Just like any other profession. — T Clark

So in your view to be called a philosopher you probably have to be a professional? The idea of devoting time, attention, effort and disciple would probably mean that not everyone is a philosopher, right?

So in your view to be called a philosopher you probably have to be a professional? — Tom Storm

I don't mean professional as in academic and I don't think you necessarily would need to have any specific education. I committed my life to being an engineer. I went to school, found a job as a junior engineer, worked with more senior people, gained more seniority and responsibility, became certified, and tried to do my work in accordance with the standards of my profession, especially my responsibilities to my clients and the public. I paid my engineering dues. A philosopher should pay their philosophy dues.

A philosopher should pay their philosophy dues. — T Clark

Now that's a truly philosophical statement!

A philosopher should pay their philosophy dues. — T Clark

I agree, but I am wondering what those dues would look like.

I agree, but I am wondering what those dues would look like. — Tom Storm

Given that the career path for a philosopher is much less well defined than that for an engineer, I thought I spelled it out fairly clearly.

I thought I spelled it out fairly clearly. — T Clark

Not to me. As I see it, what you described is a method. But there is no relationship between the philosopher and the history of philosophical problems. How do you not spend your life devoted to problems long resolved? How do you avoid reinventing the wheel? What if you spend years contemplating what it is we can know with any certainty only to end up with a variation of 'I think therefore I am'?

But there is no relationship between the philosopher and the history of philosophical problems. How do you not spend your life devoted to problems long resolved? How do you avoid reinventing the wheel? What if you spend years contemplating what it is we can know with any certainty only to end up with a variation of 'I think therefore I am'? — Tom Storm

The question is "What is a philosopher?" That's the question I intended to answer. Seems like you want to know how to do philosophy. Not a bad question, but not the one I was answering.

I think he's saying if you have to "pay your dues" to be a philosopher then how does he know if he's paid his dues? The example was studying over a line in Plato that you may consider mystic for decades and come out with the idea of objective justice after all that? In this sense they're using time and effort in established philisophy to see if that's paying dues. He was hoping for a very specific answer and finish line.

Leaving out the third case: one must be both — a philosopher. — 180 Proof

Perfect!

I think he's saying if you have to "pay your dues" to be a philosopher then how does he know if he's paid his dues? The example was studying over a line in Plato that you may consider mystic for decades and come out with the idea of objective justice after all that? In this sense they're using time and effort in established philisophy to see if that's paying dues. He was hoping for a very specific answer and finish line. — Shwah

I'm kind of lost. Tired Thinker asked "What is a philosopher?" I gave my answer. It seems a pretty straightforward answer to a straightforward question. I thought the answer was clear. If it doesn't work for you, that's fine. Happens all the time.

.
Beautiful quote.

The question is "What is a philosopher?" That's the question I intended to answer. Seems like you want to know how to do philosophy. — T Clark

I guess I went there because I can't separate the two matters; to me they are one. Maybe that's wrong...

Generally when someone calls themselves a practitioner, they have competence and expertise in the thing they practice. — Tom Storm

I think you're right, but it's big field, and one man's charlatan is another man's hero. Take Heidegger and Derrida. These dudes were paid professors of philosophy, not back porch belchers, yet some of their fellow paid professors were/are utterly dismissive. I can't think of anything comparable in mathematics, not unless one goes back to Cantor's day (and then at least no one could deny Cantor's early mainstream work from which set theory developed).

Perhaps this is because the history of philosophy is one identity crisis after another. 'Anti-philosophers' with any juice in them are assimilated. I agree with some of these later assimilated rebels that philosophy is (among other things) a genre of creative writing and a conversation with its own internally generated logic (its keywords accumulate meaning like a snowball rolling downhill.) The guy on the back porch who isn't 'read in' is likely to be stuck on some early part of a conversation, making him boring to those who've spent more time exposing themselves to the battle-tested crust of talk that came before.

Are there any well known philosophers that one might argue isn't legitimate as a philosopher?

Also are politicians philosophers in the sense that they have views of how things are, how human behavior works, what is fair, and how things should be rearranged?

Political philosophy is not what politicians practice. I think a very easy finish line is saying you have your own metaphysics which can derive a philosophy of history/sex/math/politics/biology ad naseum formally. If you can effectively have an opinion on everything as derived from your metaphysics then you're a philosopher in people's eyes.
Everyone borrows their culture's metaphysics and wisdom and they necessarily seek wisdom so in all senses I would call everyone a philosopher in that they will always benefit from learning philosophy in any endeavor they take. Philosophy is unique in that but if people want the concept of a successful or paradable philosopher then that formal metaphysics works.

I can go the opposite route. In histories of philosophy they generally include freud who either did detest philosophy or would have detested the label. It's hard to include psychologism etc without including all the metaphysical work he did about establishing a variable and developing as much of human psychology (even developing concepts we still use today like subconscious and projections and other bits).

Generally, doing what we do here on the forum does not make you a philosopher. You have to put more on the line than we do. Again, that's a generality — T Clark

A philosopher should pay their philosophy dues. — T Clark

:up: :up:

Are there any well known philosophers that one might argue isn't legitimate as a philosopher? — TiredThinker

Plato calls them "sophists" and in his Dialogues depict Socrates engaging some in dialectics. Off the top of my head (for their egregiously fallacious rhetoric ("BS" ~ H. Frankfurt) and/or promiscuously underdetermiined / vague (obscurant) concepts): Ayn Rand, Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, Leo Strauss, Jacques Lacan, Jiddu Krishnamurti, L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Campbell, C.S. Lewis, Fritjof Capra, Deepak Chopra, Ken Wilbur, Sam Harris, Marianne Williamson, William Lane Craig, Jordan Peterson, Richard Rorty ... :eyes: :shade:

Also are politicians philosophers in the sense that they have views of [ ... ]? — TiredThinker

While politicking, politricksters are sophists par excellence (i.e. ideologues, propagandists and/or opportunists).

Hey, you left out Richard Rorty! :yikes:

↪180 Proof Hey, you left out Richard Rorty! — Tom Storm

:up:

A self-acknowledged fool obsessively studying, and reflecting upon, foolery in order to unlearn (reduce) immiserating (maladaptive) habits of judgment & conduct, as a way of life, may be called a "philosopher". — "180

This is close to explaining the meaning of my username.

Rumor: Philosophers looooove isms, language, and fancy
words
Fact: The rumor is true

A philosopher should pay their philosophy dues. — T Clark

Some though, by clever tactics and strategies, try to ride along for free or are way overdue.

Some though, by clever tactics and strategies, try to ride along for free or are way overdue. — EugeneW

I was only talking about what I thought you needed to do to call yourself a philosopher, not necessarily what you need to do in order to be a good philosopher.

I was only talking about what I thought you needed to do to call yourself a philosopher, — T Clark

Can one buy their way in?

Can one buy their way in? — EugeneW

Sure. There are lots of bad engineers, but they're still engineers. Ditto doctors, butchers, elephant trainers, Presidents of the United States.

If being bad at something doesn't preclude admission then it seems to be a general will that allows identification.

If being bad at something doesn't preclude admission then it seems to be a general will that allows identification. — Shwah

For me the question has never been what makes a good philosopher, it is what makes a philosopher - good, bad or indifferent?

What attributes does a thinker have in order to be called a philosopher?

What attributes does a thinker have in order to be called a philosopher? — Tom Storm

A self-acknowledged fool obsessively studying, and reflecting upon, foolery in order to unlearn (reduce) immiserating (maladaptive) habits of judgment & conduct, as a way of life, may be called a "philosopher".
— 180 Proof

This is close to explaining the meaning of my username. — Fooloso4

:cool: :up:

If you're asking perennial, universal questions -- you're "doing" philosophy. For that moment, you're a philosopher.

It's a kind of thinking.

In today's world, what people really mean is someone who has credentials, teaches, or has published works dealing with these questions. I don't buy that myself, but I think that's the general usage.