You consider philosophy to be asking questions. Very well.

You consider philosophy to be asking questions. Very well. — Garrett Travers

Do I?

Oh, sorry. Accidentally tagged you. My statement was directed at Xtrix.

No, you do not.

Come now, Smith. What do you mean? What brought you to such a conclusion?

Oh, sorry. Accidentally tagged you. — Garrett Travers

Well I guess it's better than deliberately ignoring me!

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

and

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

Are incompatible statements: The study of knowledge, reality, and existence is not belief in truth for the sake of it being understood, or obscured. It is the study of these things for their own sake. Just as biology is the study of life for its own sake.

Ignoring you? When did I do that?

What is ego conflation?

Come now, Smith. What do you mean? What brought you to such a conclusion? — Garrett Travers

Isn't it obvious?

Heheha!

Heheha! — Garrett Travers

:smile:

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! — karl stone

Ha Ha... thanks for the heads up!
If what you say has any element of truth within it then perhaps, over time, I will be less concerned about being able to hold my intellectual ground during dialogue with all comers on this forum. Hopefully, I will also never ossify and always maintain an open mind towards the viewpoints of others.

Thanks Garrett.
Yeah, I agree with all you said in your response. You sound like one of the contributors who is able to clarify aspects of academic philosophical theory. From your studies, you will know the accurate labels that I don't know. In my opinion, its not your job to explain the labels so that I can grasp their underlying concepts. That's what the like of google search can do for me. So the ownness is on me to take the time to study the meanings behind any label you present before I respond to you about it.
If I don't 'get it' after reading about it then I ask pop a question on the forum.
Such activities can only help me better form opinions on the issue under discussion.
That's probably what we are all here for!
I'm away to google 'operationalisation,' I'm not familiar with that label.

I specifically agree with your comment regarding the need or extreme usefulness of the human ability to categorise. Although I don't subscribe to Plato's use of that skill to introduce his 'Forms' and his suggestion that 'Logos' is the big TOE, or the ultimate label. I have been introduced to no evidence that convinces me of the existence of the metaphysical or the divine. Yet!

100% with you. The Forms is a cool concept and there is something intuitively true about it, but it isn't very comprehensive. Logos is also important to consider; the idea of encapsulating what it means to be god and what among those attributes can humans embody. But, in the end, there is no evidence of the divine presented thus far, neither in philosophy, nor science.

The motives of the latter group vary, from intellectual masturbation through to religious protectionism via various political motivations — karl stone

I am so going to steal the term 'intellectual masturbation,' I don't seem to have encountered (I refuse to say 'come across it'..oh,...I just did) it before. It is a great descriptor for the smug look I have often viewed on the face of one protagonist when they think they have just scored an intellectual point against another. I think I will be using that term when I see that look in someone's face again. I think its a great counter. I admit to secretly feeling that way myself, when in debate but I have always felt a little ashamed afterward. Or at least, it makes me question my own motivations and priorities when dealing with others around me.

Ha Ha... thanks for the heads up!
If what you say has any element of truth within it then perhaps, over time, I will be less concerned about being able to hold my intellectual ground during dialogue with all comers on this forum. Hopefully, I will also never ossify and always maintain an open mind towards the viewpoints of others. — universeness

There's often detectable traces of truth in what I say, and here it's the idea that in-depth knowledge of a philosopher's works can become a prison for the mind. I think that's true. So don't let people browbeat you with appeals to authority. I also believe there are, what I call 'obscurantists' - who, for a variety of reasons, seek to make things as complicated and obscure as possible.

I am so going to steal the term 'intellectual masturbation,' I don't seem to have encountered (I refuse to say 'come across it'..oh,...I just did) it before. It is a great descriptor for the smug look I have often viewed on the face of one protagonist when they think they have just scored an intellectual point against another. I think I will be using that term when I see that look in someone's face again. I think its a great counter. I admit to secretly feeling that way myself, when in debate but I have always felt a little ashamed afterward. Or at least, it makes me question my own motivations and priorities when dealing with others around me. — universeness

You seem to have an agile and enquiring mind, but come across as a bit uncertain of yourself. I just wanted you to know, in depth knowledge of philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher.

There's often detectable traces of truth in what I say, and here it's the idea that in-depth knowledge of a philosopher's works can become a prison for the mind. I think that's true. So don't let people browbeat you with appeals to authority. I also believe there are, what I call 'obscurantists' - who, for a variety of reasons, seek to make things as complicated and obscure as possible — karl stone

Yep, all valid observations in my opinion.

You seem to have an agile and enquiring mind, but come across as a bit uncertain of yourself. I just wanted you to know, in depth knowledge of philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher. — karl stone

Thanks for your kind words. I am glad regarding "a bit uncertain of yourself,' Otherwise, the danger is 'arrogance' and even 'delusions of superiority over others.' I recently retired, so I'm old enough to at least claim to be, not one of life's neophytes.
I appreciate what you say regarding:
"in depth knowledge of philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher"

but I agree more with the general case of a comment made earlier by another contributer, in that
You can qualify as a Philosopher and demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the field but you might not be a good philosopher. Someone said earlier that 'Jordan Peterson may be a philosopher but he may not be considered a good one.' But then again it's also important to note that good/bad philosopher is within the opinion of the observer and such opinion can, of course, vary greatly.

I watched a lecture on YouTube a while ago that was the beginning of a philosophy course and that particular lecturer (A young American guy) described a philosopher in the literal translation of 'philo' meaning love and 'sophie' meaning wisdom, so as was posted earlier, a lover of wisdom.
I was more interested in his definition of a sophist, as 'one who is wise', without the 'love' aspect.
I also thought it was interesting when he said that a main difference between a philosopher and a sophist is that a sophist offered their wisdom for sale or for payment. He went on to say that this was not true of people like Socrates, so Socrates was not a sophist.
So would all teachers who accept pay today be correctly called sophists?
Could philosophers who take money for on-line debates etc also be called sophist?
Is it because money became involved in disseminating wisdom that sophistry became a word associated with an intention to deceive and someone who should not be trusted?

I agree here, Karl. And that elucidates me on some points your were making a while ago that didn't makes sense to me. I'm in complete accord with you. I hope to be the exact opposite of what you, and I for that matter, are skeptical of in some of these figures. I happen to believe that true philosophical theorization and application is what can save the world from its ruin. Can, not will, mind you. But, yes, 100% with you.

The fundamental difference, I think, between "philosophers" and "sophists" is that the latter tend to reason from one's position (i.e. rationalize (e.g. dogmas) ... teaching 'how to be wise') and the former tend to reason against one's own positions (i.e. problematize (e.g. aporias) ... unlearning 'unwise habits').

But is the difference you suggest enough to separate the two?
'How to be wise' as opposed to 'how to stop being unwise and by doing so, I assume, become wise', which just seems to me to be the counterfactual position. So the sophist is merely the counterfactual of the philosopher?
Is this accurate?

No.

Reasoning?

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 — Garrett Travers

Can one study philosophy without becoming a philosopher? Can one engage in philosophical thinking without contributing to a philosophical school of thought? What is the exact moment when one becomes a philosopher?

Can one study philosophy without becoming a philosopher? Can one engage in philosophical thinking without contributing to a philosophical school of thought? What is the exact moment when one becomes a philosopher? — pfirefry

Excellent question, exactly the direction I was hoping this would go naturally.

Can one study philosophy without becoming a philosopher? Yes, in fact most people study many domains of thought without becoming a member of that domain. For example, I can study music all I want, but unless I compose it, recite it, play it, or develop the requisite skills to do so, then I am not a musician. The same is true for biology, or history, or art.

Can one engage in philosophical thinking without contributing to a philosophical school of thought? Of course, you may end up just drawing conclusions drawn by philosophers long ago, or conclude something unequivocally false.

What is the exact moment when one becomes a philosopher? At the very same moment someone becomes a musician: when ones knowledge, command, skill, or profiency on the subject is able to be utilized by the individual to contribute something new to the field, even if they don't contribute to it. That is what I assert.

Of course, you may end up just drawing conclusions drawn by philosophers long ago — Garrett Travers

when ones knowledge, command, skill, or profiency on the subject is able to be utilized by the individual to contribute something new to the field — Garrett Travers

If two people independently drew the same conclusion in the field of philosophy, would only one of them become a philosopher, the one who did it earlier than the other? Or perhaps the one who reached a broader audience?

If two people independently drew the same conclusion in the field of philosophy, would only one of them become a philosopher, the one who did it earlier than the other? Or perhaps the one who reached a broader audience? — pfirefry

No, they would both still be philosophers, if they meet the criteria set out in quote two there. It isn't about drawing the same conclusions, or not. What I said earlier was that you can engage with philosophical thought without being a phiosopher, the conclusion drawing bit was just an example of how that could happen. What defines a philosopher is contained in the second of my quotes you provided. Use that as a reference to quote one.

No, they would both still be philosophers, if they meet the criteria set out in quote two there. It isn't about drawing the same conclusions, or not. What I said earlier was that you can engage with philosophical thought without being a phiosopher, the conclusion drawing bit was just an example of how that could happen. What defines a philosopher is contained in the second of my quotes you provided. Use that as a reference to quote one. — Garrett Travers

Forgive me, I made a false connection between conclusions and contributions. I meant to aks: If two people offer the same contribution to the field, would only one of them contributing something new to the field? Would this make only one of them a philosopher?

Forgive me, I made a false connection between conclusions and contributions. I meant to aks: If two people offer the same contribution to the field, would only one of them contributing something new to the field? — pfirefry

Well, no. Not if the contribution was genuinely new. For example, both Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace are both the original developers of evolutionary theory; they're both scientists offering the same thing. It's simply going to be the job of scientists, or philosophers in your example, to determine whose model is of greater value, accuracy, or usefulness. Again, what defines the philosopher is his/her command, skill, proficiency in the art, as it is only with such apptitude that philosophy can be contributed to, as a basic rule. Of course, there are times when people happen to contribute to individual fields, such as Farrady with electromagnetism, Farrady wasn't a scientist really, but he certainly contributed kind of by accident.

That's a great way to put it!

Do you think there is an analogy to the musical world? In the musical world, there are people who contribute by writing new music, developing new techniques and creating new genres, and there are also performers who arguably don't contribute something new to the field, but they are still called musicians for their skill and proficiency. Is there an analogy in the field of philosophy?