Just my opinion but I think you usually have to be dead to be a great philosopher. Someone's thought cannot be given enough judgement within the short time of a human lifespan in order to determine its importance. If it can remain relevant for generations after it was originally thought and not fade away and be forgotten, then the thinker is a better candidate for having been a great philosopher.

Snips and snails and puppy dog's tails!

And little girls?

So, remembrance beyond death makes one a philosopher?

Just what is it that constitutes a philosopher? — Garrett Travers

A philosopher is a person who loves wisdom and seeks wisdom.

So when in the heat of philosophical debate it's a bright idea to, once or twice, pause and ask oneself: is this exchange a manifestation of a love of wisdom?

If the answer is no, go silent.

You are not being a philosopher.

So, all those who love wisdom and seek it are philosophers. Very good, hard to argue with.

I would say it would be a necessary but not sufficient condition for being one, or at least a great one.

Is that same standard applied to physicists, artists, or authors in your mind? Do they have to be dead to be great?

Just what is it that constitutes a philosopher? Of course, I have come to conclusions about the subject, but let's chat about it, because I want to view the opinions of my fellow peers. — Garrett Travers

To my mind a philosopher is someone who believes truth matters; either, because truth must be understood, or because truth must be obscured, and who constructs arguments to one of these ends!

Here is the definition of philosophy:

The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

With this definition in mind, does your conclusion change at all?

But wouldn't you say that the praxis of it all, is that we then make philosophical decisions in our lives. And we make those everyday thus making up the social worldview. So if it's the decisions, then we are all philosophers.

Decisions are, of course, an aspect of philosophy, but that doesn't mean decisions constitute philosophy, anymore than decisions constitute science, even if science is characterized by a series of highly specific decisions.

Here is the definition of philosophy:

The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

With this definition in mind, does your conclusion change at all? — Garrett Travers

Not in the least. I think philosophers can be divided neatly into two basic camps, claricists and obscurantists. They'd both claim to be engaging in the above activity, but only the former does so honestly. The motives of the latter group vary, from intellectual masturbation through to religious protectionism via various political motivations. Hence:

a philosopher is someone who believes truth matters; either, because truth must be understood, or because truth must be obscured, and who constructs arguments to one of these ends! — karl stone

I guess what I'm saying is that what is manifest, demonstrated, instantiated by philosophy is the final accounting of it. And all of us are contributing to that account.

So, because you think philosophers can be separated into camps, means you think a belief in truth defines what a philosopher is?

Contribution to philosophy, then, defines the philosopher in your mind. Interesting.

I wonder, if a scientist never contributes to the body of accepted science, is he/she still a scientist?

I wonder, if a scientist never contributes to the body of accepted science, is he/she still a scientist? — Garrett Travers

Over the decades I've met many writers who have never written anything... :wink:

When I was six years old, I was reading a book about mathematics and there was a chapter about philosophers. I asked my mum who philosophers were. She frowned and told me that philosophers were lazy people who didn’t want to do anything in their lives, and that I should never become a philosopher. So I became a software engineer. Thanks mum!

Not a writer any less, are they?

I know someone whose musical work is so far beyond those of whom you hear on a regular basis, qualitatively speaking, that it's unbelievable. Yet, most people will never know his name, let alone that he was a musician. Nothing about that makes him a musician any less. To drive this home, most species that have ever lived on Earth have been exctinct for many millenia, doesn't make them any less a species.

So, because you think philosophers can be separated into camps, means you think a belief in truth defines what a philosopher is? — Garrett Travers

....yes!

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Illustration: Because politicians can be split into separate camps, belief in truth defines what a politician is.

You can substitute philosopher, politician, scientist, artist, etc.

I know someone whose musical work is so far beyond those of whom you hear on a regular basis, qualitatively speaking, that it's unbelievable. Yet, most people will never know his name, let alone that he was a musician. Nothing about that makes him a musician any less. To drive this home, most species that have ever lived on Earth have been exctinct for many millenia, doesn't make them any less a species. — Garrett Travers

I think you are talking about different things. I am talking about calling yourself a writer when you have never written (apart from emails or texts).

The matter of being unknown or unrecognised is quite different. So is the nature of species extinction. Both have contributed in a measurable way. My writer has not.

Yes, fair. Desire to be something, or claiming to be something, is not being something. I thought that was the argument you were making.

No, I agree with your point. I have often said that some of the greatest novels, plays and musical compositions are probably in a box somewhere, or have been destroyed. There is artistic brilliance and there there is luck, opportunity and initiative.

Beyond doubt.

Of course, I have come to conclusions about the subject, but let's chat about it, because I want to view the opinions of my fellow peers. — Garrett Travers

Going back to your OP, it's a good question. I generally draw a distinction between a philosophically inclined person and a philosopher. There are people who think philosophically without going the full monty. I also think there is a difference between holding a worldview and doing philosophy, but this one is more contentious.

I am not a philosopher and I say this because I do not have a system or hold a coherent approach and nor am I steeped in the key works of the tradition.

But just as there is good and bad art I think there is good and bad philosophy - so it may well be that when someone says Jordan Peterson is NOT a philosopher what they could mean is he is not a good philosopher. There is a tendency to withhold a title from someone if they are deemed bad at it. But for me a bad artist is just as much an artist as a good one. (Actually Peterson seems to be a populariser/interpreter of other's ideas rather than an original thinker.)

Your mother owes you an apology.

I think philosophy, and therefore philosophers, is simply the asking of certain questions. This predates the word "philosophy," of course.

So a philosopher is someone particularly interested in basic questions about the world. Similar to scientists -- with the difference being that scientists restrict themselves to nature.

When I was six years old, I was reading a book about mathematics . . . — pfirefry

:lol:

So, if I'm interested in biology, that makes me a biologist?