Yes, Bert. You're getting closer to the mark. However, I would have you consider something. Let's say I want to get into music and I start playing guitar and learning how to sing. Naturally, there is going to be a learning curve between the time when I start learning those skill and the time when I can not only compose coherent music, but perform it in its complete form. I would say you are a musician when you have reached the latter point. I would also assert that the same thing goes for philosophy, science, art, or any other variation of productive activity or profession. Does that make sense?

My only problem with that, is that such a standard is not applied to any other profession. Meaning, people in this thread are not consistently reasoning this out. Nobody here would say there is no clear definition of a scientist, artist, plumber, carpenter, musician, etc. It doesn't make sense if everyone understands that all of those enumerated professions are distinguished by either work in the field, or the skill requisite to perform work in that field, and yet do not apply the same standard to philosophy. The reason I asked this question in the first place was because I had encountered this issue so many times, ad nauseum, that it simply had to be discussed because of how inconsistent people's views on the subject are.

You've misread my post — 180 Proof

It's tragic how you are so clear in your writing, yet are so often misread. I'm glad I am not so misunderstood, it must be a burden for you.

"Often misread" willfully by some. :mask:

My only problem with that, is that such a standard is not applied to any other profession. Meaning, people in this thread are not consistently reasoning this out. Nobody here would say there is no clear definition of a scientist, artist, plumber, carpenter, musician, etc. It doesn't make sense if everyone understands that all of those enumerated professions are distinguished by either work in the field, or the skill requisite to perform work in that field, and yet do not apply the same standard to philosophy. The reason I asked this question in the first place was because I had encountered this issue so many times, ad nauseum, that it simply had to be discussed because of how inconsistent people's views on the subject are — Garrett Travers

I have agreed with your definitions of 'philosopher' in general terms, but I do think the job title philosopher is 'more nuanced' than job titles such as physicist. I do think 'nuanced' is also true of job titles such as artist, musician, politician, cook etc. I personally don't consider Tracey Emin or Damien Hirst etc artists. Unless you put the word 'con' in front of the term. Yet that's the title they currently hold. Of all the people in the world who state the title politician in their job description, I think there are few who should actually be assigned as such. This is just my opinion of course but some job titles are more open to the subjective opinion of people compared to others

It's tragic how you are so clear in your writing, yet are so often misread. I'm glad I am not so misunderstood, it must be a burden for you. — bert1

"Often misread" willfully by some — 180 Proof

Demonstrating an ability to express clear meaning so that all, or at least the majority of readers 'understand' what you are trying to explain, can be very difficult.
I know this, as a school teacher of 30 years experience.
One key strategy is to try to not get too inebriated with your own verbosity.

Dunno. Potential contingencies, in the aftermath of an intergrowth of two non-abelian intrinsically curved gauge fields, expressed as fibre bundles on the cotangent normalized perpendicularity, as in ophicalcite, myrmekite, or micropegmatite, relating to or being a bone between the hyomandibular and the quadrate in the mandibular suspensorium, should be implemented in mutual conservation of synchrone synergy, as an holistic collapse of the emblematic synthesis implicitly augmenting an asgardian symplectic symbolism, pervading confabulations the contemporary crisis in modern colloquial language.

We should be on guard and immanently attempt for less pretentiously loquacious talkatives; garruloussly avoiding gossipy and loose-lippened, indiscrete blabber, and aim for an objective silver tongue, so we can effectively and
efficiently adapt a communicative transparent mode of speech, instead of the chatty and loose-tongued vocalizations so blindly uttered by fellow subjects in present society, leading to incomensurable inconsistencies and incoherency.

Dunno. Potential contingencies, in the aftermath of an intergrowth of two non-abelian intrinsically curved gauge fields, expressed as fibre bundles on the cotangent normalized perpendicularity, as in ophicalcite, myrmekite, or micropegmatite, relating to or being a bone between the hyomandibular and the quadrate in the mandibular suspensorium, should be implemented in mutual conservation of synchrone synergy, as an holistic collapse of the emblematic synthesis implicitly augmenting an asgardian symplectic symbolism, pervading confabulations the contemporary crisis in modern colloquial language. — Cornwell1

:lol: :lol: :lol:

One key strategy is to try to not get too inebriated with your own verbosity. — universeness

Funny stuff. Yes for me verbosity isn't the main problem - it's the poor syntax combined with unnecessary jargon.

We should be on guard and immanently attempt for less pretentiously loquacious talkatives; garruloussly avoiding gossipy and loose-lippened, indiscrete blabber, and aim for an objective silver tongue, so we can effectively and
efficiently adapt a communicative transparent mode of speech, instead of the chatty and loose-tongued vocalizations so blindly uttered by fellow subjects in present society, leading to incomensurable inconsistencies and incoherency. — Cornwell1

Yep, that's all I am saying, we just have to spoke in clear England, that much good for clear things.

it's the poor syntax combined with unnecessary jargon. — Tom Storm

I agree, and I think cromwell1 does too. I do appreciate that it's hard to discuss complicated philosophical concepts without 'jargon' but attempting to exemplify using everyday experience style examples are appreciated, if not always possible.

Let's say I want to get into music and I start playing guitar and learning how to sing. Naturally, there is going to be a learning curve between the time when I start learning those skill and the time when I can not only compose coherent music, but perform it in its complete form. I would say you are a musician when you have reached the latter point. — Garrett Travers

That's a very high standard. What reasons/believes are behind this assertion?

In my view, you become a musician as soon as you hit that first note on your guitar. I'm invested in rock music. I recently listened to two interviews with successful musicians Tom Morello and Dave Grohl. Both recalled the days they first played their instruments as the days their journeys as musicians started. Even more so, Dave Grohl started drumming even before he got his first drum kit. He had an unusual habit of drumming using only his teeth. When I'm thinking of young Dave playing songs using his teeth on his way to school, I'm seeing a musician in him.

Overall, I see this problem as an instance of the sorites paradox. It's easy to know a musician, but there is no reliable way to determine the exact moment the transition happened. Because there is no objective way to answer this question, I've settled on a subjective approach:

Someone becomes a musician/philosopher as soon as they start identifying themself as a musician/philosopher.

It's not a perfect definition, but it's practical. Its main significance is to protect a moral belief that I have. I believe that it is wrong to strip people of their identity. If someone identifies as a musician/philosopher, I think it is wrong for others to claim otherwise. It is still fine to omit this detail when it has low relevance. If someone claims to be a musician but they never play music, there is no value in referring to them as a musician. But we also should refrain from claiming that they aren't a musician. We can only make more specific claims, e.g. they are not a professional musician because they are not making money with music, or they are not proficient in music theory, etc.

My conclusion is that the following are not the right questions to ask: "What constitutes a philosopher?", "When does one become a philosopher?". Some better questions would be: "How does one become known as a philosopher?", "What makes a philosopher great?", "What is it like to be a philosopher?"

and to everyone else on this thread/site.
Enjoyed today's exchanges. Cornwell1 gave me the good giggle I needed to start my day/night Saturday session.
I am away to meet friends in town and drink alcohol until I'm forced to stop.
Perhaps after the beers are flowing well, I will ask the company.
So guys 'What constitutes a Philosopher.' They may respond or they may throw their drinks at me. I will find out soon.
Cheers Fur Noo!

Perhaps after the beers are flowing well, I will ask the company.
So guys 'What constitutes a Philosopher.' They may respond or they may throw their drinks at me. I will find out soon.
Cheers Fur Noo! — universeness

:rofl:


Have a good time mate!

In my view, you become a musician as soon as you hit that first note on your guitar. I'm invested in rock music. I recently listened to two interviews with successful musicians Tom Morello and Dave Grohl. Both recalled the days they first played their instruments as the days their journeys as musicians started. Even more so, Dave Grohl started drumming even before he got his first drum kit. He had an unusual habit of drumming using only his teeth. When I'm thinking of young Dave playing songs using his teeth on his way to school, I'm seeing a musician in him. — pfirefry

I am actually a musician myself, I've been writing music for years, and at heart I had always considered myself a musician even when I was in the middle of my learning curve. But, in reality unless you can actually compose, or perform music, meaning you have the requisite skills to do so, you're not a musician. You may be a musician in training, but not a musician quite. Right, you would call a sophomore physics student a phycisist, unless of course he was already capable of conducting his own expriments and formulating theories and what not. Same goes for philosophy, or medicine, or music.

Someone becomes a musician/philosopher as soon as they start identifying themself as a musician/philosopher. — pfirefry

So, if I told you I was physician you'd regard me as one, even I didn't have the training or the skill to administer medicine? Self-identification is quite a tricky subject.

If someone identifies as a musician/philosopher, I think it is wrong for others to claim otherwise. It is still fine to omit this detail when it has low relevance. If someone claims to be a musician but they never play music, there is no value in referring to them as a musician. But we also should refrain from claiming that they aren't a musician. — pfirefry

I can actually offer a bridge here, I also don't like shattering people's identity. I would say if my son came to me and said he was philsopher, or a good friend did, I wouldn't explain to him this standard. I would entertain the idea and encourage him to dive deep into the field and become more interested in it so he could further incorporate into his identity in the hopes that one day he would become a philosopher who could theorize and promote new valuable ideas in the field.

"What makes a philosopher great?" — pfirefry

I like this one good deal. I would answer that what makes a great philosopher is whether or not he/she was successful in presenting the world with a paradigm shifting epistemology that brought those who heeded it closer to a life of morality, productivity, peace, and interpersonal harmony. Which, there have been many to do date.

I have agreed with your definitions of 'philosopher' in general terms, but I do think the job title philosopher is 'more nuanced' than job titles such as physicist. I do think 'nuanced' is also true of job titles such as artist, musician, politician, cook etc. I personally don't consider Tracey Emin or Damien Hirst etc artists. Unless you put the word 'con' in front of the term. Yet that's the title they currently hold. Of all the people in the world who state the title politician in their job description, I think there are few who should actually be assigned as such. This is just my opinion of course but some job titles are more open to the subjective opinion of people compared to others — universeness

I am actually with you here. I went to the Cincinnati art museum a few years ago and there wasn't a piece of art in the entire damn building. So, your sentiment here is completely acceptable to me. That being said, if we jettison that kind of material from the discussion and instead focus on actually talking about the legitimate side of all these professions, the standard that I assert that defines them is the skill and knowledge requisite to perform within that given domain independent of an instructor. We agree there?

I agree that everyone is a philosopher. It’s when you add the word “great” it becomes problematic. Everyone can be considered an artist, but not everyone is a great artist in the socially recognized sense. However, art appreciation or appreciation of philosophy is subjective, therefore surely greatness in such areas is subjective. Perhaps the word “popular” is therefore better than “great” and we should not argue anyone’s opinion of anyone else as being a great philosopher!

Thanks! I had a great time and collapsed into my bed in the wee small hours.
There were 9 of us, so the chat was varied, multifaceted and deep(at times).
Too much to report here. They all ridiculed the antinatalist view, however.
I think that was the only position where there was strong consensus.
I'm sure the antinatalists could find 10 supporters however (perhaps a global search would be required) to defeat my nine votes against.

the standard that I assert that defines them is the skill and knowledge requisite to perform within that given domain independent of an instructor. We agree there? — Garrett Travers

We do agree there!

Awesome! Cool, making headway.

We should not overlook the significance of the fact that Plato did not write a dialogue called the Philosopher. Both the sophist and the statesman are said to resemble the philosopher, but while we have the dialogues Sophist and Statesman, which form a trilogy with Theaetetus, where is the philosopher to be found?

Nietzsche says that the "real philosophers are commanders and law-givers." (Beyond Good and Evil, "We Scholars")

Nietzsche says that the "real philosophers are commanders and law-givers." (Beyond Good and Evil, "We Scholars") — Fooloso4

Yes, he did. And in his time, he had good reason for saying so. However, in the spirit of Nietszche, I would the real philosopher is he who realizes the that only alternative to a value for value trade of the products of one's mind, is the rule of commanders and law-givers. And I'd say in my own time I have good reason for saying so. But, that's just saying as much in the same spirit. The acual philosopher is the one has developed enough virtue within the domain to discuss, generate, and teach within the domain with proficient command. And I think I'm closer to the mark than Nietszche.

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

OK, let's start from something simple and obvious: A philosopher is someone who practices philosophy. The word "philosopher" comes from the ancient Greek "philos" (= friend, lover) and "sophia" (= wisdom). This is very simple, but of course, not everyone who loves wisdom can be called a philosopher! The key word is "practicing", i.e. he must be involved systematically in philosophy, as a field of knowledge, and esp. as a profession. I guess it is the same with a scientist, who is involved systematically in science, as a field of knowledge, and esp. as a profession.

One cannot be called a "translator" because he can translate text from one language to another. He has to do that on a systematic basis, esp. as a profession.

Moreover, I believe that one must also show a lot of products of his work on philosophy. The works may be in written (books) and/or oral (lectures) form.

A writer I know used to say, "For one to be (called) a writer, he has to write a lot of books."

OK, let's start from something simple and obvious: A philosopher is someone who practices philosophy. The word "philosopher" comes from the ancient Greek "philos" (= friend, lover) and "sophia" (= wisdom). This is very simple, but of course, not everyone who loves wisdom can be called a philosopher! The key word is "practicing", i.e. he must be involved systematically in philosophy, as a field of knowledge, and esp. as a profession. I guess it is the same with a scientist, who is involved systematically in science, as a field of knowledge, and esp. as a profession. — Alkis Piskas

Exactly, Alkis. Nailed it. I may also love music, doesn't make me a musician. So, I've got an awesome question for you regarding one of philosophy's branches. If what you just described as a philosopher is true, which we can tell it is because it is consistent - even the Socratics understood that the idea of loving wisdom was an active pursuit - what does such a definition tell us in regards to ethics?

Wow! That's the fastest reply I have ever received! :smile:

what does such a definition tell us in regards to ethics? — Garrett Travers

Do you mean "ethics" as a branch of philosophy or as a specialization , e.g. "ethics officer", post in "department of ethics", etc.?

as a profession. — Alkis Piskas

Did Socrates pursue philosophy as a profession?

Is a sophist a philosopher?

Is a sophist a philosopher — Fooloso4

I posted this on p3 of this thread:

"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 got this response from 180 proof

↪universeness 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 position (i.e. problematize (e.g. aporias) ... unlearning 'unwise habits').

Ethics as a branch of philosophy, informed by your definition of a philosopher. What does that tell us of ethics, you think?

Ethics as a branch of philosophy, informed by your definition of a philosopher. What does that tell us of ethics, you think? — Garrett Travers

I can't see anything else than a philosopher specialized in ethics. As a biologist is a scientist specialized in biology. There's no difference regasrding where one is specialized in.
(If I undestand your question correctly and always within in the frame of "philosophers".)

The sophists were a diverse group. The term came to have a negative connotation but it was not always used that way. On the other hand, the term 'philosopher' was sometimes used in a derogatory sense. They were no always held in high regard. In Aristophanes' Clouds Socrates is depicted as a sophist. When Plato criticizes the sophist I take the difference to be a matter of intention. The sophist's intention is to persuade, to "make the weaker argument stronger", without regard to the truth.

Socrates not charging money speaks to the issue of benefit. He did not teach in order to benefit himself, and did not refuse to teach those who could not pay. He also did not refuse to take money from his followers.