There are several kinds of philosopher: The main thing in my definition is that it doesn't belong to only professionals. There are people who...

A read, study, research, and teach philosophy as an academic career. Professionals
B read and study philosophy as students who will not teach it in the future.
C read some philosophy, study it a little either on their own or in school.
D do not read philosophy as such, but who think about the nature of reality in a general way, their own being, and some conundrums like "How do I know I am not the only person?"
E do not read philosophy, and whose thinking about the nature of reality is seated in a religious context they believe in. (Their religious thinking might be quite vigorous.)
F do not know much of anything about philosophy or religion. They may be well educated about other matters.

So, there is a range from "professional" to "innocent of philosophy". Most people are either "c", "d", or "e". Here there are some who are "b", and perhaps 1 who is an "a". But even people who are "f" may think about philosophical questions such as "What am I here for".

I view philosophy as something that many people do very inexactly, informally, and only occasionally. The same can be said of people and music, people and literature, people and science, and so on.

A philosopher is a person who wonders about the nature of nature and of life and seeks to find patterns that will inform him/her with a deeper understanding of the meaning of it all.

(Y) Measured, as always.

A philosopher is someone who chooses to think.
Most people simply follow the herd, and allow others to think for them.
Even many who devote themselves to academic philosophy just do so
as a means to a scholastic careerist end.

Most people simply follow the herd, and allow others to think for them. — Jonathan AB

You are no doubt aware that your idea of people being a herd and allow others to do their thinking for them is an idea (maybe a 'meme') YOU picked up from a different herd.

I think a philosopher is a knot tyer.

You are no doubt aware that your idea of people being a herd and allow others to do their thinking for them is an idea (maybe a 'meme') YOU picked up from a different herd. — Bitter Crank

It is possible to derive this from observation. Creativity and individual expression are pretty much suppressed from the time one first enters into the educational system right through their career. The great thing about retirement is that it becomes less so a challenge to experiment with self-expression and creativity - as long as one isn't seeking admiration or acceptance.

Natural philosophers scarcely exist, but they tend to novel thinking, so never deliberately borrowing or stealing thinking from others. Worthwhile philosophers think outside the box of common perception, possess the instinct to know when they are on the right path, and promote their thinking to the benefit of those in the real world. They can function independently of the institution. This term philosophy should perhaps be restricted in its application to, that which has been established to be genuine philosophical progression, and all of the rest merely playing around. Definitions by institution members are not guaranteed to be unbiased, for why argue for one`s own undoing. .

Totally agree with you, and the majority of us are predominantly media influenced in our thinking regards the real world. In so being we are putting the exceptional circumstance, the story, before the actual world. Add this to the highly probable imbalances in our nurturing and we can finish up near enough socially delusional. Because I`m an older man running my home as an 18/30`s female sanctuary, older being statistically safer, at least ninety nine in every hundred are too frightened to even communicate, not in the real world, that`s just on line. Thing is, and they know it, I`m not a genuine celebrity, say anything and do anything god..

Taken as a genus, there are more than a few species of philosopher, and while interesting, I don't think a hierarchy of types addresses or answers the question. I think a philosopher is someone who attempts primarily to cut through nonsense, the usual way being to think about the thinking that produced the nonsense, with an eye toward correction.

Agree completely, and what better tool than philosophy to remove some of that prejudice around disparity of years in healthy friendships. Forward and reverse social prejudice between teens and middle years plus, outside of family come formality, already has the vast majority in these groups treating each other as two separate species, Prejudice is of course ignorance, and it may take for some rock solid philosophy to even put a small dent in it.

It is possible to derive this from observation. Creativity and individual expression are pretty much suppressed from the time one first enters into the educational system right through their career. The great thing about retirement is that it becomes less so a challenge to experiment with self-expression and creativity - as long as one isn't seeking admiration or acceptance. — Rich

This is all true, but it is also true that certain velcro-coated ideas are floating around just waiting to glom onto a receptive surface. That "people are a herd and don't think" is one of them and is neither entirely true nor entirely false.

Yes, yes, yes, I know all too well how much creativity, or even slight innovation, is guarded against in most schools and work places. #Itoowasscrewedoutofadecenteducation.

The thing is though, that even the creativity-suppressed, thinking-discouraged masses have to account for their individual existences one way or another. Some people don't need any help; some people are too stupid to benefit from help; but the masses can benefit from all the help and encouragement thinking people can give them. That's why it is a bad idea to dismiss them as dull-witted cud-chewing bovines. (I don't mean to disparage cud-chewing bovines, of course. I have the utmost respect for cattle. Of course, we don't know what they are thinking about while they lie in the shade chewing away. Maybe they have exquisitely perceptive thoughts. Probably not, but who knows?)

There is also the position that we are all philosophers. If philosophy is the daily reappraisal and reassessment of the criteria that informs our choices then any person with a world view is a philosopher, no matter how informed or considered it is. Much like voting, if you shut your eyes and pull a lever, or don’t vote at all, you are still impacting the final outcome.

I find this approach to be very satisfying. Philosophy is an immutable inexorable, necessary process of life, no matter its quality. It can’t be dismissed as an abstraction, or esoteric, or something that requires completion / conclusion. And thus, neither can I.

Prejudice is of course ignorance, and it may take for some rock solid philosophy to even put a small dent in it. — celebritydiscodave

Notwithstanding that prejudice is ignorance in action, the foundation of ignorance is discrimination, also the foundation of knowledge.

What inclines discrimination to bend under ignorance onto the path of prejudice? Just plain meanness.

I think a philosopher is someone who attempts primarily to cut through nonsense, — tim wood

And lots of people who aren't all that educated still have effective bullshit detectors, and some educated people can't tell shit from shinola.

I like 's list of kinds of philosopher. It is pretty inclusive. I'm a philosopher of type A. That is, I read, study and teach philosophy as an academic career. I don't think that's the only sort of philosopher, nor are the people in A always the most interesting on philosophical matters!

In some measure, I suppose everyone is a philosopher. Pretty much everyone you talk to has opinions about what the world is like, the existence of God, the soul, freedom, how we ought to live, what we can know and so on. Some people think about those things more than others. A philosopher is a person that thinks about certain topics. I don't think those topics have much in common, except that answers to some of them naturally encourage certain answers to others.

PA

ironic since they never get married. ;)

↪Jon ironic since they never get married. ;) — MindForged

Ok.. I'm confused? Is the left not connected to the right (like up is connected to down?)

Thinkers about thinking.

[Delete] @Baden

That "people are a herd and don't think" is one of them and is neither entirely true nor entirely false. — Bitter Crank

As is the idea that whatever's right must somehow lie in the middle of every two polemic views.

Good point. There are a lot of weeds that grow in the middle of the road. The best description of things is usually not dead center.

Where all humans with human brains and if some of us are Philosophers than aren't we all? — René Descartes

This was an idea which I was friendly with in my previous post, but I am now doubting the point of saying it. We could count as a philosopher anyone who thinks about certain topics. Then almost everyone will count as a philosopher. But then we could also define "scientist" as anyone who thinks about the nature of the physical world, and then almost everyone will count as a scientist. Perhaps a more careful distinction is one which insists that being a Philosopher requires spending a substantial amount of ones time thinking about certain topics, where "substantial" is left un-explicated.

Are you sure those aren't space aliens? There appear to be antennas growing out of their heads, they have beards but also one breast -- all very suspicious. Green hair?

[Delete] @Baden

It would be hard to defend the practice of philosophy without a demonstration of its practical effects. It can only be to improve our decision making in life on the things that will not reliably distill to a mathematical model we can abduce. Making choices is a constant activity that must aim at what will most likely include an improvement on another option, and avoid the apparent error of the past. Philosophy is the daily reappraisal and reassessment of the criteria that informs our choices.

Prejudice creates discrimination, the foundation of prejudicial ignorance is to be discovered with nurturing, where a remaining propensity for wider disparity of years still lingers, with jealous fathers, and of course with the media, It lays homage to only that story which an already prejudicial society wishes to hear, and where wide disparities in years are concerned very little of the real world good news would be handled as such by this virtually universal prejudicial mind. Instead of philosophers simply being in the business of trying to prove which of them has the largest brain there is a considerable amount of actually useful philosophy to be done,in this area of social philosophy, and on an accessibly every day level. Simple one liner sentiments can both direct and educate.
I do n`t think of philosophy as having any association at all with individual issues, to the contrary, it must be equally applicable to everybody else in the world under those same said circumstances. Less than this I consider merely a failed attempt at philosophy..
My Kates David on Facebook (with an image of a guy, me, running) posts what I consider to be philosophy in its simple and useful form.

I've had reason to consider this recently. Not surprisingly, I suppose, given my predilection for meaning as use, I think we have to take philosophers as those who perform a certain task - presumably, philosophising.

That is, if you prefer, philosophy is an activity, not a thing. Someone who only sets out the thoughts of others is not doing philosophy, and hence not a philosopher; perhaps an historian, or a preacher, but not a philosopher.

Philosophers ought not set out to tie knots, but to loosen them. The goal out be something along the lines of coherence and consistency. Disposing of confusion.

It's over thirty years since I gave up tutoring in philosophy and went to do something useful. I guess that the other part of being a philosopher - not having a choice. I keep coming back to it, against my own better judgement.

It's over thirty years since I gave up tutoring in philosophy and went to do something useful. — Banno

Was it the heavy lifting that finally got to you? Quick question: was philosophy or the history of philosophy your main subject?

(Maybe our ideas of tutoring differ.) I confess to being both amazed and fascinated by the notion of tutoring philosophy. I'm guessing college students who needed a bit of help found you.

On the other hand, it crosses my mind that a discreet ad in the New Yorker magazine for a philosophy retreat/seance in some delicious region near the ocean, with plenty of wine, cool weather, and working fireplaces (maybe Bill Gates would let his home), might get a favourable response. Doesn't ArguingWAristotleTiff live in such a place?

You are the genuine article, none the less I 100% agree with you. It`s all too easy to miss content, to underestimate just how much ground a simple sentence, come sentiment can cover, it can be vastly more ground than language more complex, for coherence, coupled with simplicity and briefness is the only stage for inclusion of everybody, and thereby for total philosophy, and philosophy with the propensity to make a difference. Single line sentiments that suggest to a universal change, of thinking, of being, of doing, whilst at the same time revealing the benefit for the first time, and as being undeniable, that`s total social philosophy., and this is the stuff of changing lives.