Maybe she is. So what? Were the presocratics "philosophers"? What were their "basic reading and knowledge of logic"? — Xtrix
Well in the case of the pre-Socratics these were noteworthy, perhaps epoch defining explorations of the important questions. There has to be a start to everything.
But the key thing is, if a person was still approaching philosophy like no progress had been made since the pre-Socratics and they are unaware of the key issues philosophy has raised, are they really philosophers just by asking questions? — Tom Storm
It seems shallow. To me there needs to be a deeper level of approach and possibly some knowledge of philosophy. — Tom Storm
How much engagement with these questions makes one a philosopher? That's the question, really. — Xtrix
When you say "progress," I'm not sure that gets us far. — Xtrix
Off the top of my head, I can only think of philosophers who actually pioneer new philosophies and epistemologies — Garrett Travers
a philosopher is someone who knows philosophy — pfirefry
On a smaller scale, a philosopher is someone who dedicates their time to engage in philosophical thinking. — pfirefry
A small scale philosopher? Is that like being partly pregnant? :smile: — Tom Storm
I would never say contributing something new is critical, but I would consider that knowing something about how philosophical questions have been approached previously is. — Tom Storm
For me this is the essence of the problem. Asking the big questions with total ignorance of the history of philosophy seems inadequate as a definition of philosopher. — Tom Storm
The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. — Garrett Travers
you usually have to be dead to be a great philosopher. — _db
A philosopher is a person who loves wisdom and seeks wisdom. — ZzzoneiroCosm
I think philosophy, and therefore philosophers, is simply the asking of certain questions. — Xtrix
To philosophize is to pose (big? small? unbegged?) questions in such a way as to make explicit the limits of questioning (i.e. reason's limits).Asking the big questions with total ignorance of the history of philosophy seems inadequate as a definition of philosopher.
— Tom Storm
I guess I disagree as a matter of definition. If one is asking big questions, one is doing philosophy. — Xtrix
Is there any way to tell if someone has enough knowledge about how philosophical questions have been approached in the past? Would it suffice if they arrived at this knowledge on their own, rather than by studying historical records? — pfirefry
To philosophize is to pose (big? small? unbegged?) questions in such a way as to make explicit the limits of questioning (i.e. reason's limits). — 180 Proof
None of this is supposed to be concrete. It's all rather vague -- but it's the only way I can make sense of it without resorting to the standard appeals to academic credentials. — Xtrix
Do you consider YOURSELF a philosopher by this definition? What about others on the forum? — John McMannis
To philosophize is to pose (big? small? unbegged?) questions in such a way as to make explicit the limits of questioning (i.e. reason's limits). — 180 Proof
This is very general but I actually think I like it the most! Haven't come across this way of putting it that much. — John McMannis
Do you consider YOURSELF a philosopher by this definition? What about others on the forum? — John McMannis
Well, to build on what you've written previously, 'the history of philosophy' is indispensable as an archive of examples of 'making explicit the limits of questioning (i.e. reason's limits).'I wonder if the matter rests in how 'to make explicit the limits of questioning' might look in practice. — Tom Storm
To philosophize is to pose (big? small? unbegged?) questions in such a way as to make explicit the limits of questioning (i.e. reason's limits). — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.