you enjoy spending time with.
Name ten people who have taught you something worthwhile.
Name five friends who have helped you in a difficult time.
List a few teachers who have aided your journey through school.
Name half-a-dozen heroes whose stories have inspired you.
Easier? It was for me, too. The lesson? The people who make a difference are not the ones with the credentials, but the ones with the concern."

That is why I'm always pointing to my maids and pub pals and to writers.

Can you put that in English for a mere peon like me please?

I think the definition can be as broad or as narrow as you like.

Has there ever been a human being who has not spent at least some time contemplating the nature of reality?

On the other hand you could be elitist enough to say that only those whose philosophies had a major impact on the human race should be called "true philosophers" (and even then you're stuck with having to include the likes of Hitler.)

Dont' worry Coberst, I used to see people drawing cartoons in class. No lack of creativity. :wink: