:up:

Fair Damsel - Oh, Leibniz. Your monads are so devine!

Leibniz- Alright, baby! Lemme show you what I've got upstairs. We'll plot the curve of this spiral staircase as we ascend.

And you still refuse to answer

I don't recall that you asked me a question I haven't addressed.

Old bearded white male usually. European accent helps, too. Like British.

Everyone else is called a nerd, suicidal, or neurotic.

I think it is important to highlight two key facts about "what constitutes a philosopher?"

1. Own philosopher. I mean, the person who is interested in the discipline of thought which comes from Ancient Greece. I guess we want from this person a good analysis and ability of reasoning when we debate with him about all categories related to philosophy itslef: ethics, virtue, time, death, uncertainty, etc...

2. Academic philosopher. Those who pursue a degree and then reach a PhD in philosophy or "liberal arts". I guess these are the one who are able to put more worked arguments on the table to confirm or confront the theories which constitutes philosophy. They also tend to write some interesting articles or books in prestigious areas as universities or editors.

What should we expect from a philosopher? I guess both are good and acceptable. But in my opinion, I want in my university a teacher who owns a PhD in philosophy.

If in the future you need heart surgery I'm willing to perform the operation. Okay?

I am just about to slice off some pieces of chicken from a carcass btw just in case you assumed I didn't know my way around a knife or how to slice through flesh.

A thinker is a thinker. A philosopher sometimes isn't much of a thinker at all. Some philosophers dedicate their lives to scholarship only. Meaning they study and analyse the works of other's before them and/or critique contemporary works (be they standalone works, other commentaries or other scholarly works).

Philosophy is a very broad category as are many other fields. In fact today there seems to be a bigger emphasis/attraction to broader knowledge rather than expertise in one particular area. Discussing that is not merely a philosophical area it touches other parts of the humanities and each has something to offer to the discussion.

Some who produces art is not necessarily an artist in any meaningful sense of the term when it comes to appreciation. If I open a restaurant and produce food people spit out and demand refunds for does that make me a chef/cook? I may be trying to be a chef/cook but if literally no one swallows my food other than myself can I really claim that title with any degree of seriousness when asked about my ability to produce food for mass consumption. I don't think so somehow.

There are other areas where one act is deemed lawful in one situation and not lawful in another. The most obvious example being killing a fellow human. In war it is encouraged whereas in peaceful societies it is frowned upon (to say the least). For these kinds of reasons simply stating that someone is or isn't this or that needs to be done carefully and in agreement with the consensus and from there you can then perhaps to question the consensus view by applying critique of it. Such can be viewed as political, philosophical, or anthropological lines of questioning (to name but a few) that engage with reviewing the said consensus and investigating more closely some fringe ideas/views.

I have nothing to say about how someone was viewed a century ago other than through making some judgements based loosely on historical evidence. If someone today calls themselves an artist and no one has even looked at their work, and/or those that have do not view it as worthy of that label, then I would not be inclined to call them an artist at all. Why would I? I would still encourage them i fthat is where their passion lies though and perhaps may discover that they have an artistic eye if not an ability to produce anything much of note.

If unlearning (i.e. problematizing) givens & dogmas is the philosopher's way of life and, on the other hand, teaching (i.e. training for uses of) givens & dogmas is the sophist's trade, then ...

A philosopher can play the part of a sophist, but a sophist can't play the part of a philosopher.

... from .

:up:

the discipline of thought which comes from Ancient Greece. — javi2541997

This is something that needs to be questioned rather that perpetuated. Although they did not call it philosophy, China and India had advanced traditions of thought to rival the Greeks.

Well, yes. My answer was based on a Western point of view. I guess in this side of the world, philosophy is taught starting with the Greeks.
Asian and Indian culture/philosophy is more specific because sometimes is even unknown due to their complexity. You have to get deeper to understand it

My answer was based on a Western point of view. I guess in this side of the world, philosophy is taught starting with the Greeks. — javi2541997

Understood. It is the Western point of view that needs to be challenged.

It is ironic that many accept Thomas Nagel's "view from nowhere" and yet it is only works from a specific somewhere that are read.

Old bearded white male usually. European accent helps, too. Like British.

Everyone else is called a nerd, suicidal, or neurotic. — Cobra

I do believe you just made this up, to be honest.

you just made this up — Garrett Travers

Philosophy.

Philosophy. — Cobra

Dennis

Don the Don asked the class: "What is the difference between a sophist and a philosopher?

Franz: The sophist just wants to win contests whereas the philosopher seeks what they do not know.

Don: How does this "argument from ignorance" work if the adversary rejects it as a thing?

Paine: What thing? Either the philosopher is honest about what they do not know, or they are not.

Don: Are you saying the whole enterprise revolves about the sincerity of the participants?

Franz: That would be nuts. That would suggest that all the advancements of knowledge over the centuries was somehow bound up with the character of certain people.

Paine: So, Franz, how would you test for the difference between people to confirm or deny your proposition?

Don: That is enough from both of you.

A philosopher sometimes isn't much of a thinker at all. Some philosophers dedicate their lives to scholarship only. Meaning they study and analyse the works of other's before them and/or critique contemporary works (be they standalone works, other commentaries or other scholarly works). — I like sushi

And that is not "thinking"?

Like mathematics, in modern philosophy it might be difficult to come up with truly original ideas.

And that is not "thinking"? — jgill

That isn't what I said. If it was a rhetorical question remember to leave the '?' out next time.

It appears that anyone can be a philosopher, it is a way of perceiving life in general. It is not gender or educationally specific it is just how someone thinks at a particular time. Most philosophy appears to be the home of the academic and highly educated with the constrictions that that would imply.

After all you have to be on the outside looking in so see the whole picture. Not being overly academic and fairly new to studying philosophy, I am not yet over encumbered by other philosopher’s ideas and thoughts. But I think Bertram Russell wrote that Science is fact, religious belief is Dogma and Philosophy is the bit that tries to tie it together. He may have put it a little better.

I think most people from all backgrounds think philosophically about the things that happen in their own lives and with social media their thoughts and ideas are easy to see.

And if Philosophy is the bridge between Dogma and Science, and today’s largest religion is social media the you only have to look at Twitter etc to see our new latter-day Philosophers in the making.

It appears that anyone can be a philosopher, it is a way of perceiving life in general. — GBG

This is a muddy and unsophisticated view which has been refuted in this thread whenever it has come up. Which is not all that often since it is a pretty reductive account. It's not 'perceiving life in general' - it is thinking about matters philosophically and with rigour.

Most philosophy appears to be the home of the academic and highly educated with the constrictions that that would imply. — GBG

Or the well read, who may have little formal education. Autodidacts. Almost impossible to be a philosopher without knowing the traditions and having an understanding of the mistakes or achievements already well understood.

After all you have to be on the outside looking in so see the whole picture. — GBG

Clumsy. If you are 'looking in' you are clearly not seeing the whole picture - you are looking into an enclosed space. To see the whole vista you need to be looking outside at the view

I am not yet over encumbered by other philosopher’s ideas and thoughts. — GBG

If you are an absolute genius there is a small chance this may be possible, Generally speaking it is unlikely that you or anyone you know will have an original philosophical idea that hasn't already been explored many times, untangled and redefined. Expertise cannot be underrated. Philosophy builds on the accumulated wisdom of others.

But I think Bertram Russell wrote that Science is fact, religious belief is Dogma — GBG

You need to do better that "I think" in philosophy. Check your source. And it is Bertrand Russell.

I think most people from all backgrounds think philosophically about the things that happen in their own lives and with social media their thoughts and ideas are easy to see — GBG

That is called reflection, or having an opinion, it is not philosophy. What is their position on the problem of induction? Intentionality? Husserl's notion of epoché? The Gettier problem in epistemology?

And if Philosophy is the bridge between Dogma and Science, and today’s largest religion is social media the you only have to look at Twitter etc to see our new latter-day Philosophers in the making. — GBG

Ideologists, sophists or influencers with worldviews are not philosophers. There's a big difference between opinions and philosophy. Having an opinion on life no more makes you a philosopher than going on an overseas trip makes you an ethnologist.

A handy rule-of-thumb ...

Magician re: pseudo-problem —> pseudoscience

Sophist re: dogma —> pseudo-questions

Philosopher re: answers —> questions

:chin:

How do you become a philosopher?

I think you have two major commitments. The social and the intellectual. When I think of contemporary Philosophers today they have academic discipline to the extent they have acquired the power of study, research and discourse for authorship.

They often have the talents of professorship and public speaking. They are often committed to utility subjects like Psychology and Virtue Ethics in their social discourse. They are often prolific writers and are found writing discourse on historical political figures, characters in works of fiction, symptoms in the human condition found in psychoanalysis, and problematising contemporary life on deficiencies in human psychological development and the lack of education in the formation of principles and coherent moral reasoning.

Part of their social commitment is to teach matters on process philosophy which provide the tools for logical reasoning which if practice allow the users to find common cause in the good of society. You can engage in the project of a public philosopher when you become proficient in the communication and social projects which attain others belief in your work.