@Jack Cummins

The question presupposes that philosophy has a 'real' essence. Tell us what the essence of philosophy is and I'll tell you what a 'real' philosopher is.

You raise an excellent question which could be seen as a subtext to the one I am asking. However, I am not sure that I have the knowledge or authority to answer it myself alone. It could be a thread in its own right, but as it is so interconnected to mine I will edit my title to include this.

It could be a thread in its own right, but as it is so interconnected to mine I will edit my title to include this. — Jack Cummins

Despite Aristotle defend back in Ancient Greece that the essence of philosophy is trying to find happiness I would say that the true essence is not being part of the "wall" as another "brick".
Philosophy is a way to get out of mediocrity and live a life where we can question everything to improve our knowledge.

Scheler says that metaphysics involves the understanding of "the supreme finite fact," the most incredible thing which the universe reveals to us, the essence of what it means to be a human being. The essence of philosophy is the essence of humanity. Hence his program of "essential intuition."

If this is philosophy at its deepest roots, the origin of all meaning, then everyone is a philosopher to the extent that they consciously participate in the discovery and creation of this meaning.

Its one of those grand open-ended questions that pervade the history of philosophical thought (what is truth? What is beauty? What is justice? Etc). I tend to doubt the effectiveness of these type of questions to reach a consensus. Rather, we tend to get nowhere (and everywhere) with such questions, since every philosopher brings a divergent thought to the matter. This highlights (to me) that philosophy is proliferated by difference, and therefore a key metaphysical characteristic of philosophy must be: difference.

But there are many books on this. Heidegger, D&G and Agamben each have produced books with the same title "what is philosophy?".

... metaphysics involves the understanding of "the supreme finite fact" — Pantagruel

:point: Necessarily, 'necessary facts' are impossible; therefore, only contingent facts are possible.

I do wonder if the finding of happiness and even the other one have moved into becoming more the task and scope of psychology more than philosophy. Before psychology emerged as a separate discipline in its own right the psychology of happiness was covered in philosophy. However, the in ancient thinking philosophy was concerned with wisdom and this probably is more of a philosophy concern, rather than one which can be covered in psychology.

... metaphysics involves the understanding of "the supreme finite fact"
— Pantagruel
:point: Necessarily 'necessary facts' are impossible; therefore, only contingent facts are possible. — 180 Proof

I think you are inferring the special usage of "necessary," but it wasn't used.

I do think that what it means to be a human being could be seen as a central question because it is essential to each person. It is one which permeates our lives and cannot just be answered by the people who are ranked as the philosophers.

It is one which permeates our lives and cannot just be answered by the people who are ranked as the philosophers. — Jack Cummins

Yes. And philosophy shouldn't be just for philosophers, should it?

I do wonder if the finding of happiness and even the other one have moved into becoming more the task and scope of psychology more than philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Agreed. You are right in this quote. I think is a task of psychology too because this science has the object of literally the study of mind and our behavior. So it could be interesting what are thoughts from a psychologist about "searching happiness"
Also, I think it is interesting to point out that there are even an index of "happy countries"
Which should be the facts to consider about typing one country happier than other?

Philosophy is a way to ... improve our knowledge. — javi2541997

I think, rather, it's the understanding – adaptive (by process of eliminating 'maladaptive') uses – of knowledges (e.g. sciences, history, arts, care of self, etc) that's gradually 'improved' by philosophizing.

No ... not a clue what "special usage" you're referring to.

:up:

↪Pantagruel No ... not a clue what "special usage" you're referring to. — 180 Proof

I assumed you were distinguishing between necessary and contingent truths, except I never made mention of the word "necessary." So I am not sure what you are referring to there.

I quoted you and replied to that with my own take on "the supreme finite fact" (not mentioning "truths" of any kind, just facts).

I have just found one definition of philosophy which I find interesting, and it is from George Stuart Fullerton(1859):
'The philosopher is a man to whom is committed what is left when we have taken away what has definitely established or is undergoing investigation according to approved scientific methods. He is Lord of the Uncleared Ground, and may wander through it in his compassless, irresponsible way, never feeling that he is lost, for he has never had any definite bearings to lose.'

I am sure that is a definition which many present day philosophers would challenge, because the questions of science are embraced. But, I find Fullerton' s statement because it is about looking at what questions cannot be answered by direct reference to factual knowledge.

I think, rather, it's the understanding – adaptive (by process of eliminating 'maladaptive') uses – of knowledges (e.g. sciences, history, arts, care of self, etc) that's gradually 'improved' by philosophizing. — 180 Proof

Yes! Couldn't have said it better. I like how you expressed it as "eliminating maladaptive" because sometimes our self thought cannot help if we are not making the right questions.
For example: the basic color patterns (yellow, green, blue and red) can give us a lot of interesting stuff if we philosophy about it. As John Locke did about primary and secondary attributes, etc...

Philosophy by that description is relegated to merely the janitor of the sciences. Not a view I share.

I am not saying that the view is suggested is one that is the best possible one, but I think that it is worth reflecting on, because I do think that many people do believe that science can provide all the answers and that philosophy is almost like an unnecessary appendix. Personally, I think that it is worthwhile for philosophy to be knowledge based. If anything, I think that it has plenty of dialogue with science, but is perhaps not enough with other wider disciplines such as anthropology and the social sciences. I would imagine the best possible philosophy to be able to be truly multidisciplinary in its scope of knowledge.

I am definitely not in favour of philosophy being the exclusive territory of the philosophers. I am approaching the topic as a person rather than as a philosopher. However, I do think that as human beings we can gain so much from philosophy, and it is for this reason that it is worth reading and thinking about philosophy. In one of the earliest comments, @TheMadFool made some important points about the whole way in which the development of thinking is central to the pursuit of an interest in philosophy.

I'll readily agree that philosophy should be knowledge based if we assume science doesn't have the monopoly on knowledge. And let's mix in a little speculative metaphysics to keep things interesting.

I think that speculative metaphysics is central and is what makes philosophy so interesting. It is this side of it which gravitates and, keeps me transfixed, in reading and writing on this site.

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

I am a real philosopher; insofar as I seek to communicate an idea abut how the world is, and how it might be - if we believed something else, in my view - rather more reasonable. I am inadequate to the task of reconstructing 400 years of alternate history and thought; less yet - illustrating the world that would have resulted otherwise, had science been afforded its due. But it is nonetheless a vocation; a duty I feel relates to my very being, to point out - over and over again, that our relationship to scientific knowledge is mistaken; and the flip side of recognising that error, is key to a long and glorious future.

I appreciate the audacity of such a claim; and no doubt it weighs upon me, but humankind approaches upon a catastrophe - such that I have no choice but to speak out. If it were not possible to secure the future - I'd settle down and sail into the infinite sunset, largely content. But it is possible; and that is what I aim to point out. That accepting science is true and acting accordingly, man would harness magma energy on a monolithic scale, two three times current energy demand, capture carbon, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle - and continue to grow into the future.

I do believe that the brink of catastrophe is one of the biggest philosophical issues of our time, although not the only one. I have been in a s number of discussions on this site on the topic. I see it as a topic to be addressed by philosophers, scientists and politicians. I think that one of the biggest problems is the petroleum crisis which is going to occur. From brief interaction with you, I know that you see science as the solution. I am not wishing to dismiss the findings of various scientists, but I see it as complex because politics comes it to but the scientists have different political persuasions rather than one unified perspective.

I think that what your post points to, apart from the very real threat of global catastrophe, is that all the different structures of knowledge and power interact. Politics comes into science and philosophy. As far as philosophers, or people interested in philosophy, are concerned, there is a danger that global catastrophe may not be looked at fully. I do wonder if one of the reasons why people develop philosophies of nihilism is because they see the possibility of the end of civilisation. Certainly, I believe that the reason why people often choose antinatalist positions is because they believe that the future will be unbearable.

Personally, coming from my amateur philosophy position, I want to see environmental concerns on the agenda, but I am interested in many other aspects of philosophy too.

The relationship between man and his or her environment is of course a philosophical question as it is a peculiar manifestation (ethics) of our relationship (ontology) to the world. Just like our relationship with science is a philosophical question (epistemology). Philosophy is the practice of interrogating (deducting in its peculiar Kantian sense) our presuppositions about these relationships. Not all explaining about 'how the world is' is philosophical explanation. For instance if I try to convince you that the world is a gift from God and that science is the way through which we unwrap that gift and hence give an explanation as to why science is beneficial, I am not doing philosophy. I am giving a theological explanation about the world. Same when I tell you that we should conceive of the world in scientific terms I am not giving you a philosophical explanation, but a scientistic one. (scientism being the claim that science is the best possible way to get information about the world - to which I agree- and that it is the normatively right way to view the world - to which I do not agree).

So philosophy is a peculiar discipline, a praxis of interrogation conducted not from a certain point of view, but of these certain points of view, while recognising that 'pure objectivity; is impossible. That discovery itself by the way is a philosophical discovery, since it pertains to our relationship with the world. A philosopher is someone who engages in those practices and, but that is purely my opinion, shows that he engages in it by writing the results of her enquiries down. The reason I think that is because I hold being to be relational. I can think of myself to be a boxing champ but if no one else recognises it, I simply am not. It is also a honorific title and therefore 180 is right when he states that it is pretentious to call yourself one, if not self contradictory as per the philosophical tradition: by doing philosophy you also learn how little you in fact know, as already pointed out by one of its founding fathers Socrates. When you call someone else a philosopher it might denote that she has a certain position for instance as an academic philosopher, or it may be a description of admiration.

Now that is not to say that although few of us are philosophers here in the above sense, we are not doing philosophy. We are doing that in many threats, at least those that deal with our presuppositions of our relationship to the world and parts of it. We do it at different levels though, just like many of us are on a cchess site and play chess but would be hard pressed to consider themselves 'chess players'.

In the future I envisage, a petroleum crisis does not occur because we harness limitless clean energy from magma, and use that energy to extract carbon from the atmosphere. That so, we do not need to quit fossil fuels right away, cold turkey, compounding loss of revenues with the cost of massive infrastructure changes.

We will have the energy to extract carbon in future, so the existing fossil fuel infrastructure can at least live out its natural life, insofar as we "plant a tree" - metaphorically speaking, by investing in the technology to harness limitless clean energy.

This allows for a supply side approach to sustainability, that gives us more time and more choice in how we proceed, and so makes a sustainable future politically possible; ultimately, because it is economically beneficial, and the least disruptive solution to a real and serious threat.

I think it must be very difficult for philosophers, politicians or scientists to express as ambitious a view as I have, for they operate within the bounds established by the ideological architecture of society. My hope is that, outside looking in - with a reputation none can damage further than I have damaged it myself, that I can ask the rude and stupid question professional people are too intelligent and polite to ask. If I can do that I will have done my duty.

I am not sure of the exact details of what can be done for the environment, such as energy, because while I read a certain point of science that is not my background, and it is very specialised. Even amongst professional philosophers it may be that they do not have sufficient knowledge of matters such as chemical engineering. Generally, I am wishing to gain more knowledge on possible solutions, including energy solutions and sustainability.

Another related issue is the sphere of influence. I don't know what role or work position you have because it affects one's level of influence. I am not saying that if we are not in prominent positions we have no influence, but it does have a bearing on how much people will listen to us.

I rather rely on the influence of the thing I'm pointing at; whilst I hop about madly making hooting noises!

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

Would there be a minimum standard of knowledge a person needs before being eligible for this august appellation?

Just needed to get this off my chest. It's too funny to resist.

Socrates aka the father of western philosophy was Greek, ugly(take a look at his bust) and also a self-avowed gadfly, annoying everybody with his deep nevertheless embarassing questions.

Thus, in a sense, a real philosopher is any hideous and annoyinng Greek you happen to cross paths with.

Yes, it is funny, because we can hope that being good looking won't be the essential attribute required to be a philosopher, even in this time. I know someone who seems to make decisions about who to vote for in local elections on the basis of who is the most handsome. We don't want philosophy to come down to pin-up posters to put up on the wall. Socrates can be the role model for the philosopher, in appearance, with no airbrushing required.