Also do philosophers need credentials to be called philophers? There certainly are those that do it professionally and the definition of philosophy has changed a lot during its history. Certainly people thought before the word philosopher existed. But people also studied human behavior before the term psychology existed and wasn't a formal study until Wilhelm Wundt which is much more recent. I certainly couldn't call myself a psychologist without being sued?

Also do philosophers need credentials to be called philosophers? — TiredThinker

Well, I could call myself a philosopher and others would let that pass without comment. But if I called myself a mathematician, some sort of proof - like credentials - might be expected. Philosophy is poorly defined, a collection of notions tied together with loose verbal strings.

The stoner philosopher. Gets high and asks deep questions.

The hobbyist philosopher. Enjoys talking about philosophy. But cares about other things more.

The academic philosopher. A scholar and teacher of philosophical traditions. Doesn't necessarily embody wisdom. May mistake knowledge for wisdom.

The lover of wisdom: Someone who devotes their life to the persuit of and embodiment of wisdom.

The sage: Someone who embodies wisdom.

Philosophy is poorly defined, a collection of notions tied together with loose verbal strings. — jgill

It could also be the fact that philosophy is poorly regarded, a collection posturing, untied and incomprehensible. :wink:

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

By this definition the first philosopher (if that is even conceivable?) couldn't have been a (successful) philosopher...

Philosophy is poorly defined, a collection of notions tied together with loose verbal strings. — jgill

Which comes close to mathematics! :smile:

To know what a philosopher is we should study them in the free field, engage in an anthropological study. Study their essays, thesis, worldviews, scientific knowledge (not only their babbling about it), expressions, the clothes they wear, the language they speak, their sense of humor, their view on the gods, how they treat their fellowphlosfers, etc.

By this definition the first philosopher (if that is even conceivable?) couldn't have been a (successful) philosopher... — Yohan

Of course. The first doctor would not have been successful either. Or dentist... yikes! The point is, a discourse or tradition is built gradually over time. Ignoring this might get you making those early mistakes all over again...

This is a surprisingly common question on this forum. There are different ways to define what we mean by ‘philosopher’ depending on the context:

- Someone who actively studies philosophical texts with rigour (a scholar of philosophy).
- Someone who is erudite and interested in multiple fields that enjoys sharing and discussing/expressing ideas (more of a colloquial definition).
- Someone who builds ideas on previous works by philosophers with a high degree of analytic, discursive and critical thought (more of a professor/student level beyond scholarship).
- Someone interested in knowledge and information, meaning and existence and general ‘purpose’ of living/life questions without much rigour (more of an armchair philosopher or navel gazer).
- Someone actively involved in ‘spiritual’ pursuits. Be this of religious doctrines or other esoteric ideas and views.

Only two of these are technically viable whilst the others are just colloquial terms. For myself I straddle between the professional and colloquial sense. I am interested in multiple fields and have always been inclined to think and study. I have studied philosophical texts and lectures to some degree, but my over all view is not really akin to framing myself as a ‘philosopher’.

A lot of people just think they can call themselves a ‘philosopher’ because they have done a degree in philosophy or simply because they sit around thinking about things a lot. Others have themselves as a guru of sorts. Many others are failed politicians or wannabe politicians.

In a derogatory sense I guess I am more of a ‘sit around and think a lot’ person. I didn’t bother to read much actual philosophy until I was in my thirties.

I have repeatedly defined myself as a wannabe intellectual. I sometimes think I have the potential to offer up something of value to everyone … other times I view the pursuit as a whimsy. There is something egotistical involved to announcing yourself as a ‘philosopher’ I feel, but it is more or less a thankless task that is only ever really appreciated by future generations long after we’re gone (unless we get the opportunity to publish something popular or teach).

I have a general contempt for anyone calling themselves a ‘philosopher’ if I’m being brutally honest - but that is part of my anarchical nature.

This is a surprisingly common question on this forum — I like sushi

Newbies trying to find their way or veterans engaged in soul-searching. What else, oui?

I'm quite taken aback that you don't mention wisdom (sophia) [philosophia]. Perhaps wisdom is an amalgam of those qualities/skills you were so kind to list in your definition of a philosopher. Perhaps I'm wrong to say that, dunno!

The ancient philosophers were trailblazers, terra nova, everything they did - even their BS - was important and, by they way they frequently, sooner or later, pop up in discussions, is still.

Modern philosophers, since there's no point reinventing the wheel, are forced to spend a considerable amount of their resources on learning ground covered by their predecessors and their contemporaries. This inevitably leads to stagnation in my humble opinion as many older perspectives on philosophical matters aren't open-and-shut cases. Back and forth between philosophers mostly involve one dead-and-buried philosopher's take against another long-dead philosopher.

To borrow a term from business, innovation is not exactly high on a present-day philosopher's list of priorities. "Nothing unexpected," a real philosopher might opine. Philosophy is nothing more than an anthology of problems that have been passed down from generation to generation, each step of the way marked by the addition of more problems, questions rather, to this fast-growing list.

What is a philosopher?

A philosopher is a person who understands or attempts to understand age-old problems/questions better. Answers/solutions? Another time, pal!

Well the whole ‘love of wisdom’ is merely a roughshod translation from a ancient language.

Having a ‘love of wisdom’ is kind of pointless if you are talking about ‘wisdom’ in a sense that means something different from others.

You are right. The more common modern conception frames philosophy as more concerned with questions. I think that might be why a great many people feel they are able to jump in as they feel it is ‘safe’ to avoid conclusions.

Let's just all sit down at the table and eat...in silence.

But could Heidegger have done the same work as a movie director? — Tom Storm

Have you seen any Malick films?

Let me throw this out here as well:

To be a philosopher, you must engage with one question above all others: the question of being.

the question of being — Xtrix

I don't think so. I'd rather ask "what is love?"

By this definition the first philosopher (if that is even conceivable?) couldn't have been a (successful) philosopher...
— Yohan

Of course. The first doctor would not have been successful either. Or dentist... yikes! The point is, a discourse or tradition is built gradually over time. Ignoring this might get you making those early mistakes all over again... — Tom Storm

Can a person be a (good) philosopher if they live in isolation from society, not reading philosophy works nor sharing their thoughts?

I can't think of a reason why not, any more than I can think any reason an isolated artist should not be called (or could be) an (good) artist.

- Someone who actively studies philosophical texts with rigour (a scholar of philosophy).
- Someone who is erudite and interested in multiple fields that enjoys sharing and discussing/expressing ideas (more of a colloquial definition).
- Someone who builds ideas on previous works by philosophers with a high degree of analytic, discursive and critical thought (more of a professor/student level beyond scholarship).
- Someone interested in knowledge and information, meaning and existence and general ‘purpose’ of living/life questions without much rigour (more of an armchair philosopher or navel gazer).
- Someone actively involved in ‘spiritual’ pursuits. Be this of religious doctrines or other esoteric ideas and views. — I like sushi

Only two of these are technically viable whilst the others are just colloquial terms. — I like sushi

Where would the likes of ancient or modern day Stoic philosophers fit into those categories?

How much do I have to study and contribute to the Stoic tradition before I can be accurately regarded as a Stoic philosopher?

I think it is this modern day academic usage of the word 'philosopher" that should be considered colloquial in nature.

The most basic and oldest definition of philosopher does not say anything about tradition, academia, credentials, contribution, rigor etc.

They are not ‘categories’ just examples of how the term can be, and is, used. A ‘philosophy of life’ is colloquial whilst scholarship is technical by nature.

I hear this kind of thinking from people who are just too lazy to put the work in tbh. You might be different. I just don’t think it makes any sense for anyone to label themselves as a ‘philosopher’ if they have never actually read ( and I mean REALLY read) an actual work of philosophy.

Note: Lots of people don’t know how to read, they just ‘read the words’ and think they have read and understood something. Sadly it is skill most people don’t develop much beyond teenage years - if that!

Too many people out there (including myself) here some brief excerpt from a philosopher and think themselves enlightened because ‘we thought/knew that already’.

I don’t regard people who have been to university to study philosophy as ‘philosophers’ though. Just stating it is pretty damn silly to paint yourself as something without having partook in some rigorous and active sense with what is already there.

Stoicism is like electronics is to physics. Someone can specialise in electronics and know very little about cosmology … I have no idea where any line of distinction could be between specialist subjects and a more broader overview? I probably would not approach a stoic to get feedback about most epistemic issues as I have a fairly decent suspicion that the discussion would lead into ethical realms and that might not be of focus for me.

Can a person be a (good) philosopher if they live in isolation from society, not reading philosophy works nor sharing their thoughts? — Yohan

I'd say it is unlikely, but who knows? Can you name an example?

I hear this kind of thinking from people who are just too lazy to put the work in tbh. You might be different. I just don’t think it makes any sense for anyone to label themselves as a ‘philosopher’ if they have never actually read ( and I mean REALLY read) an actual work of philosophy. — I like sushi

Our views are quite different. I think the natural state of a human being is philosophical. So, if someone stops seeking after fame and wealth (primarily) and instead re-awakens philosophical wonder and keeps that wonder at the center of their life, they are a philosophers, to me.

I don't see philosophy as something that started or as being a tradition, or anything like that. I see it as a sort of attitude, way of being, or approach to things.

Too many people out there (including myself) here some brief excerpt from a philosopher and think themselves enlightened because ‘we thought/knew that already’. — I like sushi

I view it as one must become a philosopher first. I view it as the beginning, not the end. Like one must become a seeker before one can be a finder.
How can anyone attain(if that is the right word?) wisdom without first becoming a philosopher, a lover of wisdom?

I don’t regard people who have been to university to study philosophy as ‘philosophers’ though. Just stating it is pretty damn silly to paint yourself as something without having partook in some rigorous and active sense with what is already there. — I like sushi

I consider the words of dead philosophers the words of dead philosophers. They can be useful, but they aren't philosophy itself.

The key to me is the motivation. Is one passionately seeking the truth, or just studying philosophy as a hobby or to make a living or reputation?
Are academic philosophers (on the whole) interested in the true spirit of philosophy, or just on the letter of the law?

Anyway, I'm probably way too opinionated.

Have you seen any Malick films? — Xtrix

A few. Turgid and dull as I recall, except Badlands but it's been 30 years since I saw it. I hated Tree of Life...

Too many people out there (including myself) here some brief excerpt from a philosopher and think themselves enlightened because ‘we thought/knew that already’. — I like sushi

The Hindus condensed the totality of the universe into one word that even infants, during there babbling, can say, OM! Any idea what OM means? :lol:

What exactly is the point of being a philosopher anyway? Science is far more interesting.

The key to me is the motivation. Is one passionately seeking the truth, or just studying philosophy as a hobby or to make a living or reputation? — Yohan

I think this is certainly part of it. But this says nothing about competence or rigour. What exactly does 'seeking the truth' consist of in your view; how would someone go about this?

Can a person be a (good) philosopher if they live in isolation from society, not reading philosophy works nor sharing their thoughts?
— Yohan

I'd say it is unlikely, but who knows? Can you name an example? — Tom Storm

No, but I suspect the probability of their having existed and existing now is high.

Consider how much great art and music is probably out there which never made it mainstream. I think it's the same with great thinkers.

Fame is rare, I think, because it requires a lot more than talent and dedication. It requires having the right connections, people being ready for it, and so on, possibly also a desire for recognition, which not all artists or thinkers necessarily would have.

The key to me is the motivation. Is one passionately seeking the truth, or just studying philosophy as a hobby or to make a living or reputation?
— Yohan

I think this is certainly part of it. But this says nothing about competence or rigour. What exactly does 'seeking the truth' consist of in your view; how would someone go about this? — Tom Storm

Well I should think competence is a result of practice, which one puts in enough of if one has sufficient motivation.
I doubt anyone ever began with high competence.
And I'd think the same about rigor.
One's amount of rigor depends on one's degree of caring about accuracy. Would you say?
However, many have said that waiting for motivation is a recipe for failure. "You gotta show up whether you feel motivated or not." sort of thing. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me...
Something must motivate someone to do something they feel a lack of motivation for doing, right? They might not feel the motivation, but it must be somewhere.

I'm not satisfied with my own level of commitment and seeking, so I don't want to say much about what I consider to be seeking after the truth to consist of, or how to go about it. That feels hypocritical.

probability — Yohan

great art and music — Yohan

mainstream — Yohan

motivation — Yohan

commitment and seeking — Yohan

feels hypocritical. — Yohan

sufficient — Yohan

rigor — Yohan

accuracy — Yohan

I'm not satisfied — Yohan

:up:

What exactly is the point of being a philosopher anyway? Science is far more interesting. — chiknsld

Philosophy: forgetting to live while trying to find out how to live? Replace "i" in live with "o" and it still makes sense.

credentials — TiredThinker

changed — TiredThinker

history — TiredThinker

psychology — TiredThinker

:up:

Ah, very sentimental :smile:

Any idea what OM means? — Agent Smith

This garden universe vibrates complete.
Some we get a sound so sweet.
Vibrations reach on up to become light,
And then thru gamma, out of sight.
Between the eyes and ears there lay,
The sounds of colour and the light of a sigh.
And to hear the sun, what a thing to believe.
But it's all around if we could but perceive.
To know ultra-violet, infra-red and X-rays,
Beauty to find in so many ways.
Two notes of the chord, that's our fluoroscope.
But to reach the chord is our lifes hope.
And to name the chord is important to some.
So they give a word, and the word is OM.
(Edge, Pinder, 1968)

Doesn’t answer the question, but cool as hell anyway.