I can't see anything else than a philosopher specialized in ethics. As a biologist is a scientist specialized in biology. There's no difference regasrding where one is specialized in.
(If I undestand your question correctly and always within in the frame of "philosophers".) — Alkis Piskas

I won't put you on the spot anymore, but I'll tell you what I think, given that I agree with your definition completely, which I do. If a philosopher is one who practices within the field, at least enough to gain enough of a command to do it independently, or teach it, or what have you. Then it appears to me that an ethicist is one who practices ethics, at least to the same degree. Just as I would say the same for a musician. Which begs the question, just how many ethicists do we have among us these days? What do you think? Am I on to something here?

Socrates not charging money speaks to the issue of benefit. He did not teach in order to benefit himself, and did not refuse to teach those who could not pay. — Fooloso4

I don't know exactly who was labeled 'sophist' in the classical era but the lecturer in the video I mentioned, seemed to suggest that the sophists were those who taught the young men how to be wise but they charged for their services. I take it you consider this inaccurate, perhaps I was not attentive enough to everything that was said about the sophists in the lecture.

an ethicist is one who practices ethics, at least to the same degree. — Garrett Travers

That would be something like an "ethics philosopher". Socrates talked a lot about "virtue", which is not exactly ethics, but this subject characterized him.

how many ethicists do we have among us these days? What do you think? — Garrett Travers

Actually, I have never heard talking about "ethicists" ... I just looked that up in the Web ... Wikipedia describes such a person as "one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgment. Following the advice of ethicists is one means of acquiring knowledge." Well, priests can be also have that role, although I believe thay are quite biased and usually dogmatic.

Indeed, what makes you wondering about "ethicists"? Aren't philosophers your subject?

the sophists were those who taught the young men how to be wise but they charged for their services. — universeness

Generally, what the sophists taught was how to win arguments, how to persuade others to do what is to your advantage. For some this is what it means to be wise. Socrates attempted to persuade them otherwise.

Did Socrates pursue philosophy as a profession? — Fooloso4

No, he wasn't. His profession was stone-worker. And, although hdid not even considered himself as a teacher, I strongly believe he was a teacher. In fact, one of the best that we know at that period of time and, for a lot of people, of all time. Anyway, it seems that he was systematically involved in philosophy and he produced a lot of work in that area, not in writing but verbally, by dialoguing. (Re: Plato's "Dialogues", Socratic dialogues.)

All this makes him certainly a philosopher, according to my position on the subject.

That would be something like an "ethics philosopher". Socrates talked a lot about "virtue", which is not exactly ethics, but this subject characterized him. — Alkis Piskas

Yes. For example, I am a philosopher by academic study, by pursuit of knowledge, and by product in writing. I focus in ethics, which is the branch that formulates reliable, consistent, and logically valid systems of moral behavior.

Actually, I have never heard talking about "ethicists" ... I just looked that up in the Web ... Wikipedia describes such a person as "one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgment. Following the advice of ethicists is one means of acquiring knowledge." Well, priests can be also have that role, although I believe thay are quite biased and usually dogmatic. — Alkis Piskas

And that my friend is exactly my point that I'd hoped you'd pick up on. Of course, the ethicists are here among us somewhere doing something, but they aren't among us in the sense that we generally discuss the field, say, with friends, family, aquaintances. This is a big deal. If only so many people are musicians, which means only so many people are practicing and producing music, then the state that such a recognition leaves the field of ethics and the practicing and production of sound moral systems is quite limited. And, I'd wager to say that there are FAR more musicians than ethical philosophers.

Indeed, what makes you wondering about "ethicists"? Aren't philosophers your subject? — Alkis Piskas

Ah, it's just my passion, I love this field, you see? I am always wondering if we can bring more people into the fold and increase the man-power associated with developing moral behaviors. I imagine you haven't missed noticing that we're in a deficit right now, by and large, eh?

I don't know exactly who was labeled 'sophist' in the classical era but the lecturer in the video I mentioned, seemed to suggest that the sophists were those who taught the young men how to be wise but they charged for their services. I take it you consider this inaccurate, perhaps I was not attentive enough to everything that was said about the sophists in the lecture. — universeness

It's a bit different for Socrates. Mainly because he was the first ethicist in Western history, and philosophy was still such a young concept that humans were working with. That being said, Socrates was eternally committed to developing himself in the pursuit of the good. He was always the philosopher, even in death.

I was responding to your claim that the philosopher is someone who practices it as a profession. The professionalization of the field is something worth thinking about. There are some, Thoreau comes to mind, who are quite critical of the profession of philosophy.

In the first section of the Leviathan, Hobbes delivers a hearty rant against Greek philosophers and all who followed in their footsteps. The short version: They are a bunch of wankers, free to wander about gardens without trousers while discussing problems that don't really exist.

I take this to be an invitation to look more closely at Hobbes in light of the ancients, and the ancients in light of Hobbes.

ethics, which is the branch that formulates reliable, consistent, and logically valid systems of moral behavior — Garrett Travers

I liked that. I am also of the opinion that ethics are based on rationality.

And, I'd wager to say that there are FAR more musicians than ethical philosophers. — Garrett Travers

I guess this was always the case ...

Ah, it's [ethics] just my passion, I love this field, you see? I am always wondering if we can bring more people into the fold and increase the man-power associated with developing moral behaviors. I imagine you haven't missed noticing that we're in a deficit right now, by and large, eh? — Garrett Travers

Ethics is one of my favorite subjects too.

And yes, I think it is evident that "we're in a deficit right now" regarding moral behaviors.
There are many reasons for that, as well as a lot to say about developing moral behaviors, which looks like a good subject for a next topic of mine. I don't want to "kill" this one! :smile:

It's a bit different for Socrates. Mainly because he was the first ethicist in Western history, and philosophy was still such a young concept that humans were working with. That being said, Socrates was eternally committed to developing himself in the pursuit of the good. He was always the philosopher, even in death. — Garrett Travers

I always enjoy hearing about the 'beginnings' of our attempts at founding a 'civilisation' or the earliest city-states etc. The case of Socrates is very interesting considering the fact that we have no actual writings from him. Everything we know about him is sourced from others writing bout him. So we are dependent on the accuracy of their reports. I think there were probably many people before Socrates and even contemporary to him who could be described as 'ethicist' or 'wise man/woman.' That's another issue I feel we don't give enough airtime to. Wise women such as Hypatia.
I think it's probably unfortunate that classical Greece and Rome had such a massive impact on our modern civilisations in the West. I think a much more nuanced approach would have been better.
Most of the very early indigenous groups from the aboriginals to the Aztec, Minoan and Shang cultures had a much better respect for the Earth's resources than the Romans and Greeks.
I think early city-state-type settlements from The Akkadians, the Phonecians, Earliest Persians etc had many pearls of wisdom to offer, which were probably destroyed by early morons such as Alexander the great(dickhead).

We should teach that our first and biggest mistake was the idea that progress and uniting peoples could only ever be achieved by conquering them, enslaving them and stealing everything they had.
I think that we should stop admiring early Greece and Rome.
I think it was mimicry of these moronic cultures that started us on the incredibly bloody path to the destructive cultures we have today. I might be being a bit harsh on the Romans and Greeks. It may well be that such behavior was inevitable due to our Darwinian experiences in the wild but it is such a real shame that we valued and respected our greatest warriors rather than our greatest thinkers.

The braun can always kill brain approach proved to be such a costly way to progress.
How much better would it have been if early civilisations could have grown together and eventually have united in peace instead of through violence. I think we would be a far more harmonious species today and would not always be on the brink of our own destruction.
Ten thousand years of slaughtering anything different from what some local. tribal, tough guy, F***wit leader considered 'the only way to do things' is why we are in the state we are in now.
If only we could all see that it was these dimwitted, totally wrong f***** up early decisions that we must stop emulating and repeating. We based our civilisation on some of the worse elements of those early ones. Rich, poor, money, divine right of kings, rule of the strongest, conquest as a means of expansion, etc, etc
wrong! wrong! wrong!

a value for value trade of the products of one's mind, — Garrett Travers

What do you mean with this? Can you give an example?

the real philosopher is he who realizes — Garrett Travers

The "he" as philosopher is indeed in spirit with Nietzsche (not Nietszche...).

I was responding to your claim that the philosopher is someone who practices it as a profession. — Fooloso4

As said, "especially as a profession". I mentioned also other factors that can qualify someone as a philosopher ...

The professionalization of the field is something worth thinking about. There are some, Thoreau comes to mind, who are quite critical of the profession of philosophy. — Fooloso4

Well, this is his opinion! :smile:

Here are some of the many references containing a contrary opinion, which I could easily find:

- Philosophy as a Profession
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24435126
- Professional Philosophy
https://portfolium.com/entry/my-professional-philosophy
- Is philosophy a profession?
https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/is-philosophy-a-profession-yes-its-a-serious-question/
...

You can find more if you like ...

You can also see the subject of professionalization from a practical viewpoint, in reality: How do you call philosophers who use philosophy for living, by writing books or delivering lectures about their own philosophical ideas? OK, let writing aside, because you could call them professional "writers". But what about lectures? Would you call them a professional "lecturers"?

Anyway, "professionalization" is not a main issue in this topic. As it often happens in these discussions, we have deviated from the main subject of the topic, which here is to determine what qualifies someone as a philosopher. .

Anyone can do philosophy, but a true philosopher does not jump between emotional opinions and proper philosophical scrutiny when constructing conclusions to an argument. A true philosopher knows when they're just having opinions and when they are doing a proper argument.

Most non-philosophers that shouldn't be considered philosophers don't conduct proper arguments or try any kind of evaluation of their own argument, they just present opinion pieces.

That is the difference.

Now, it's difficult to frame all philosophers within this framework since much of the proper methods are what we've arrived at in modern times. So many old and dead philosophers cannot be judged in the same light. But the question is what constitutes a philosopher and we can only conclude for today's people and at this time, the methods of philosophy are much more strict and focused than ever before and philosophers are only the ones who follow that strict method and constantly put their own argument under scrutiny.

Full disclosure: I am a philosopher by profession. I have a PhD in philosophy and many years of teaching before I retired.

I have always been reluctant to call myself a philosopher. I think of myself, my colleagues, and my teachers as students of philosophy. I prefer to reserve the term for those rare individuals who have on the historical scale fundamentally shaped our way of thinking.

Thoreau observed that professors of philosophy go to work, come home, and live lives indistinguishable from their neighbors. He saw philosophy as a way of life, the art of living. Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living.

I used to say that philosophy was a transformative practice, but unfortunately that has become hackneyed.

I would be interested in your opinion of Jordan Peterson? If you were willing to give it?
Also, do you think neuroscientists such as Sam Harris can bridge any gap between Science and philosophy, can anyone be called a 'Scientific Philosopher?'

It's probably already been said but I like your play on fool lo sofour(4) or foolosopher. :rofl:

I always enjoy hearing about the 'beginnings' of our attempts at founding a 'civilisation' or the earliest city-states etc. The case of Socrates is very interesting considering the fact that we have no actual writings from him. Everything we know about him is sourced from others writing bout him. So we are dependent on the accuracy of their reports. — universeness

It's actually a funny thing in the history of philosophy. It is general accepted and not disputed that Socarates in fact did live, however it's kind of an unspoken agreement in the field that its very much possible that he's a fictional character

I think there were probably many people before Socrates and even contemporary to him who could be described as 'ethicist' or 'wise man/woman.' That's another issue I feel we don't give enough airtime to. Wise women such as Hypatia. — universeness

Hypatia is among my favorites. One of the few true female philosophers we've had. We haven't had many for some reason. But, yes, the "pre-Socratic' philosophers Thales, Anaxagorus, Anaximander were all before Socrates, but they were very much concerned with metaphysics. I've not found myself too interested in them I have to confess.

I think it's probably unfortunate that classical Greece and Rome had such a massive impact on our modern civilisations in the West. I think a much more nuanced approach would have been better.
Most of the very early indigenous groups from the aboriginals to the Aztec, Minoan and Shang cultures had a much better respect for the Earth's resources than the Romans and Greeks. — universeness

That is true in many regards, the Aztecs were particularly impressive. Tenochtitlan was a marvel of an ancient city. However, I am a bit reserved on concluding that earth's resources were really regarded by any people like we view them today. Respect of such things has come in many forms throught the millenia.

We should teach that our first and biggest mistake was the idea that progress and uniting peoples could only ever be achieved by conquering them, enslaving them and stealing everything they had.
I think that we should stop admiring early Greece and Rome. — universeness

This has been the standard from the as far back as Babylon on before. When humans became a food producing species, it became clear that humans were split between two types of people, producers and consumers. But, this recognition caused another split, laborers and opprotunists. The game quickly became to the victor go the spoils, and the devil take the hindmost. Early Greeks and Romans have many things to be admired for, they weren't even remotely the most destructive, or savage people. The Huns used to have contests to see who could slaughter the most babies in raids. Try to remember human standards back then as established by the pathetic brutes that rather snuff out the torch to have sovereignty for themselves, instead of letting the human mind flourish in freedom. We are all better people than these monsters. Most of us...

I think it was mimicry of these moronic cultures that started us on the incredibly bloody path to the destructive cultures we have today. I might be being a bit harsh on the Romans and Greeks. It may well be that such behavior was inevitable due to our Darwinian experiences in the wild but it is such a real shame that we valued and respected our greatest warriors rather than our greatest thinkers. — universeness

I thin you are being harsh. Greece was the first "civilized" place on the planet, not that standards for such were high, which is why it ended up leading to the Roman Empire being the world power. The path of blood began long before the phonecians and lydians etc. ever even landed in Greece. And it was specifically the Greek philosophical tradition that has kept the West from remaining stuck in its post-Roman tribalism and mysticism, even if Christianity still vitiates the tradition in ways most don't even go about noticing. Valuing warriors was necessary to keep the brutes at bay. It wasn't the thinkers running the show in any of these realms. The thinkers had to hide. Sound a bit familiar? Thinking really wasn't valued as it is today until after the fall of Constantinople and the idea of Christendom as a unifying ideal fell apart before the world. That's when Machievelli, and Galileo, Copernicus, Michelangelo, Newton, Leibnitz, all came out of hiding, so to speak. The world could think for the first time. And it was DIRECTLY inspired by the Greek philosophical tradition.

The braun can always kill brain approach proved to be such a costly way to progress.
How much better would it have been if early civilisations could have grown together and eventually have united in peace instead of through violence. I think we would be a far more harmonious species today and would not always be on the brink of our own destruction. — universeness

The weak and pathetic mystics of muscle don't care about consciousness, only how it can serve their own sovereignty. There are far fewer thinkers on this earth than those who can't stand the fact that to think is to live. They hate life and will take it from you before they are forced to face that reality, and the responsibility attendant upon it.

Ten thousand years of slaughtering anything different from what some local. tribal, tough guy, F***wit leader considered 'the only way to do things' is why we are in the state we are in now.
If only we could all see that it was these dimwitted, totally wrong f***** up early decisions that we must stop emulating and repeating. We based our civilisation on some of the worse elements of those early ones. Rich, poor, money, divine right of kings, rule of the strongest, conquest as a means of expansion, etc, etc
wrong! wrong! wrong! — universeness

We will get there in time, it is inevitable. We've made strides, man, vast strides just in the past 80 years alone. The collective awareness of evil is what needs to be the focus. And we have to beat those who would seek to convince people that domination of any kind is justified. There are still many, many people who hold this opinion, it's on display every time we go to vote, every time another shooting happens, and every time you hear about tribal affinity. Ethics is the only hope humanity has, we must all strive to be philosophers if it means our asses.

I would be interested in your opinion of Jordan Peterson? — universeness

If you want an example of a contemporary sophist Peterson comes to mind first. At some point he began to garner attention and has milked it for all its worth.

Also, do you think neuroscientists such as Sam Harris can bridge any gap between Science and philosophy, can anyone be called a 'Scientific Philosopher?' — universeness

I would look to someone like Patricia Churchland to do that with regard to neuroscience, and Sean Carroll for physics. They are not the only ones, but they do write for the general public.

I think Harris has become a willing victim of his own success, giving his pronouncements on all kinds of things simply because he has an audience.

You may be the first to have commented on my forum name.

a value for value trade of the products of one's mind,
— Garrett Travers

What do you mean with this? Can you give an example?

the real philosopher is he who realizes
— Garrett Travers

The "he" as philosopher is indeed in spirit with Nietzsche (not Nietszche...). — Schootz1

Do me a favor and provide more context on which statements these quotes were pulled from, there's too much for me to sift throught to find them to give you a proper response.

The Huns used to have contests to see who could slaughter the most babies in raids. Try to remember human standards back then as established by the pathetic brutes that rather snuff out the torch to have sovereignty for themselves, instead of letting the human mind flourish in freedom. We are all better people than these monsters. Most of us... — Garrett Travers

I think it goes back much further. Do we chastise the Lion for slaughtering a baby deer and consuming it or killing the cubs of a rival? It's 'law of the jungle stuff'. I'm sure there were many savage members of our evolutionary lineage right back to our common ape ancestors. I think terms like human monster/brute etc became valid when our triune brain began to coalesce into individuals who started to 'measure' behavior against emergent phenomena such as morality/ethics. A battle has ensued ever since between emergent morality/ethics against our 'law of the jungle' beginnings and I think the first mistake we ever made was to allow the braun of the few to dominate the brain of the many.
It's such a shame that the brains of the many did not group together from the start and kill those who wanted to be king of everyone else.

If you want an example of a contemporary sophist Peterson comes to mind first. At some point he began to garner attention and has milked it for all its worth. — Fooloso4

Do you think he struggles with his own sanity?

Sean Carroll for physics. — Fooloso4

I really like Sean Carroll. Listened to a great podcast between him and Carlo Rovelli on Loop Quantum Gravity etc. Excellent stuff.
Do you think there is any sense/value in the title 'Scientific Philosopher?'

You may be the first to have commented on my forum name — Fooloso4

That does surprise me, it's so cool and well-chosen. The self-deprecation you employ, considering your academic background suggests a humorous and modest persona, which is always refreshing to encounter.

Do you think he struggles with his own sanity? — universeness

I don't know. I have not read anything by or about him in a long time. I usually do not watch videos, although sometimes I do put them on 2x speed and read the closed captions along with the audio. Perhaps it is not his sanity that he struggles with but his need to remain in the public eye.

Added:

Do you think there is any sense/value in the title 'Scientific Philosopher?' — universeness

I do see some value in it.

The self-deprecation you employ, considering your academic background suggests a humorous and modest persona, — universeness

I see I have you fooled! The work of a foolosopher.

I think it goes back much further. Do we chastise the Lion for slaughtering a baby deer and consuming it or killing the cubs of a rival? It's 'law of the jungle stuff'. I'm sure there were many savage members of our evolutionary lineage right back to our common ape ancestors. I think terms like human monster/brute etc became valid when our triune brain began to coalesce into individuals who started to 'measure' behavior against emergent phenomena such as morality/ethics — universeness

As was always the case, and why the brutes used mysticism and force to stifle human thought. They knew, being the only people enjoying sovereignty in themselves, that humans generate concepts like leaves from a tree. The reason why we don't group, is because we have separate views of what constitutes ethics, and unless we can coalesce around the primacy of the individual human consciousness from whence all morality comes, we never will.

I don't know. I have not read anything by or about him in a long time. I usually do not watch videos, although sometimes I do put them on 2x speed and read the closed captions along with the audio. Perhaps it is not his sanity that he struggles with but his need to remain in the public eye — Fooloso4

I watch a lot of his YouTube stuff. I think he is very intelligent but he seems to me to have tremendous internal struggles. I watched an old video chat between him and Stephen Fry where It seemed to me that Jordan spent most of his time holding back the tears.

I see I have you fooled! The work of a foolosopher. — Fooloso4

:rofl: So perhaps not so modest after all. Nothing wrong with "keepin em all guessin" as long as the intent is not nefarious.

The reason why we don't group, is because we have separate views of what constitutes ethics, and unless we can coalesce around the primacy of the individual human consciousness from whence all morality comes, we never will. — Garrett Travers

Well, we have had 10,000 years of tears to understand this freaking message.
I get it, I am ready to be called an Earthling, no more nations, no more ethnicity, no currencies, no rich. None of that BS.
Just us! as one species, looking out towards the vastness of space. Grown-ups AT LAST!

Well, we have had 10,000 years of tears to understand this freaking message.
I get it, I am ready to be called an Earthling, no more nations, no more ethnicity, no currencies, no rich. None of that BS.
Just us! as one species, looking out towards the vastness of space. Grown-ups AT LAST! — universeness

"No Gods, No Kings, Only Man." - Andrew Ryan

You're talking my utopia here, pal. I'd give anything for people to snap out it, love themselves, understand the breadth and deapth of consciousness, build ethics up, reinvigorate literature, and make music. We'll get there, or we'll create a place that guarantees it. Either way, I couldn't be more thrilled to be alive now in the fight to make it so. I'm working on ethical epistemologies, finishing my degree, planning to build a school, writing my first novel, and composing music when I can. That's where love of consciousness is found, man, in creation. Doesn't matter what it is, only that you did it because your god damn being demanded it. Let the world destroy itself, but leave something behind for it when she blows.

I'm standing beside you Garrett, singing the same songs, determined to ensure a better way.
All power to you!
It was never about the ethnics, its always been about the ethics!!

That's it, brother!