I no longer wish to be a philosopher - an ugly, annoying Greek (re Socrates)!

I want to clarify what I said about scientists.

I want to take it further. I think science and philosophy should be given each other's label.

Love of wisdom is more about understanding and pragmatism. This is how a lot of us view science. A way to understand the world, which gives us an ability to predict results, and gives us a pragmatic upper hand. Someone who understands things, and can predict outcomes, and makes balanced pragmatic choices, I consider a wise one, a philosopher

Science, knowledge, should be about seeking definite knowledge. It has nothing to do with theory (understanding). Throw away theory and focus only on what are certain about. Descartes approach to me represented the ideal of science, getting to the bottom of all beliefs to what one can be sure of. Socrates I also consider to have been a scientist, in realizing he knew nothing.

I no longer wish to be a philosopher - an ugly, annoying Greek (re Socrates)! — Agent Smith

"No refunds" - Socrates

Instead of "philosopher" I call myself a

freethinker (offline) &

dialectical rodeo clown (online).

"No refunds" - Socrates — Yohan

Customers not happy! :smile:

Instead of "philosopher" I call myself

freethinker (offline) &

dialectical rodeo clown (online). — 180 Proof

:fire:

A boy wants to take water home to his family - there's been a drought in the area, water is gold. He goes out in search of water and after nearly half-a-day of searching, he finds water. He isn't carrying a can or a bucket or anything to hold water. He's panicking now, he shoves his hands into his pockets, feels something rubbery, pulls it out - it's a balloon. Relief! He fills the balloon and is on his way back when he meets another boy who joins him. Now this boy is mischievous, he has a pin; he wants to play more than drink (that's just him). He takes the pin, jabs the balloon and out through a hole water spouts out. Hey, this is fun! Another jab, another hole, one more, and another, and another ... The balloon looks like a sprinkler now. They arrive at their destination. Everybody's thirsty.

Both boys are philosophers!

A pragmatist vs one who enjoys poking holes in others arguments?

A pragmatist vs one who enjoys poking holes in others arguments? — Yohan

What do you know, a Rorschach test of my own! :smile:

I recall on a thread before someone saying they don't feel comfortable calling themselves a philosopher. — Yohan

I certainly don't call myself a philosopher. It's not a question of 'feeling comfortable' it's a question of accurate reporting. I am here because I am interested to see what I may have missed by not paying much attention to philosophy throughout my life. In my opinion a person is not likely to be a philosopher unless they are doing some original thinking steeped in a deep understanding of key philosophical texts or matters.

Instead of "philosopher" I call myself

freethinker (offline) &

dialectical rodeo clown (online). — 180 Proof

I love this.

Also, as much as I would like to love wisdom, Im not sure if I really do. Its more that I seek wisdom as a practical matter to avoid ruin, than out of love for it. — Yohan

I like the following passage from The Symposium:

No god is a philosopher. or seeker after wisdom, for he is wise already; nor does any man who is wise seek after wisdom. Neither do the ignorant seek after Wisdom. For herein is the evil of ignorance, that he who is neither good nor wise is nevertheless satisfied with himself: he has no desire for that of which he feels no want." "But-who then, Diotima," I said, "are the lovers of wisdom, if they are neither the wise nor the foolish?" "A child may answer that question," she replied; "they are those who are in a mean between the two; Love is one of them. For wisdom is a most beautiful thing, and Love is of the beautiful; and therefore Love is also a philosopher: or lover of wisdom, and being a lover of wisdom is in a mean between the wise and the ignorant.

Now, these days I think we mean more than this by "philosopher" -- and given my usual way of looking at the world, I tend to think of these labels as social honorariums and titles: so one doesn't really claim the title of philosopher unless they are quite certain of themselves and their role or function within a group. But perhaps one would claim to be a philosopher in the above sense? One who is not wise, nor ignorant, but is seeking after wisdom in the way that Love does: And upon obtaining said wisdom, one ceases to be a philosopher.

As someone who doesn't really understand philosophy - what does that quote really mean? I also have little idea what is meant by wisdom. In the colloquial sense wisdom seems to mean good judgement. I don't think I have ever met someone who is 'wise' except perhaps in small increments regarding a given matter or two. When we point to another and say 'they are wise' are we not reporting about our own values, recognizing something of ourselves rather than the nature of the other? In other words, can those without wisdom identify the wise?

When I write on this site I feel like I am 'pretending' to be a philosopher. That doesn't mean that I don't take philosophy seriously but I try not to take myself too seriously, even if at times I have got wound up by forum interaction. Philosophy is one of the disciplines which is so intense at times, but I do think that enjoying it is important too.

When we point to another and say 'they are wise' are we not reporting about our own values, recognizing something of ourselves rather than the nature of the other? In other words, can those without wisdom identify the wise? — Tom Storm

Great question. I think I'd say no! At least to whether the unwise can identify the wise. To the former I think you're right to say that we use our own values to identify people who we consider wise, though I'd say that doesn't mean we'd be wrong in our belief about who's wise, per se -- only that wisdom is value-laden. And I think your colloquial definition is good. Having good judgment is value-laden: Meaning that one cannot have wisdom without also having a commitment to something normative. (EDIT: I should have also added, "And likewise for judgment")

Since we who are not wise cannot identify the wise, and here we are wondering what wisdom is that puts us in the curious position of the lover in the quote: we are asking after what wisdom is (desire to have wisdom, even if just out of curiosity -- a kind of desire), and we don't have it. We'd like to satisfy that curiosity.

I find philosophy endlessly interesting because of the question you opened up with: What does that quote really mean?

I think that I'd compare it with Socrates describing himself as a midwife in the Theaetetus :

Theaetetus: I have often set my myself to study that problem [about the nature of knowledge]...but I cannot persuade myself that I can give any satisfactory solution or that anyone has ever stated in my hearing the sort of answer you require. And yet I cannot get the question out of my mind.

Socrates: That is because your mind is not empty or barren. You are suffering the pains of childbirth...Have you never heard that I am the son of a midwife...and that I practice the same trade? It is not known that I possess this skill, so the ignorant world describes me in other terms: As an eccentric person who reduces people to hopeless perplexity...

The only difference [between my trade and that of midwives] is that my patients are men, not women, and my concern is not with the body but with the soul that is experiencing birth pangs. And the highest achievement of my art is the power to try by every test to decide whether the offspring of a young man's thought is a false phantom or is something imbued with life and truth.

(From here, but I wanted to link to the whole text above too just for accessibility -- but note they are different translations)


The position of the lover is like that of Theaetetus in the above -- in between knowing and ignorance.


So I'd say that you and I are in the same boat: I don't really understand philosophy, either. One of the reasons I find it so interesting. But then, I couldn't play midwife, according to what I exactly said -- since I couldn't identify the wise, either.

Nice. :up:

I keep coming back to the question how would a given idea (in philosophy) change how I live? I have noticed (and this is a bit dull) that questions like idealism versus physicalism, the problem of induction, theories of truth, etc, make no discernable difference to who I vote for, who I choose in a partner, getting a job, buying a house, picking a career or selecting friends, choosing the shopping and working out what to do next. We already have a schema we are operating in and only some kind of ontological disruption (a crisis) might reset those values. Or perhaps an experience of sudden enlightenment. Which I guess leads us to the familiar cave of Plato's.

whether the offspring of a young man's thought is a false phantom or is something imbued with life and truth.

There seems to be an innate tendency for people to divide the world into categories of truths and untruths, into viable pathways or roads to nowhere. :gasp:

I keep coming back to the question how would a given idea (in philosophy) change how I live? — Tom Storm

Wouldn't it have to talk about something you care about? So, rather than a philosophy of physicalism, or induction or truth -- a philosophy of love, or sex, political theory, or ethics (to decide what to do next ;) ).

For it to change how you live, it'd have to first talk about something you care about, I'd say. (Though do we want to change the way we live? Is that desirable? If not, then it should be obvious that nothing will change the way you live -- you're doing good! :D )

I hear you. The fact is, I care about all those questions but they still 'don't matter' in practical terms, as far as I can tell. I'm not saying I want to change anything but I find it interesting that a transformative idea - like truth or the nature of reality - may not actually transform how I conduct myself. But maybe this is a digression from the OP.

[ ... ] what to do [next] — Moliere

:up: That's the million dollar question! How do/should I participate in the causal web such that I maximize the positives and minimize the negatives. What do you know, it's a bloody math question.

I hear you. The fact is, I care about all those questions but they still 'don't matter' in practical terms, as far as I can tell. I'm not saying I want to change anything but I find it interesting that a transformative idea - like truth or the nature of reality - may not actually transform how I conduct myself. — Tom Storm

Yeah, true. There's something queer about philosophical theories -- they seem as if they should have transformative implications, but also that people can change their beliefs on these matters and go on about their day like nothing changed.

Two ways to tackle this: 1) a given philosophy is deemed useless, or 2) a given philosophy is deemed bad.

1) Whatever philosophy happens to be, we regularly see examples of people changing philosophical positions -- so it is reasonable to conclude that, insofar as our day-to-day is concerned, philosophy is useless because we are free to change beliefs without changing anything else.

2) Whatever philosophy happens to be, these philosophies on offer are bad because they do not address the concerns of human beings -- if they did, then changing a belief would have consequences for our activities.

In my opinion a person is not likely to be a philosopher unless they are doing some original thinking steeped in a deep understanding of key philosophical texts or matters. — Tom Storm

I think many share this view approximately.

Playing devils advocate for another view, there is this bias that I don't know if there is a name for. Basically, is a philosopher a well noted philosopher because they had more unique and/or cogent thoughts than other philosophers, or are they considered to have more unique and/or cogent thoughts because they are well noted?

I think I would bore quickly of TPF if there wasn't much uniqueness or depth of thought.
The thing is, when someone doesn't have the full package of what it takes to be a super star, their unique and deep thoughts won't be noted as much.

One more thing is build up. When there is a big build up of an idea and its expressed in a professional and technical way in a published book, it is more likely to be taken seriously.

There is also perhaps the issue of population growth, both in humanity at large and the increase of noted philosophers, making more competition for standing out, and perhaps more commitment required to absorb the history and common technical terms. But even then, without friends that are already notable to call your work notable, you are less likely to be noted.

Ps. Thanks for contributing to the thread, everyone.

Two ways to tackle this: 1) a given philosophy is deemed useless, or 2) a given philosophy is deemed bad. — Moliere

Mashallah! Keep it comin'!

I recall on a thread before someone saying they don't feel comfortable calling themselves a philosopher.

I'm wondering what you fellows out there do feel comfortable labelling yourselves. — Yohan

"If God, if mankind, as you affirm, have substance enough in themselves to be all in all to themselves, then I feel that I shall still less lack that, and that I shall have no complaint to make of my “emptiness.” I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing [das schöpferiche Nichts], the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything."
-Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own" introduction, "All Things Are Nothing To Me"

Two ways to tackle this: 1) a given philosophy is deemed useless, or 2) a given philosophy is deemed bad.
— Moliere

Mashallah! Keep it comin'! — Agent Smith

Worst-case scenario: A philosophy is both bad and useless i.e. baduseless! :grin: