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. — Xtrix

So you don't see a need for any core competencies?

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

If you're both interested in biology and ask/answer questions about biology (and, because it's a science, perhaps conduct research), then yes. What else would qualify you, degrees? In that case, Aristotle wasn't a biologist.

It's not just a matter of interest. Philosophy, if I'm correct, consists not only in the interest, but in really asking these questions. It's engaging and struggling with the questions. That's philosophy. To some degree, perhaps we're all philosophers. If you want to label yourself "philosopher," then I assume it's more than a fleeting hobby -- but something you take seriously, that you are frequently engaged in, that takes priority in your life, that is a top value, etc.

So you don't see a need for any core competencies? — Tom Storm

For example?

If you're both interested in biology and ask/answer questions about biology (and, because it's a science, perhaps conduct research), then yes. — Xtrix

Notice how this goes beyond mere interest?

Here is the definition of philosophy:

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

Hope that sheds some light on things going forward.

A philosopher was a theologian and is on the verge of morphing into a scientist. Funny, I always wanted to be a scientist until I realized I didn't have what it takes to be one!

Notice how this goes beyond mere interest? — Garrett Travers

I didn't say it was about interest -- I said it was about questions. One has to first have an interest, yes -- but that's obvious.

Here is the definition of philosophy: — Garrett Travers

There is no definitive definition of philosophy. Citing a dictionary tells us exactly nothing. To consider it "especially" an academic discipline is really absurd, in my view. That too would rule out the presocratics.

Your mother owes you an apology. — Garrett Travers

Perhaps. And perhaps you owe an apology to Bernie Sanders, Jordan Peterson, Freud et al. for treating them less than philosophers :grin:

But I had a similar experience as described in the OP. Initially, I thought that philosophers were very specific types of people, but then I was surprised to learn that this term is used more loosely and broadly. It seems like it is used as another way to say "thinker", or a "thought leader".

Yes, that seems to be the case. Here is the definition of philosophy:

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

Does this change your determination of what a philosopher is?

Here is the definition of a phisolopher:

someone who studies or writes about the meaning of life

Does this change your determination of what a philosopher is?

"So a philosopher is someone particularly interested in basic questions about the world."

No, you said interest defines a philosopher. You also said someone who asks questions.

There is no definitive definition of philosophy. Citing a dictionary tells us exactly nothing."

Citing a dictionary tells us nothing..... No, in fact it tells us exactly what words mean. It's exactly the opposite of what you concluded. — Xtrix

We'll start with you first, because I already asked you the question. After that we'll move to your definition.

In other words, answer the question.

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

Hope that sheds some light on things going forward. — Garrett Travers

Barely a glimmer.

Wiki:

Historically, philosophy encompassed all bodies of knowledge and a practitioner was known as a philosopher

Those were the good old days. :halo:

"So a philosopher is someone particularly interested in basic questions about the world."

No, you said interest defines a philosopher. You also said someone who asks questions. — Garrett Travers

I said a philosopher is defined by the questions he or she asks, because that's what I consider philosophy. The "interest" in these questions is incidental, and obvious.

Sorry, I wasn't sure who the question was directed to. I also wasn't sure what kind of answer you were looking for. Personally, I don't believe that there is a single perfect definition for the term, as for many other terms. A term is defined by how it's used, and by its relationship to all other terms in the language. You can generally understand it, but you cannot point exactly at where the term begins and where it ends.

If I was to give a definition, I would go for something ambiguous, e.g. a philosopher is someone who thinks about life.

a philosopher is defined by the questions he or she asks — Xtrix

:ok:

term — pfirefry

:zip: Wriggle finger. — Cratylus

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

At minimum, the courage to dialectically examine one's own assumptions and to reason towards better, more probative questions of reason's limits.

Btw, I prefer freethinker to "philosopher", and reserve the latter as an honorific for the dead (professors / PhDs aka "academic mandarins" don't count).

probitive — 180 Proof

I tried googling the definition of that word. No results. What does it mean?

:broken:

So you don't see a need for any core competencies?
— Tom Storm

For example? — Xtrix

I'm asking you - but obviously not or you would listed some, hey? I was thinking some basic reading or knowledge of logic. Your definition means my grandmother is a philosopher. Ok.

To some degree, perhaps we're all philosophers. — Xtrix

Would anyone here agree, that there is a synthetic result of our making philosophical decisions that manifests itself in our behavior and thus our premise. Where the rubber meets the road. The philosophy the guided your action. Not the books you haven't written, but action.

Btw, I prefer freethinker to "philosopher", and reserve the latter as an honorific for the dead (professors / PhDs aka "academic mandarins" don't count). — 180 Proof

Now this I can get.

:broken:

I tried googling the definition of that word. No results. What does it mean? — Agent Smith

Perhaps probative - with an 'a" - Having the quality or function of proving or demonstrating something; affording proof or evidence.

Having the quality or function of proving or demonstrating something; affording proof or evidence. — Tom Storm

:up: Muchas gracias señor!

Someone who annoys people consistently and constantly with things they find 'interesting' or 'intriguing'.

The rest is academic pomposity most of the time and playing with ego conflation.

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. — Garrett Travers

No, but I'm describing what a philosopher is. You wrote:

Here is the definition of philosophy: The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. — Garrett Travers

How is that inconsistent with saying:

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 don't know enough of the academic details put forward by a wide enough range of past and current individuals who claim or have been given the label 'Philosopher,' to call myself one.
I do not dedicate enough of my time and effort to the area to be able to 'debate' the details that the more seasoned practitioner (often called expert) can present.
I cannot 'debate the experts' in the field but that does not stop me from becoming a 'gifted amateur' and it does not mean that I could not come up with a 'wee gem' no one else had thought of.
I think this is true in all fields of study.

I take a rather simplistic but valid viewpoint, I think:

Humans need labels to try to make sense of the Universe.

Scientists use the scientific method to create their labels and combine them into equations and formulae and even laws and then they constantly scrutinise these labels to make sure they are still valid when they encounter new relevant scenarios and data. If a label does not hold then it is rejected.

Politicians create their labels and use them to make policies and establish doctrines, etc and all our lives are affected by their musings and their deliberations.

Philosophers create their labels. They then assess their labels and everyone else's labels from a more esoteric standpoint. They assess the wisdom and rigor of the suggested consequences implied by a particular set of labels. They ruminate about the implied meaning behind individual and combined labels. Their goal is ultimately the same goal as the scientist but from a different perspective. They both seek the big TOE. Theory of everything. The philosophers may be happier with the idea that they seek 'The real truth about existence.'

Every human on the planet uses all the labels created by all these other people to the best of their understanding and each person will mix/combine them, with labels produced by their own local dialect and create conversations and make decisions.

I am not a philosopher (although I declare a serious interest) but I enjoy entering their playpen.
I hope they don't find me too unqualified to take part.
As I said, my viewpoint is a very simplistic one:
I see a multitude of labels and I watch the need to scrutinise the validity of every one of them and the relationships between them, EXHAUSTIVELY! in pursuit of the big TOE.

I apologise for my extensive use of the word 'label'...... :naughty:

I don't know enough of the academic details put forward by a wide enough range of past and current individuals who claim or have been given the label 'Philosopher,' to call myself one. — universeness

I take issue with the idea of a philosopher this statement implies. There are people on this forum who have extensive knowledge of what, usually - a few particular philosophers have said, but who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag. They are devotees, not philosophers - and if you're not careful, they'll induct you into their cult!

What an excellent response. I love your perspective. Mine differs slightly in a few regards only. One being that I have no problem regarding myself as a philosopher, as that is my field of study and the school of thought I hope to contribute to. However, the thing about about it is, I can only contribute to the field of philosophy by philosophizing, or to be more accurate, doing philosophy. It would be just as true for me to say that the only way I can contribute to science, is by conducting science, which would therefore make me a scientist. The same is true for art and psychology and so on.

You are entirely correct about labels. I think the proper term is operationalization, or atleast labeling falls under that rubric. We have to categorize things to make sense of them. The most glaring example I can thing of is taxonomy. It isn't as if those labels are actually real, we made them up. However, what a marvelous aid it is in the study of species.

Great post, friend!

-G