What is the essence of philosophy? A quick and general answer would be that philosophy is about the fundamental topics that lie at the core of all other fields of inquiry, broad topics like reality, morality, knowledge, justice, reason, beauty, the mind and the will, social institutions of education and governance, and perhaps above all meaning, both in the abstract linguistic sense, and in the practical sense of what is important in life and why.

But philosophy is far from the only field that inquires into any of those topics, and no definition of philosophy would be complete without demarcating it from those other fields, showing where the line lies between philosophy and something else. Philosophy is not the same thing as religion, nor just sophistry; its not science, because it's independent of a posteriori facts, but neither is it just about ethics; and it's not the same thing as math, despite being all a priori, nor is it just a genre of literature, a form of art.

Philosophy uses the tools of mathematics and the arts, logic and rhetoric, to do the job of creating the tools of the physical and ethical sciences, i.e. for studying what is real and what is moral. It is the bridge between the more abstract disciplines and the more practical ones: an inquiry stops being science and starts being philosophy when instead of using some methods that appeal to specific contingent experiences, it begins questioning and justifying the use of such methods in a more abstract way; and that activity in turn ceases to be philosophy and becomes art or math instead when that abstraction ceases to be concerned with figuring out how to practically answer questions about what is real or what is moral, but turns instead to the structure or presentation of the ideas themselves.


Who is a real philosopher? The question is largely whether philosophy is a personal activity, or an institutional one. Given that I think that the faculty needed to conduct philosophy is literally personhood itself (sapience, consciousness and will), it should come as no surprise that I think that philosophy is for each and every person to do, to the best of their ability to do so.

Nevertheless, institutions are made of people, and I do value the cooperation and collaboration that has arisen within philosophy in the contemporary era, so I don't mean at all to besmirch professional philosophy and the specialization that has come with it. I merely don't think that the specialized, professional philosophers warrant a monopoly on the discipline.

It is good that there be people whose job it is to know philosophy better than laypeople, and that some of those people specialize even more deeply in particular subfields of philosophy. But it is important that laypeople continue to philosophize as well, and that the discourse of philosophy as a whole be continuous between those laypeople and the professionals, without a sharp divide into mutually exclusive castes of professional philosophers and non-philosophers. And it is also important that some philosophers keep abreast of the progress in all of those specialties and continue to integrate their findings together into more generalized philosophical systems.

But who is really "a real philosopher"? I feel torn between two answers.

On the one hand, if asked if someone else was "a real philosopher", I would just look at whether they do the activity that is philosophy, professionally or not; if they did any kind of study of those broad fundamental problems using those kinds of methods described above, I'd say yeah, they're a philosopher, especially if they wrote those thoughts down somewhere, or discussed them with others regularly.

But if asked if I was a "real philosopher"? I feel like I'd be compelled to answer "eh, not really", because I don't actually do this for a living.

I do agree with your point about whether or not one makes a living out of being a philosopher being an important marker. I can remember saying in a thread on art that I would define a professional artist as someone who makes a living out of it. However, I am aware that in some ways it is a materialistic evaluation. I would use such an evaluation to dismiss myself as not being a philosopher, but not in my view of others.

If I am reading someone else's ideas, my view of their work would most definitely be based on the quality of their ideas and writing and it would not matter whether or not they had earned any money for it. As far as philosophy is concerned, I think that it is probably hard to make money out of it unless one is a tutor. Even if someone writes a book, I would not imagine that they many philosophy books make a lot of money, unless they become bestsellers, which may mean that they would have to be popular.The most popular philosophy books would not be the best quality ones necessarily. It seems that philosophy in its quest for knowledge and truth , and, probably some other disciplines, may turn the values we usually base ideas of success upon upside down.

I think that you are right to say that philosophy as an interest is a peculiar one andI like the idea of it being ' a praxis of interrogation', and, of course, we are speaking of the interrogation of ideas. It does seem to involve war between ideas. I also think that the implications of your post is that we take an interest in ideas from philosophy, but probably the title of philosopher has to be earned. This makes a lot of sense, and it does seem that this probably should apply to such titles as writer and artist too. Perhaps one has to go on a quest to become a philosopher, but, hopefully, the quest would be philosophy itself, or wisdom, rather than for the status of being a philosopher.

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. — TheMadFool

My life-long aspiration :point: gnóthi seautón ... panta rhei ... pan metron ariston ... tetrapharmakos —> aponia, ataraxia (& eudaimonia) ... apatheia ...

:death: :flower:

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. — Jack Cummins

That's true to some extent. I was in a small international group that met periodically at various universities, and when we published a piece I would guess twenty or thirty might have read it. Larger groups in more popular areas of math would have greater readerships. But intense specialization has made communication among mathematicians difficult sometimes. Maybe the same is true of philosophy.

My life-long aspiration :point: gnóthi seautón ... panta rhei ... pan metron ariston ... tetrapharmakos —> aponia, ataraxia (i.e. eudaimonia) ... apatheia ... — 180 Proof

Gnōthi seauton: Know thyself. I never quite understood what it means.

Is it a call to understand one's strengths and weaknesses and chart one's course through life based on that knowledge? All to do with eudaimonia? That's sound advice if you ask me.

Does it prod us to self-reflection that involves going beyond the merely practical aspects of living (above) and diving deeper into the mind to discover what the mind itself is, the mind's relationship with the body, and how the person (mind & body) interacts or should interact with other persons and the world at large? Does it assume, for instance, that the mind is a reflection of the universe and to understand it, is to understand the universe itself?

Panta rhei: Everything flows

Change is the only constant — Heraclitus

Change is an illusion — Parmenides

:chin:

Don't forget Zeno and his paradoxes.


Pan metron ariston: In all things, moderation is best

:up: :100:

Easy to say, hard to do.

Words to the heat of deeds too cold breath gives — Shakespeare

Do as I say, not as I do — God

Tetrapharmakos: Four-part remedy

1. Don't fear god.

2. Don't worry about death

3. What is good is easy to get

4. What is terrible is easy to endure

:up: Pearls of wisdom!

Aponia: Absence of pain (as the greatest pleasure). I really like this for it measures pleasure with pain and thus it avoids the problem of infinite pleasure as the greatest pleasure. It's like defining sweetness in terms of bitterness and the sweetest substance would simply be the absence of bitterness and we don't have to go through the trouble of looking for a sweet sweetest substance. You get the idea.

Ataraxia: A state of equanimity/tranquility achieved, in my humble opinion, by appreciating the good and coming to terms with the bad. It quite possibly refers to being happy about all that's favorable and learning to accept all that's inevitable.

Eudaimonia: Flourishing/prosperity. Analogous to flowers in a garden. Under the right conditions, the seeds planted reach their full potential; for instance, a rose seed becoming an ideal or the perfect rose.

Apatheia: Undisturbed by the passions. Perhaps this refusal to be swayed by emotions, good or bad, is grounded in the fact that emotions, whether pleasant or unplesant, tend to cloud one's judgment. A glance at a list of informal fallacies should suffice to prove this point.


Wonderful. I feel rejuvenated and inspired after reading all this. Thanks

I certainly haven't found many philosophy discussion groups in England. I did have an informal one to go to in someone 's home to at one point and I am still in touch with one person in the group. After lockdown eases I am going to have a good look to see if I can find any others. Of course, we do also have the possibility of starting them. I know that my local library has art and writing groups run by volunteers. So, when libraries reopen, if I have the time I may try to see if I could start a little philosophy discussion group. Perhaps, other people on the forum would wish to set up discussion groups in their own locations, but obviously it is a very different form of exploration of ideas than writing on a forum.

I really love the post you wrote. It has many points of wisdom. The only one which I am not at all sure about is, 'What is terrible is easy to endure. ' I find coping with the 'terrible' extremely difficult and find it opens up plenty of 'black hole' states. I don't find it too hard if I can spend time working my way out of the black holes, but it does take time and energy. When we were discussing the ineffable of the mystics on another thread , I was thinking that I am more familiar with unutterable truth of the diabolical. Perhaps we need a philosophy of the terrible.

What is terrible is easy to endure — Jack Cummins

I had my doubts about that one but why split hairs. Obviously, Diogenes Laërtius hadn't seen it all. To be fair though, ceteris paribus, this, the fourth remedy covers ordinary people's lives, no? For example, doesn't it apply to you?

Actually, the whole experience of suffering is the starting point for searching in many ways. It prompted the quest of the Buddha, and I am sure that it led many to think deeply. If life was all fun there would be no motivation to create ot think beyond the norms of convention. However, I think that there is probably a fine line between being broken by terrible experiences or of transformation of thought from them. It is a question of how much stress is good for us? But, it may be that a certain amount of time in the dark underworld gives rise to a higher level of consciousness if one is able to overcome adversity in some meaningful way.

:clap: :fire:

There are probably certain criteria for measuring success, and even amongst people who have been published there are some published writers and philosophers who are considered as more important or significant. I would certainly not say that popularity is necessarily the main measure, but some people might disagree. So, I am asking what does it mean to say that one is a philosopher, and who are the 'real' philosophers? — Jack Cummins

Jack, We are on the ship of fools and it is sinking. A real philosopher knows the way home. The ship is filled with philosophers expressing opinions without any knowledge of the way home. From book V1 of Plato's Republic:

Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarreling with one another about the steering -- every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary.

They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard, and having first chained up the noble captain's senses with drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them. Him who is their partisan and cleverly kaids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands into their own whether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling.

Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?


The one who knows must be eliminated to satisfy the world of opinions. This is the human condition. What kind of education teaches what we are, our lives in Plato's cave, and what is necessary for freedom for those who are drawn to the experience of truth rather than inevitable destruction?

“The greatest responsibility of all: the transmission of the mystery.” —Basarab Nicolescu

The point is that only a real philosopher like a philosopher king is capable of it. We don't have many of them in public anymore so the ship is sinking under the weight of opinions.

I do agree with your point about whether or not one makes a living out of being a philosopher being an important marker. — Jack Cummins

Neither Nietzsche nor Spinoza or Kierkegaard made their living in philosophy or were part of academia during most or all of their writing careers.

BTW, since you live in the London area, have you tried these philosophy groups?

https://www.meetup.com/topics/philosophy/gb/17/london/

I don't know if you wished to make a comment, because you seem to have sent an empty message.

While expertise probably counts for something, I am sure that there are complex power dynamics and an elite hierarchy within establishing philosophy circles. — Jack Cummins

That may be so , but that hasn’t stopped me. I don’t have a PhD and never took a single
course in philosophy, and yet I have been able to publish my philosophical work in academic journals such as the British Society of Phenomenology.

That's interesting. I have never actually heard of the British Society of Phenomenology. I may look it up. I am fairly interested in phenomenology but have not read that much on it at present. Are you entirely self taught in philosophy or have you studied a related field, such as psychology?:From posts which I have read by you, it seems that your interests lie in the border between philosophy and psychology.

The future is uncertain, and the end is always near ... — The Lizard King

Absolutely, I sometimes think that the Doors track which is most relevant for the current time is, 'When the Music's Over.'

From posts which I have read by you, it seems that your interests lie in the border between philosophy and psychology. — Jack Cummins

My degree was in cognitive science. To me psychological discourse is simply a less self-aware ( or ‘naturalized) form of philosophical thinking.

"Dance on fire
as it intends
Music
is your
only friend
Until
the end ..."

“Show me the way to the next whiskey bar”

Yes, I think we need some kind of philosopher king to show us the way. The only problem is that the philosophers are not really considered as kings at all. But, @Joshs just pointed out that Nietzsche's, Spinoza and Kierkergaard were not famous in their time. So it may be that the true philosopher kings or queens will probably not be seen at the time. I am sure that probably applies to Simone Weil, your biggest influence. I do believe that the important thinking which may be needed will not be looking back on the past but on where humanity is going.

:fire: (I'll drink to that!)

"Blood is the rose of mysterious union" :broken:

I think we need some kind of philosopher king to show us the way. — Jack Cummins

"Beware lest a statue slay you!" ~Freddy Zarathustra

I replied to your second post before seeing your first. Thanks for the link with listings of philosophy activities in London. I was not really looking prior to lockdown and was busy working. However, after all these months stuck in a room, I will be glad to go out and explore new horizons and unknown possibilities.

In some ways, it could be that the true philosopher kings or queens may not emerge from the world of philosophy but from within the arts, especially music. I think that it is possible that some people may take offence at such a suggestion. I am not wishing to put philosophy down, especially as I am genuinely interested in it. I am just thinking that is sometimes the lyrics and songs that guide me through life as much as the books I read. Certain albums by the Doors, U2, Dylan, David Bowie and all the current ones are central to my life and philosophy quest. I wonder to what extent many other people feel that way too.

Philosophia, perhaps, can be the muse of artists and scientists, historians and, to a lesser degree, politicians; this is how she plays with millennia and civilizations and destinies, through her accidental avatars & their jesters. One can do a lot worse than be a fool for Philosophia.

Certain albums by the Doors, U2, Dylan, David Bowie and all the current ones are central to my life and philosophy quest. I wonder to what extent many other people feel that way too. — Jack Cummins

I think many people would agree with you. I don't hold this view myself but I don't listen to rock/pop music. What do you feel is the wisdom gleaned from these sources?

I think that you are missing so much by not having an affinity with rock and other related genres. But, of course, I realise that is my bias. I grew up listening to such music and was searching through record shops in childhood and adolescence. I would spend hours looking for a wonderful album, reading the lyrics before being them. I don't search in such an intense way, but I do feel that the music I listen to is central to my existence. I do like live music events as well. On the psychiatric ward I was working on last year, a patient who used to talk about music with me, said, 'If you became manager, I expect we would have a jukebox on the wall.' However, it is hard to explain the wisdom gained from the various music genres, it because it is experiential.

I just hate the sound and aesthetics of it.

What philosophy do you get from it?

It is probably about entering into certain mental states rather than actual philosophy. I remember one of the consultant psychiatrists I worked with joking that the lyrics of Oasis were thought disordered. I got into understanding my shadow side, in the Jungian sense, through exploring new metal and punk. As far as philosophy from lyrics, I recommend albums by U2, such as 'The Unforgettable Fire' and ' The Joshua Tree'.

I read a lot, ranging from psychology and philosophy, as well as many other forms of writing, but I would be completely miserable without music, although I usually don't do the two together because they require full attention.