you're "doing" philosophy. For that moment, you're a philosopher. — Xtrix

If that were true, it would completely devalue what calling someone a philosopher signifies. It would become meaningless. If you and I are philosophers, then no one is.

What is a philosopher? One who contributes something new and of publishable quality to the realm of philosophy. Thus professional philosophers control the intellectual environment.

Then there is philosophical banter, enjoyed by millions.

:up:
:up:

What is a philosopher? One who contributes something new and of publishable quality to the realm of philosophy. — jgill

Hiya ! 'Publishable quality' might mean something different in philosophy than in math. I'd bet dollars to donuts there's a journal out there that you or I or others on this thread wouldn't use for toilet paper (choose your preferred pejorative adjective, itself presumably a function of your politics and skillset, etc.)

Plato calls them "sophists" — 180 Proof

I think we both love Nietzsche, yet it's hard to see how the dark prince himself avoids the categorization of sophist.

Perhaps a defense is that he's too rich & strange to jam into that drawer?

Perhaps Freddy, like old Socrates, is an ironic anti-sophistry sophist ... :smirk:

Perhaps Freddy, like old Socrates, is an ironic anti-sophistry sophist ... :smirk: — 180 Proof

I like it.

He also wasn't selling it. He was out their alone, trying to tell the truth about truth, also trying to find words for new ways of feeling and being, to forge a conscience for the humans to come...and he was hilarious when we wanted to be.

:up:

If that were true, it would completely devalue what calling someone a philosopher signifies. It would become meaningless. If you and I are philosophers, then no one is. — T Clark

I didn’t make that claim.

A philosopher is someone who, presumably, engages in philosophy — I’d say more than occasionally.

Occasionally doing mathematics doesn’t make one a mathematician, either.

Regardless— the term is fairly meaningless anyway. What most people signify with “philosopher” is, in my view, already worthless. So there’s little to “devalue” — unless you accept the common usage.

Regardless— the term is fairly meaningless anyway. What most people signify with “philosopher” is, in my view, already worthless. So there’s little to “devalue” — unless you accept the common usage. — Xtrix

I don't agree. "Philosopher" is a good name for what Aristotle, Plato, Russell, Wittgenstein, and all those other guys are. It's a useful term.

Perhaps Freddy, like old Socrates, is an ironic anti-sophistry sophist ... — 180 Proof

A good example of Nietzsche's irony:

Nietzsche said he is a complete skeptic when it comes to Plato. Nietzsche’s perspicacious reading of Plato is instructive not only for how we are to readi Plato but for how we are to read Nietzsche. Nietzsche the skeptic teaches us to read skeptically, esoterically, to read between the lines, to make connections, and not take things at face value.

Nietzsche says he is a complete skeptic when it comes to Plato because both he and Plato are skeptics. We are accustomed to thinking of Socrates as a skeptic (“I know that I do not know”) but do not think of Plato as a skeptic because of his talk of Forms. We assume that Plato knows the Forms or at least defends a “theory of Forms”. Nietzsche is skeptical of this. He thinks that Plato was a skeptic, that he too knew he did not know.

Only one who is skilled at sophistry can teach us to guard against sophistry. But sophistry can be put to good use. It is often necessary to get people to let go of the beliefs and ideas they cling to before they can being to learn from the philosophers. They must first be persuaded by "the weaker argument" before they can begin to evaluate the strength of an argument and then in turn reject the argument that persuaded them in their pursuit of finding and creating stronger more rationally persuasive arguments.

Regardless— the term is fairly meaningless anyway. What most people signify with “philosopher” is, in my view, already worthless. So there’s little to “devalue” — unless you accept the common usage.
— Xtrix

"Philosopher" is a good name for what Aristotle, Plato, Russell, Wittgenstein, and all those other guys are. It's a useful term. — T Clark

I'm not sure they would agree. But even if they did, it's pretty easy to point to what is traditionally (and commonly) used as examples of what a "philosopher" is. I don't think that tells us much -- especially if it does nothing to clarify what philosophy or science is.

Before the word "philosopher" was even coined, what was happening? Was there no "philosophy"? I don't think so. I think Parmenides was as much deserving of the label "philosopher" as anyone.

Every human being can think; not every human being is a thinker.

[Also, it may be useful in an everyday sense -- but certainly not in a technical sense. So while I find nothing wrong with "work" as a useful word in everyday life, that itself doesn't make it useful in physics (where that string of letters takes on a completely different role, and is given a technical meaning).]

Pythagoras coined it right?

That's often claimed. But I don't think we know for sure who did.

"Philosopher" is a good name for what Aristotle, Plato, Russell, Wittgenstein, and all those other guys are. It's a useful term.
— T Clark

I'm not sure they would agree. But even if they did, it's pretty easy to point to what is traditionally (and commonly) used as examples of what a "philosopher" is. I don't think that tells us much -- especially if it does nothing to clarify what philosophy or science is. — Xtrix

Most terms are problematic. What is the alternative to using the word philosopher? It's useful to have a vase to put the flowers in, even if the vase is not to our taste and some of the flowers are dead... :joke:

I'm not sure they would agree. But even if they did, it's pretty easy to point to what is traditionally (and commonly) used as examples of what a "philosopher" is. I don't think that tells us much — Xtrix

I laid out what I see as the requirements for being a philosopher. The people I listed all met those requirements. My point was to show that my set of criteria will identify people who we normally think of as philosophers. That helps show that my definition is consistent with everyday usage.

Before the word "philosopher" was even coined, what was happening? Was there no "philosophy"? I don't think so. I think Parmenides was as much deserving of the label "philosopher" as anyone. — Xtrix

I don't see how this relates to the things I've written.

Every human being can think; not every human being is a thinker.

[Also, it may be useful in an everyday sense -- but certainly not in a technical sense. So while I find nothing wrong with "work" as a useful word in everyday life, that itself doesn't make it useful in physics (where that string of letters takes on a completely different role, and is given a technical meaning).] — Xtrix

Sorry, you lost me.

What is the alternative to using the word philosopher? — Tom Storm

I don't know if there is one alternative, but I don't see why "thinker" can't be used as meaning basically the same thing, if by thinking we mean the type of thinking involved in what is normally called philosophy (which, to me, is distinguished by the questions being contemplated).

I laid out what I see as the requirements for being a philosopher. The people I listed all met those requirements. My point was to show that my set of criteria will identify people who we normally think of as philosophers. That helps show that my definition is consistent with everyday usage. — T Clark

I don't see how it's useful in any way. Yes, it's easy to point to Socrates. I'm sure most people would agree. Most people would agree Newton was a scientist. That doesn't tell us much about philosophy or science.

That doesn't really work for a philosopher, but it gets at some principles. Let's try this:

Commitment of your life to practicing philosophy to the exclusion of other important aspects
Ability to express your thoughts so other people can understand them
Submittal of your ideas to other philosophers and competent laymen for evaluation
Ability to competently defend your ideas — T Clark

I'm certainly in agreement with the first one. So maybe we just disagree about what philosophy is.

The ultimate philosopher is the one who is awaited desperately at the cosmic philo-conference. Announced as The One telling us finally the truth about existence, the truth about all truths. The One, who makes all philosophy, all science, all knowledge, and all religions seem childish, ludicrous, and superfluous, but a welcome addon to human existence. The One, announcer of a new era for mankind to enter.

I don't know if there is one alternative, but I don't see why "thinker" can't be used as meaning basically the same thing, if by thinking we mean the type of thinking involved in what is normally called philosophy — Xtrix

I keep coming back to the idea that to be successful in philosophy (as I see it) one needs a solid awareness of the tradition and how ideas have been explored thus far. One can be a thinker and have no idea about the work already achieved. For me this latter part is important.

Who wants to keep reinventing the wheel?

Who wants to keep reinventing the wheel? — Tom Storm

Don't forget Neurath's boat or Sisyphus' rollin' philosopher's stone. :smirk:

Neurath's boat — 180 Proof

Yes! Totally forgot that one. Tell you what though, as I roll that fuckin' stone up the hill for the umpteenth time, I am definitely not smiling...

I keep coming back to the idea that to be successful in philosophy (as I see it) one needs a solid awareness of the tradition and how ideas have been explored thus far. — Tom Storm

How, then, is "success" measured?

Probably not by getting hundreds of posts on a thread one starts on TPF.

How, then, is "success" measured? — jgill

No idea, but it involves knowledge of the subject

Probably not by getting hundreds of posts on a thread one starts on TPF. — jgill

:up:

I keep coming back to the idea that to be successful in philosophy (as I see it) one needs a solid awareness of the tradition and how ideas have been explored thus far. One can be a thinker and have no idea about the work already achieved. For me this latter part is important. — Tom Storm

I would include engagement with others, alive or dead, as part of philosophy -- and therefore part of the kind of thinking I was referring to. But you're correct in that one may ask themselves universal questions without ever having read a prior thinker who also engaged with the same questions. But here we don't have a real metric either. What if one engages with one's community and never picks up a book? I personally know many people who have barely read the original texts of a good many philosophers; if anything, they read commentary and synopses. Where does that fall in measuring success?

Perhaps I'm being uncharitable. I generally know what you're saying -- that a general awareness of these questions is valuable, and I agree. I think depriving oneself of the riches of the past is exactly like you mentioned, reinventing the wheel. But whether or not that is important in defining what makes a "philosopher" is debatable, and I'm skeptical of it.

Again, I consider Parmenides to be a philosopher. There were few people prior to him to read. Skip to today, and we call all kinds of people by their occupation -- from philosophers to economists to physicists -- who have read very little of the influential texts in their field. They still "do" what they do, and we don't find it odd to call them x, y, or z. I know several economists who've never read Adam Smith, and several programmers who have never read Boole's work.

Perhaps I'm being uncharitable. I generally know what you're saying -- that a general awareness of these questions is valuable, and I agree. I think depriving oneself of the riches of the past is exactly like you mentioned, reinventing the wheel. But whether or not that is important in defining what makes a "philosopher" is debatable, and I'm skeptical of it. — Xtrix

I understand where you are coming from and you make a good case. I come from a background where philosophy has played a minor role, so the question has a particular resonance for me. I decided to join this forum to see what I might have missed by not being involved in philosophy. I was (and remain) particularly interested in morality, aesthetics and epistemology. But I don't read books for pleasure these days and find most works insufferably dull. I'm interested primarily in hearing or reading philosophical discussions/essays that have 'real world' or, shall we say, quotidian applications.

I know several economists who've never read Adam Smith, and several programmers who have never read Boole's work. — Xtrix

Of course. People do all sorts of jobs without reading historically significant texts in their area. The key issue in work is accreditation and/or competence, not books read.

And it's the question of competence that I am interested in and how this might be understood in relation to philosophy. Christ knows if it's possible. My thoughts, maybe they are reactions, are galvanized by the claim some make that anyone is a philosopher, that all it takes is a kind of reflection or a sort of love. My sense is it needs to be deeper than this.

People do all sorts of jobs without reading historically significant texts in their area. The key issue in work is accreditation and/or competence, not books read. — Tom Storm

I think you’ll find that many of the greatest philosophers formulated the kernel of their innovative ideas when they were too young to have read other philosophers. So where did they get their ideas from? By forming a novel interpretation based on their exposure to those around them while growing up, as well as pieces of the culture as expressed through publicly available art, music, science, etc. I don’t think we would know about them as philosophers if they had not eventually gotten around to reading other philosophers, or at least those in fields relevant to philosophy( Wittgenstein had read relatively little in the history of philosophy, but knew the sciences, mathematicians and a certain cohort of contemporary philosophy quite well). One needs to have this exposure not in order to come up with great original thinking , but to come up with and refine a language of expression of the ideas. The same original kernel of genius one begins with early in life may find its language of expression in science or the arts rather than philosophy, depending on which form of expression one discovers is most satisfying.

I think that's fair. Do you consider yourself a philosopher, or is it a subject you teach, or both?

One needs to have this exposure not in order to come up with great original thinking , but to come up with and refine a language of expression of the ideas. — Joshs

A significant dimension.

The same original kernel of genius one begins with early in life may find its language of expression in science or the arts rather than philosophy, depending on which form of expression one discovers is most satisfying. — Joshs

Yes, I have often thought this. But could Heidegger have done the same work as a movie director? I wonder if certain projects require a particular expression?

But could Heidegger have done the same work as a movie director? I wonder if certain projects require a particular expression? — Tom Storm

The reason cultural eras can be depicted in terms of movements that encompass the whole range of cultural
creativity( Classical, Renaissance, Enlightenment , Modern, post-modern) is because in each of these eras what was expressed in painting or music or science amounted to variations on a common theme of ideas(worldviews) .
Eventually there will be Heideggerian poetry, dance, art, music and science. There are already approaches within cognitive psychology , political theory and psychotherapy that are Heideggerian to some extent.

And it's the question of competence that I am interested in and how this might be understood in relation to philosophy. Christ knows if it's possible. My thoughts, maybe they are reactions, are galvanized by the claim some make that anyone is a philosopher, that all it takes is a kind of reflection or a sort of love. My sense is it needs to be deeper than this. — Tom Storm

I think it is deeper than that, yet without relying on credentialism. There is no clear way to determine when one becomes worthy of the title "philosopher." Bertrand Russell once said that he didn't consider Marx a philosopher, for example -- and I know that's been debated quite sincerely.

But I would say that if one has been fascinated by the questions mentioned, has struggled with them (meaning thought them through for herself), persistently, for nearly all one's life -- I would say that qualifies. Whether one has read or had access to the classic books, has been formally educated, or has been credentialed is less relevant, but not entirely trivial (as it often, but not always, indicates much of the former factors have been met).

I dislike the term, ultimately, and personally I wouldn't describe myself that way until I at least contribute something original to these questions -- and not simply a synthesis. Yet that also rules out many others far more "credentialed" than I, who often do employ that label.

So it's tricky. I think it's fine for everyday use. But when we start seriously discussing it, I don't find it very useful.

Was the Marquis De Sade a philosopher? I don't know what he contributed, and his works were only publishable in some places, and only after decades. Was he just a mad man with opinions on why people should abuse the crap out of one another?