I thought it a good post - suitable for answering the question from a novice, 'what is philosophy all about?' Gave it an upvote.

I don't think everyone is a philosopher like he says, most people don't really seem to question the way things are in life and just go along with it with what they were taught. — Darkneos

I'd put it that everyone has the potential to think philosophically.

I don't agree that everyone is a philosopher, though. Everyone has the potential to think scientifically, artistically, and so forth -- insofar that a person connects to that group of thinkers then they can think like such and such.

So it goes with philosophy.

There is something to learn.

Now, if I were leading a discussion with people face to face is right. "The Big Questions" or simply "wondering" are what philosophy is all about.

In responding to a Quora post: Even there I'd say not everyone is a philosopher, though they could be: some people wonder about stuff and are willing to hear other perspectives, and some aren't.

If you aren't willing to listen or wonder then even though you could think philosophically you are no philosopher.

I don't think everyone is a philosopher like he says, most people don't really seem to question the way things are in life and just go along with it with what they were taught. From my understanding our brains are sorta resistant to what philosophy requires of us. — Darkneos

I agree with this below:

I'd put it that everyone has the potential to think philosophically.

I don't agree that everyone is a philosopher, though. Everyone has the potential to think scientifically, artistically, and so forth -- insofar that a person connects to that group of thinkers then they can think like such and such.

So it goes with philosophy. — Moliere

I can think scientifically but I am not a scientist. Ditto many subjects, including philsophy. Expertise and having done some required reading, ought to be factored into this for my money.

I wonder what the minimum standard would be for someone to be called a philosopher?

I wonder what the minimum standard would be for someone to be called a philosopher? — Tom Storm

Minimum standard, by my lights in the world we live in, is being paid to do it.

But surely you see how inadequate that standard is. It's just the minimum standard in the world we happen to live in (and it's likely the person paid to do it has expertise, especially given how competitive those roles are)

Minimum standard, by my lights in the world we live in, is being paid to do it. — Moliere

Well there's probably an intersubjective component to any disciple setting standards for credentialling. Some, of these are more reasonable than others.

I'm not sure getting paid is enough. Not everyone accepts such a neoliberal frame even within our ethically bereft capitalist cultures. But I see what you are getting at.

Some might argue that the production of original philsophy of a sufficiently high standard might be a hallmark. Hard thing to establish. Soem level of competence or expertise seems to be needed. But ultimately I suspect it has to be based upon some intersubjective definitional criteria. What do you think, setting aside capitalism...

What do you think, setting aside capitalism... — Tom Storm

That's me jumping into the ether of wonder. I too frequently occupy my thoughts with meta-philosophy and its possible purposes.

If I had to draw one example: Socrates is philosophy. Plato is commentary. The Gadfly is doing philosophy not at the "bare minimum" but at the point where it's unquestionably philosophy.

"The Health of the City" -- though I'd expand that to the globe at large in thinking about philosophy proper regarding The Gadfly.

interesting. Seems reasonable. If we say someone is an engineer or doctor or lawyer, sociologist or stamp collector it seems fairly easy to define. Is philosophy different?

I'm going to assume that's sarcasm because in the same post he links to how all that is pointless:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-profound-thought-that-you-have-had/answer/David-Moore-408?comment_id=487011320&comment_type=2

I wonder what the minimum standard would be for someone to be called a philosopher?
— Tom Storm

Minimum standard, by my lights in the world we live in, is being paid to do it.

But surely you see how inadequate that standard is. It's just the minimum standard in the world we happen to live in (and it's likely the person paid to do it has expertise, especially given how competitive those roles are) — Moliere

And it shows how the world we live in has changed. Up until recently, most notable philosophers wrote outside of academic environments and lived off of other jobs or inheritances. These include
Maimonides
Machiavelli
Montaigne
Descartes
Spinoza
Locke
Leibniz
Rousseau
Hume
Schopenhauer
Kierkegaard
Peirce
Nietzsche

And it shows how the world we live in has changed. Up until recently, most notable philosophers wrote outside of academic environments and lived off of other jobs or inheritances. These include — Joshs

Right but the point in the link was that everyone is one which is what I disagree with. Most people I argue don't really think much about why things are the way they are.

Some philosophies argue such questions don't matter, which is ironic.

And it shows how the world we live in has changed. Up until recently, most notable philosophers wrote outside of academic environments and lived off of other jobs or inheritances. These include — Joshs

'I’m not sure if our comments reflect the times, or just our own thinking. Maybe no one agrees with us.

But if times have changed, do you think that’s because the circumstances were different, the role of philosophy changed, or something else entirely?

Don’t all of the people you mention share competence, and perhaps even innovation, in common?

How many people known as philosophers today would actually produce original work, do you think?

How would you go about defining what it means to be a philosopher?

Completely different thread. But really, if you’re going to debate Quora threads why not do it on Quora? Do you expect the contributors here to weave between here and there just because there’s some question you want answered?

I don't think everyone is a philosopher like he says, most people don't really seem to question the way things are in life and just go along with it with what they were taught. — Darkneos

I don't know, I guess it depends on interpretation. I think everyone is a philosopher in some sense insofar as they have accepted or rejected some set of values or other.

On the other hand, not everyone thinks for themselves, and I think this probably includes at least some professional philosophers. Does one need to be an original thinker to be counted as philosopher?

The "publish or perish" demand on academic philosophers has probably led to a plethora of mediocre works.

I think everyone is a philosopher in some sense insofar as they have accepted or rejected some set of values or other. — Janus

Is this philosophy the way putting a band-aid on a shaving cut counts as medicine? :wink: Would your example not be unavoidable unless you were dead? If you had to drill down further is there anything more specific you might say?

Completely different thread. But really, if you’re going to debate Quora threads why not do it on Quora? Do you expect the contributors here to weave between here and there just because there’s some question you want answered? — Wayfarer

Well judging by the last thread I made about it the dude doesn't really respond to any critiques of what he says so I want a second opinion from people a bit more versed in philosophy than me.

Fair enough. But I did notice that the thread was 6 years old. He might well have moved on.

I don't know, I guess it depends on interpretation. I think everyone is a philosopher in some sense insofar as they have accepted or rejected some set of values or other. — Janus

Yeah but if the bar is that low you could make the case for any sort of ticket machine being a philosopher since it "Accepts or rejects some set of values or other".

The point is more to examine the things that you hold and why you hold those to be true, that's generally the core of philosophy in my experience.

Fair enough. But I did notice that the thread was 6 years old. He might well have moved on. — Wayfarer

You say that but he cared enough to leave an (IMO "pissy" comment) when I questioned his notion of purpose in another thread I made so who knows TBH.

I cited the link because it's posted in the intro post he made, the one you upvoted. However that post seems to negate the one he made about what philosophy's purpose is.

Well, can't be helped. There's an old cartoon, some guy typing away on his monitor, saying 'can't come to bed yet, dear, someone on the Internet is wrong about something.' As an old forum habitué that was a little too close to home ;-)

Well, can't be helped. There's an old cartoon, some guy typing away on his monitor, saying 'can't come to bed yet, dear, someone on the Internet is wrong about something.' As an old forum habitué that was a little too close to home ;-) — Wayfarer

It's not really that so much as wondering if there is a point that is valid or I'm just being incredibly gullible again. I don't have a good filter for what's right and wrong on the internet.

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that everyone identifies themselves as a philosopher. Is anyone who identifies themselves as a philosopher a philosopher? Like anyone who identifies as an artist is an artist? They don't have to be good. There are good and bad philosophers just as there are good and bad artists.

What I was suggesting is that everyone has a propensity to extoll some set of values or other, and if philosophy is "love of wisdom", which amounts to "how best to live" or in other words ethics, then I think most people have some interest in that. Of course some might buy into the idea that the best way to live is not to give a fuck. I dislike the idea of 'philosophy as profession' in any case. I see philosophy as being one of the most basic characteristics of humanity. As Heidegger says "Dasein is the being for whom its being is an issue". (Roughly paraphrased because I couldn't be bothered to look it up).

I don't think everyone is a philosopher like he says, most people don't really seem to question the way things are in life and just go along with it with what they were taught. From my understanding our brains are sorta resistant to what philosophy requires of us. — Darkneos

Today, I see it this way: the purpose of philosophy is to provide some relief to those who wonder about the state of affairs in life.

They don't have to be good. — Janus

Yes, I've often thought this is a key point. People often want to say someone isn’t an artist because they’re bad. But to me, being good is not inherent in the term artist.

Of course some might buy into the idea that the best way to live is not to give a fuck — Janus

Yes, I've often aspired to this, philosophically speaking, anyway. But there are too many cute and counterintuitive ideas out there not to be at least half-interested in the subject.

I dislike the idea of 'philosophy as profession' in any case. I see philosophy as being one of the most basic characteristics of humanity. — Janus

My prejudice is that unless someone has genius of some kind and can generate innovative theories without any special training (e.g., Wittgenstein), or unless they have some expertise that allows them to see the world differently, who cares what they think? The banal pap that might occur to anyone (like me) doesn't sound all that interesting.