Any measure of what it means to be a philosopher has to be measured against what one intends; if you engage in philosophical discussions to stimulate yourself, I think you are doing philosophy, even if perhaps you would not be considered a philosopher per say.

And I don't think success is the best criterion for whether or not one is a "real" philosopher, nor popularity, but rather seriousness about their craft. You can tell if someone is serious pretty quickly. For instance, I agree with Sam Harris on religion, but his take on how the US is a "well-intentioned giant" is just not serious. As for what determines seriousness, that's a little open to interpretation.

I suppose I would say that seriousness is an attention to principles and a fact-based dialectic.

And I don't think success is the best criterion for whether or not one is a "real" philosopher, nor popularity, but rather seriousness about their craft. — ToothyMaw

Couldn’t have said it better :100: :up:

What is a real basketball player? At first cut, anyone who plays basketball. That leaves open everything about the playing, qualitative and quantitative. And I do not think differences are always differences along a continuum. There are people who think that in their playing basketball they are doing what Lebron James or Michael Jordan or Larry Bird or Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell are doing, but just not as well. The truth is that not only can they not do at all what those are doing, but they do not even understand what they're doing. And so with musicians and Bach or Beethoven, & etc., and every other pursuit that allows of any kind of approaching to perfection.

*Sigh* So for us, most of us, the raggedy-assed masses, it's playground ball, if even that. For fun, exercise, the occasional good moment. Robert Frost on this:

“In A Glass of Cider

It seemed I was a mite of sediment
That waited for the bottom to ferment
So I could catch a bubble in ascent.
I rode up on one till the bubble burst,
And when that left me to sink back reversed
I was no worse off than I was at first.
I'd catch another bubble if I waited.
The thing was to get now and then elated.”

There are two aspects to being a real philosopher:

1. How to think? A way of thinking that includes diverse elements that begins with understanding questions, includes clarifying the meanings of words, thinking critically, being skeptical, being imaginative and creative, and ends when a satisfactory solution, understanding, answer, or even impasse has been reached. Socrates is a classic example of such a philosopher.

2. What to think? Knowledge, knowing how much ground has been covered in a particular branch of philosophy, understanding the different perspectives offered by past philosophers. The basic idea here being that it would be a pathetic waste of time to reinvent the wheel and a philosopher's time and energy are better spent picking up where other's have left off.

A real philosopher would know both how to think? and what to think?

what does it mean to say that one is a philosopher, and who are the 'real' philosophers? — Jack Cummins

Only the real philosophers know the secret handshake.

[W]hat does it mean to say that one is a philosopher, ... — Jack Cummins

It depends on whether one is referring to oneself or someone else. To say of oneself that one is a philosopher is just vain & pretentious (NB: on a good day I'm barely a "half-ass freethinker"), even more so if "philosopher" is one's job title. However, to say of another, without irony, that she is a philosopher, regardless of title, I think, suggests she is/seems always engaged in endless conversations with mostly dead thinkers and fools, heretics and poets, from which she spins speculative webs and tells weird tales that call familiar ideas, and even reason itself, into question – in effect, she deliberately disturbs of our peace of mind by whipping raw our biases/prejudices with dark paradoxes & lyrical puzzles. Call someone "philosopher" and lash yourself to the nearest mast! :point:

... and who are the 'real' philosophers?

Besides the dialectical dead, I nominate (in no particular order) ... paralyzed musicians, pregnant chronic-insomniacs, junky clerics / nuns, comedians in foxholes, elderly prostitutes, vegan taxidermists, blind barbers, career suiciders, "AA" bartenders & terminally-ill children at play. Despair – not "wisdom", now for millennia – is the beginning (of the end?) of philosophy. :up:

edit:

I highly recommend

Philosophy as a Way of Life by Pierre Hadot.

A sick person.

I think the tension which I see in the various replies is over the whole level of expertise. As Toothymaw points to issue of seriousness. Personally, I see philosophy as a serious matter, but just try not to take myself too seriously. Tim points to the importance of ability, and Madfool to the way in which training in thinking is important.

In considering the whole area of training, many people study philosophy, but there is not a pathway to becoming a philosopher, aside from an academic career and the academic career world of philosophy can be seen as elitist in some ways. Of course, there is scope for any person writing philosophy. It would be possible for someone who had not even studied philosophy to do so, and the person could be self taught or learned to think analytically in some other discipline.

What I think is wonderful about this site is that it is possible for us to all express our thoughts. Probably most of us consider ourselves as amateurs, but that there are probably some who have a professional background, such as teaching philosophy. However, do believe that it is important for philosophy to be developed as a serious pursuit of thinking and analysing that is not just confined to academic circles.

I do agree that it is better to define someone else as a philosopher than oneself. If a person chose to adopt the label without a socially negotiated reason for doing so it would seem rather vain. I know of people who describe themselves as being an artist or a writer, and this seems to be based not on work but on their self perceptions. Of course, anyone is entitled to define themselves subjectively, However, there is more glamour or romance in choosing to call oneself as a writer or a philosopher.

I know that your remark about the 'secret handshake' of the philosophers was a joke, but what does worry me is a possibility that the idea does express some degree of truth. While expertise probably counts for something, I am sure that there are complex power dynamics and an elite hierarchy within establishing philosophy circles. I have known people who are professors, because they have doctorates and published their writings. I wonder what such individuals make of a site such as this one, which gives the amateur a platform for expression and exchange of ideas.

Apparently they issue badges:

Fantastic! I think you've earned your philosopher badge! — bert1

Would a motley crowd like this – made up of bloviating bricoleurs manifestly dedicated to (dialectically) thinking against themselves – give a rat's ass what snobby academics derisively think of us? :sweat:

I am aware that you do believe that the academic world of philosophy is important, but also the whole demystification of ideas in general. I think that it is about getting the right balance. I am obviously not opposed to the importance of academic philosophy and do agree that there needs to be some kind of lead from the academic. This applies to all forms of knowledge. If there was no lead from universities and people with some kind of training, it would be a situation of people being able to come up with any ideas.

How philosophy is viewed and practiced probably varies across the world. You are in America and it may be that there is some kind of culture in which philosophy is recognised outside of academic circles. In England, I am not really aware of open forms of exchange of philosophy outside of academic life. People study philosophy and are expected to get jobs which don't involve any philosophy. So, philosophy is seen as remote from life and the study of it is not really seen as training for any further pursuit of philosophy. It is elitist and most bookshops only have a small philosophy section. Of course, the internet opens up possible sources of information, but having access to it doesn't mean that people know how to interpret the ideas which they have access to. I studied modules of philosophy, but apart from reading books, I am not aware of any kind of venues for philosophy discussion. Of course, there are other fields of discussion of ideas and philosophy can be brought into these in some ways.

I am not saying that I would wish to become a philosopher and I do see myself as a complete amateur, enjoying discussion of it, but I do think that philosophers often seem detached in ivory towers, remote from the affairs of real world. Of course, this could be that there have been such giant figures in the history of philosophy, that it is seen almost as a sacred domain. Also, it could be that in this information age of facts people don't seem to aspire towards becoming philosophers because it seems shrouded by unsolved mysteries.

You are in America and it may be that there is some kind of culture in which philosophy is recognised outside of academic circles. — Jack Cummins

Not really, and probably even less than England. America is absurdly anti-intellectual in general.

Yes, it is interesting to know how many people on the forum would care what the 'snobby' philosophers would make of us. I think that it would be a varied picture because the nature of discussion varies so much. But, everyone who is using the forum logged into the site labelled 'Philosophy Forum', and chose to join, meaning that some kind of interest in the philosophy is the common denominator.

I imagined you having some kind of community of philosophers, so I am obviously wrong. If only..

We'll get to the philosopher in next year's course. For now put your minds to the slightly more simple question of what is a real armchair.

Perhaps my problem is that I just don't have the right armchair. I just can't wait until coffee shops are open and I can go back and sit on a comfortable chair, reading my book and leading the life of an armchair philosopher.

I answered your reply amidst some others and looking back on the thread just now, I realise how important your points were. Obviously, there are various ways of determining success in some understanding of philosophy and it may not matter if one is considered to be an officially a philosopher or not. Who really has the authority to decide who is a philosophy and who is not, ultimately.

However, as you say, in exploring our interest in philosophy, it does seem that, the philosopher would develop the ability to think. You stress that it would involve knowing how to think. You also said, 'What to think ? But I wonder if you really meant what to think about. That is because rather than a specific form of reasoning being developed, it may be a basic agenda or sense of focus. I also wonder if it would be about actual answers, but a whole approach to knowledge, because the answers may shift in a accordance by new knowledge and facts.

I imagined you having some kind of community of philosophers, so I am obviously wrong. If only.. — Jack Cummins

There were philosophy discussion clubs for philosophy students at colleges, but nothing for mature adults that I’m aware of. Looking for something like that is what brought me here.

Thank goodness we have this forum. It does give us so much scope. We get so much opportunity to share ideas with people internationally and on such diverse topics that it does seem better than many courses. Also, there seem to be discussions from so many angles on every topic in philosophy and the possibility of creating innovative ones too.

Would a motley crowd like this – made up of bloviating bricoleurs manifestly dedicated to (dialectically) thinking for themselves – give a rat's ass what snobby academics derisively think of us? — 180 Proof

For myself, it is the problem of Jude the Obscure. Too well read to be accepted by my fellow workers; Under qualified to be taken seriously by academics. I resented the location for several decades but now no longer care. All the texts are still here. The places I was hoping to be invited into are unappealing.

If asked the same question about mathematicians, I'm not sure how I would answer. It's tempting to cite academia and graduate degrees, but there may be exceptions. Probably being published in PR journals, but some of my teaching colleagues avoided this, even as doctorates. Not clear.

I am not sure what it means to be a philosopher. Once I found out what it means to love, and what women (and/or men, or gender bias-free beings, or transgenders, or gay, bi- or hetero-omnisexuals, or else non-diploid creatures that divide and multiply by being diligent, or celibates) want, I think I can commit then.

What to think ? But I wonder if you really meant what to think about — Jack Cummins

They mean the same thing to me. Maybe not but then you'll have to edify me on the difference.

Not all who wander are lost, only those who insist they know exactly where they are at all times.

Most people would probably make fame and influence or official position, even slight, a requirement. So a published philosopher who has people "talking about him" or a professor at a university who is paid and produces students who are apt in philosophical concepts and processes when they were not before. Can you teach philosophy without being a philosopher? I suppose, after all that's why there are lesson plans.

On that last bit, the idea of "results", as undefinable as that may be in philosophy. You can teach someone to think logically, ie. logic 101, etc but that in and of itself isn't philosophy only a way to go about it. If you can successfully make someone see things, or at least the possibility of things, in a way they did not before... of course is that just persuasion? I like to personally think philosophy should have some positive effect on human society, culture, and life so I incorporate the idea of that in many things. But is that not just motivational speaking or rationalization or some may even say "look at the bright side" distraction? Depends who you ask for sure.

We all engage in philosophy throughout our lives, sometimes without knowing it. We often call these moral dilemmas or even simply the decision making process. You drive by an abortion clinic and you see people holding up signs or perhaps you watch a news story about cloning or artificial intelligence.., you may begin to ponder things such as right and wrong. This doesn't make you a "real philosopher" though.. yet it could spur your transition into becoming one. The journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step after all.

Basically like someone said earlier, a serious, prolonged, non-passing interest and engagement in the philosophical process. You can be a "real" philosopher without being noteworthy. Not to some people of course.. I guess their argument would be, why wouldn't you be? :p

I see 'what to think' and 'what to think about' as being completely different. The first would imply that there was a set body of knowledge which lead to certain conclusions. On the other hand, what to think about is more of a sketch of knowledge and a certain idea of what are important areas, but with no definite conclusions. In other words, what to think would be prescriptive whereas the latter leaves room for one to arrive at one's own conclusions.

One obvious example I can think of is when in nursing, the nursing code of conduct is prescriptive. It lays out a set of guidelines which are to be adhered to, and these are not negotiable. In contrast, a module on the medical ethics on my course in Social Ethics looked at basic set out an agendas of discussion and basic arguments, like the deontological vs consequentialist positions but it involved room for arriving at one's own conclusions. I know that this is applied ethics, but it is still derived from philosophy.

The particular significance which I see is the scope for being able to develop one's own ideas and I do think that this has particular bearing on us as amateur philosophers. We have centuries of profound philosophical thinking before us and people in academic positions, but are able to use knowledge to develop our own individual viewpoints.

While there are likely to be certain people are considered to be the 'real' philosophers, I do think that every human being is entitled to develop their own ideas. If philosophy is seen as the domain of the experts of knowledge it takes away the power and freedom of all human beings to think their own thoughts. Of course, no one can tell us what to think because we have our own thoughts, as private. However, on a social level, there is a whole way in which people who not seen as experts, and not in positions of power, can have restrictions on the expression of their own ideas and views.

I do agree with your emphasis on how we engage in philosophy all our lives and how, in many ways, we can all be philosophers. Of course, what we think is unlikely to be noteworthy. What I do think is central is people being entitled to freedom of thought and expression. At the moment, all of us are in the position of having a lot of information and are in an excellent position to partake in the philosophical quest.

It is hard to be sure what will happen in the future. It probably comes down to education and material conditions. For example, at the moment, most of us but not everyone, has access to some internet access. But, if poverty becomes widespread this may mean that people cannot afford computers and smart phones. So, access to information is dependent on material circumstances. Also, the whole power structure has a bearing upon knowledge, starting with the media and what people are guided to think. So, even though I suggested in my answer to the Madfool that we are able to think for ourselves, in some ways, I think that many people do look for expert opinion and are told what to think, rather than being in the position of forming their own views.

When you speak of being noteworthy in thinking, it is true that most of us do not have thoughts which stand out from the crowd. However, even this does have some social and political dimension. That is because aside from whether our thinking is of quality, certain ideas are likely to be accepted or rejected because they are ranked by others and by those in higher social positions of power.

I think that there is probably some difference in philosophy and mathematics as academic or general pursuit, although I know that there is a philosophical dimension. But, the difference which I see is how differently the two play a direct role in our lives. Maths is relevant for financial accountancy and for statistics in life and the people who go into these are probably mathematically trained. We use maths in daily life.

However, philosophy involves all the big questions of life after matters in the whole way in which we understand life. That is why it is questionable if should be left to the academics. Of course, I asked the question of what is a 'real' philosopher, and it is possible that the academics may consider themselves to be the 'real' ones, especially if they have a title of professor. However, they write in academic journals and apart from students of philosophy it is unlikely that many read their writings, although that probably applies to maths. But, as philosophy is at the heart of human existence it seems that the official word of philosophy is detached from the world of most people.

As it is, the philosophers are writing in journals and even though they may see themselves as important perhaps they only play a marginal role..In particular, during the time of the pandemic, I am not aware of philosophers having a voice, despite all the ethical issues which are abundant. Really, the politicians have replaced the role of philosopher, as being the ones who evaluate the facts and knowledge arising in the sciences.