What makes a Philosopher

What makes someone a Philosopher?

For those that don't know I am by any modern definition a Philosopher.
Im 2 papers away from a degree in philosophy and ethics, and plan to return for a masters and PhD when I get sick of the real world.
I can offer many theorys and counter arguments about a whole host of differnt ideas and concepts, and I have many of my own ideas about how things are or should be. I am well read and have studyed some of the greatest minds who ever lived, as well as being taught by some of the greatest minds currently living. I contemplate anything and everything and can spend hours just thinking about something that may seem very simple untill examined in detail.

But does haveing some kind of formal qualification in philosophy make someone a philosospher? or is there more to it, prehaps a natural talent for abstract thought, or the ablity to look at a problem from an alternative angle and ponder it for as long as is nessacry to solve it.

Clearly a mastery of spelling and grammer are not a requirment, and I think it may even work as a hinderance as it can trap the mind into set ways and inhibbit free thought out side of the norm. Certianly many great philosophers have also been linguists, and so see and study the limits of language allowing them to twist it and use it in new ways to get across new and original ideas.

I am too shallow to be one. By shallow i mean in my thought processes.

A Philosopher should be
- open minded
- objective at the things he looks at
- be able to sneak in someones point of view and understand what he meant
- have a vast amount of asociations to anything (cause in nature everything has consequences) actio et reactio
-
-
-
- be able to fill these missing points:D

:argue: The way I see it....Everyone with a mind of their own is a philosopher. I don't know if this Philosophy is completly asinine or not. You can decide. But, every person has opinions. Philosophies are made of opinions. Technicaly an opinion is not true or false. A fact is but not an opinion. There are no "wrong" opinions, so there are no "wrong" philosophies. Every opinion is a philosophy in itself. So you can see why everyone is a Philospher. What you do with your philosophy is up to you.

Moppie do you agree with this?

Yes and no.
I think there has to be more to it than just someone having a certian opinion before it becomes a philosophy. You also need to have the reasoning behind it, and this reasoning needs to be resonably sound and make an attempt to avoid contianing things like Circular arguments, and contradictory statements.

As for there being no wrong opinions, well I think you will find many people who disagree.
It would be very hard to say that the opinions of Hitler were not wrong. Its possible to say something like, Opinions are only in the mind of the holder, and moral judgments can not be made on them untill they are turned into action, but that is dependant largly upon your own moral views, and can even encompass differnt ideas on what is mind.

A good start though, and something to think about a little more.
:cool:




1989 DX R I disagree with your statment. Iv found quite a bit of what you've said in here to be deep and thoughtfull. :)

You must answer the question with another question.

Originally posted by Moppie

It would be very hard to say that the opinions of Hitler were not wrong.

While I in no way endorse the opinions of Hitler,the terrifying reality is that his opinions were held to be right by a significant body of people for a signifcant length of time,and continue to be held by a minority to this day.We cannot dismiss opinions as wrong however repugnant the idea itself.An opinion cannot be right or wrong, it is in itself an absolute.

Opinions are like piles of shit. When you step on someone's it makes a big mess.

I feel as though a philosopher is someone who is abstractly smart, and with confidence, states his openminded opinion linguisticly. sure, a degree helps, but to what degree does a degree benefit the individual?? i know tons and tons of people who are very bright but who simply lack the resources to go to school, or who are smarter than the system and can figure things out for themselves. ill take this example. Good Will Hunting..i know its a movie, however, in many ways this movie was true. i totally believe that there are people like that, who can read a book and understand it perfectly without the help of a teacher. personally, i dont care what school gives you their piece of paper with a wood frame around it, thats hung on your wall. if your able to have intellectual conversations and think subjectivly, then you've done it for me.

Note: sorry for the spelling errors.....my hands are cold.

"Everything is relative."

That's the best philosophical statement I've ever read.

Thats not nescessarly true. You have to have some absolutes, or else there would be anarchy.

BTW, Anarchy is the closest thing to a true Democracy. The reason being is that a true Democracy is where everyone has a say in what happens, and when there is Anarchy, everyone is in charge of only themself

Originally posted by taranaki


While I in no way endorse the opinions of Hitler,the terrifying reality is that his opinions were held to be right by a significant body of people for a signifcant length of time,and continue to be held by a minority to this day.We cannot dismiss opinions as wrong however repugnant the idea itself.An opinion cannot be right or wrong, it is in itself an absolute. I enthusiastically agree 100% :cool:

As for the original question, I think that being a philosopher, in a "professional" sense, seems to be something that you can claim Moppie, while most of us can not (I know I certainly can't - I took a few philosophy courses in college, that's about it). However, to me, philosophy is looking at things from a new perspective, keeping on open mind about other's opinions, and at least attempting to consider everything, in hopes to form rational to unconventional statements or justifications about anything and everything in the world. It was under these premises that I founded the Philosophizing forum (well, actually I asked Igor, who actually founded it ;) ).

Maybe I should look the word up again to see if this entire forum is way off-base... :huh:

Originally posted by JD@af


Maybe I should look the word up again to see if this entire forum is way off-base... :huh:

Not at all.
Except for the thread on simpsons chracters this forum is doing ecxeptionaly well.

Besides Philosophy the word has become one of those strange words that no seems to able t acuratly define.
(hence trouble defining what is a philosopher).

But the best definition I can offer is to simply tranlsate it.

"Philo" at its most simple understanding means Love.
"Sophy" means knowledge.

So PhiloSophy is a "Love of Knowledge."
:cool:

(Now all we need is Fritz and Texan to add thier part)

Originally posted by Moppie

(Now all we need is Fritz and Texan to add thier part) Agreed. Hope you had a lovely New Years. Cheers mate :sun:

This is off the cuff, so it may be quite flawed, but to me:
Philosophy is thinking about the way we think. Meta-thinking if you will.

Philosophy is basically thinking about anything that has no direct action associated with it. It's not thinking about going to dinner, what you're going to eat, what you did eat, how to say something, or even how to build an engine - these are things with associated direct actions, past, present or future. Philosophy about the indirect, it tries to decern, describe and define the way in which we go about formulating the directed thoughts. It keeps asking the underlying ontological questions that pester the teleological mind.

Just a thought... ;)

Originally posted by fritz_269
Just a thought... ;) ...And a good one at that ;) We're amassing quite a good definition for philosophy and philosophers in this thread.

So philosophy is finding out what makes you tick?

Philosophers do not have open minds; they have active minds. An open mind isn't really an asset. Having a mind that can interpret and digest information and come to conclusions is an asset. When people say "keep an open mind" prepare yourself for someone to dump a hot steaming load.

I disagree. Without an open mind, you will lack inquisitiveness, and therefore lack the doubt that I feel keeps philosophical minds active. Philosophy often to usually encompasses pondering about subjects that surficially seem very cut and dry.

Originally posted by JD@af
and therefore lack the doubt that I feel keeps philosophical minds active..

I like that! :eek:

Thinking about what makes me think about things, I have to say that not knowing, or doubting something and wanting to find a truth beind it is are a major motivator.

Originally posted by fritz_269

....................... It keeps asking the underlying ontological questions that pester the teleological mind.



Hmmm, interesting, except that its very egocentric, and VERY old Greek and german. By using Ontological, and Teleological in the defintion you restrict all of Philosophy to the few philosophys that encompass ontological and telelogical thought.

Its a bit like defining a car by saying it is powered by a piston engine.

Whoa...that one went right past my head...

Originally posted by 1989 DX R
Whoa...that one went right past my head...

He used some technical terms to define philosophy, but in doing so limited the definition to forms of philosophy that only use those technical terms.

It would be like defining maths by saying it must include negative intergers. (even though you can still do plenty of math with only positive intergers. :) )

I think i see what he means. So, he just defined a whole by a part? Thats a no-no.

This is fascinating......but I don't wish to comment further lest I reveal the shallow and linear nature of my normal thought processes.

Dont worry, i am just the same. :D

Originally posted by taranaki
This is fascinating......but I don't wish to comment .

Tough!
Your an intellgent individual, you have something to contribute.
So contribute! :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

NOW!

:alien:

Originally posted by Moppie
Hmmm, interesting, except that its very egocentric, and VERY old Greek and german. By using Ontological, and Teleological in the defintion you restrict all of Philosophy to the few philosophys that encompass ontological and telelogical thought.
I didn't intend it in such a restrictive sense. I'll rephrase in more generic terms:
"A philosopher keeps asking the underlying "why" questions that pester the "what" and "how" oriented mind.

I commonly use those terms outside of the original Göckel and Lorhard, as I feel many others do as well. In my brief and loose definition, ontology is the study of 'why' things are (nature of being); and teleology is the study of 'what' things are and 'how' they got that way (cause-effect and linear time). Perhaps I've over-extended the terms?

And I'm not quite sure why it's egocentric? Please explain.
:smoker2:

Originally posted by Moppie


Tough!
Your an intellgent individual, you have something to contribute.
So contribute! :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

NOW!

:alien:

I'd like to,but no. Philosophy is like bungy jumping for the mind.If you can overcome your doubts and fears and try it in your own good time,fine,you get a massive rush and a huge confidence boost.If you get pushed off the platform before your doubts and fears are resolved you just go straight down in a screaming and incoherent mess and vow never to go near a bungy cord again.

EDIT 08/01/02 For the top line - please substitute 'Attempting to consciously philosophize is like...:)

Originally posted by taranaki


I'd like to,but no.

Well you did.
And I like it!
Thats something I was looking for, a take on philosophy by someone whos not totaly involved in it, and can give a slightly more objective opinion.
And a most interesting anology to. Iv done quite a lot of Bungee jumping, and a hell of a lot more philosophy, and I have to say that makes complete sense.

Thank you very much, now dont run away, the more people with something intellgent to say the better. (and its good for your post count. ;) )

:cool:

Originally posted by fritz_269

I didn't intend it in such a restrictive sense. Perhaps I've over-extended the terms?

And I'm not quite sure why it's egocentric? Please explain.
:smoker2:


I was just being a pedantic smart arse more than anything else.
The problem with useing technical terms in philosophy is that everybody has a differnt use for them. For example Heidigger (Iv spelt that wrong again) uses the term Ontological in very differnt ways to anyone else, and actauly derived his own term, the ontic, from it which had a meaning not seen before.
While your basic use of the words to mean why and what are OK, you actualy need to explain that is what you intend thier usage to mean.
(basicly I stick to large technical terms in work that I have room to explain them, but for a message forum such as this it pays to keep things as simple as possible. :) )


Egocentic: Basicly means selfcentered. It was really the wrong word, but was as close to the word I was trying to use as I could find. (and no I still cant work out what word I want to use!)
Prehaps Philocentric would have been better. Meaning centered around only one type of philosophy. (but is not quite right)

Can you or JD hit Texan up with an email? I assume hes on holiday at the moment, but it would be nice to see what he has to say on this when he gets back.

What Moppie is saying fritz (I believe) is that your initial post made him think of the common misconception most people have regarding philosophy, which is that all philosophy is centered around logic and generally athiestic viewpoints. Which we know to be entirely untrue, as most of mankind's abstract thought has been religious in nature.

What makes a philosopher is not the question in my mind. Everyone with a normally functioning human brain is a philosopher, since everyone has an innate need to explain both their past and their future (and eventually concoct some ethos to that end). The question should be "what makes a good philospher?", which can be answered readily by previous posts. But to add my 2 cents anyways...

A good philosopher is a combination of things, some of which are contradictory in nature (which is how we get to those really interesting answers). One must be open minded initially in formulating ideas, yet form a defendable position based upon intelligent thought somewhere in their thinking. They must then desire to debate their own standpoint, for what kind of a philosopher walks around with an idea that is untested against others? A simple point in philosophy is that if one thinks he is right in his viewpoint, the very first thing he should do is hear the best arguments against his own viewpoint. The companion talents to this are the abilities to effectively communicate AND to understand ideas.

Doubting you are correct is suicide for any philospher, since you have automatically removed the faith aspect of your own reasoning process from the outset. If one does not have faith in their own ability to seek out truth in this world, he is most certainly NOT a good philospher. What one must retain is the belief that others could be right, and they must prove you wrong before you'll adopt their viewpoint, revise your own, or simply reserve judgment for the time being.

The second to last thing is complete and total subjectivity in thinking about things. Formulation of an idea is all about what YOU think, not what others are thinking. You have to take in their point of view and understand it, but to formulate opinions with objectivity in mind is first off a contradiction in terms and secondly a surrendering of faith in yourself. Now I think some may object to this idea, but let's point out a simple truth... what is it about you that makes an idea yours? Subjectivity can be your only answer if you understand what these terms mean.

The last, and most important IMO, component to a good philosopher is wisdom. I define wisdom not as the accumulation of knowledge, but as the contsructive application of that knowledge. One is not wise because he knows things, one is wise because he uses his knowledge intelligently. Without the ability of wisdom, Jeopardy champions and those with 3rd grade educations alike are just wasting their time if they choose to think about things greater than themselves.

So here's my list:
-a sometimes open mind
-often times self-righteous thinking
-great communication skills
-total subjectivity in thinking
-possesion of wisdom
-the understanding that most things should be treated as absolutes and not relative ideas

Thats it, beautiful definition if i may say so.

OK, from now on, when I choose to use $5 words, I'll try to define my terms... ;)

texan - not only are you a good philosopher, but you're a good politician too - you changed the question before you answered it. ;)

I agree with most of your points, but not the last one: "the understanding that most things should be treated as absolutes and not relative ideas". This obiviates whole branches of philosophy based on relativism (e.g. Feyerabend and even Wittgenstein and Focault). So you're philocentric too. ;)

I can't really tell you what makes a good philosopher, but I am rather interested in the whole thing. I've always liked thinking about things that I didn't understand, and I would like to take some philosophy classes in college(I start next august), but I'm afraid it'll be more of an indoctrination that a class that teaches how to better think about things. Do you think I should avoid the classes, take them and see how they turn out, or maybe just sit through a whole semester of it and practice my mental filtering skills every class. :)

Originally posted by Moppie


Well you did.
And I like it!


Thank you very much, now dont run away, the more people with something intellgent to say the better. (and its good for your post count. ;) )

:cool:

Thank you.As I was preparing that post,I became aware that I was actually 'philosophising'(albeit at a very low level ),and consequently I started to think much more about what I wanted to say...Istill failed to convey my full meaning though.I have gone back and added an edit,hope that's o.k,rather than re-post the whole deal.


As to running away,I haven't yet.The mind is like a brake cylinder.If it seizes up through lack of use you have to free it up gently,or it gets damaged.I'm currently freeing mine up wondering about the original question.I'll be back to you with the answer in good time....


I'm also trying to figure out why I was so insecure about joining this thread ,but that's another story.;)

As far as I can determine, there are two kinds of philosophy. There's the formal philosophy, which you can get an education in; this includes all the historical philosophers, a certain amount of formal logic, and a whole lot of special terminology. This form of philosophy is advanced mostly trough the publishing of books, in letters from one philosopher to another, or rarely conventions where educated philosophers meet and argue.

Then there's the informal philosophy; the kind everyone is a philosopher of. This is basically just deep thinking about deep subjects, and contains common sense and common language, with a few terms stolen from the formal philosophers. It also includes science fiction, and is advanced mostly trough direct realtime arguments, either face to face (chess or go clubs is a nice place to find such arguments ,)) or as this, over the internet.

You might be able to spot that I'm a follower of the second kind of philosophy, and I do not think well of the kind of elitism that happens in the circles of "serious" philosophy. Like when people refuse to argue morals with you because you haven't read any Kant, or who laugh at you when you say you consider Heinlein, Assimov, or Adams as philosophers. Or when they launch into arguments on another whole level using language a layman cannot in any way understand.

Moppie, you have any comments on this?

I'm a Philosopher by nature and a Cynic. Look how well Moppie has turned out under my tutilidge(Spell check).:silly2: :D :D

Originally posted by DVSNCYNIKL
I'm a Philosopher by nature and a Cynic. Look how well Moppie has turned out under my tutilidge

Under your tutoring? :flipa: :flipa: :flipa: :flipa: :flipa: :flipa:

I was cynical long before I ever met you my DVS friend! :finger:



_W_ I almost totaly agree with you.
One on going informal disccusion I was involved in at uni last year was the state of modern accidemic philosophy. It hasnt come up with anything new since the rise and fall of exitenstialism, and seems to be stuck in the past doing nothing more than anylising and trying to reinterprut the work of philosophers who are long dead.
The only new developments have occured in Ethics, but it is still a young form of philosophy and needs a lot more work yet before it gains the full level of respect in acidemic insitutions that a study of "philosophy" gets.

I like your distinction between formal and informal philosophy but I dont think it holds entirly true. To me philosophy is Philosophy regardless of who is discussing it. Knowing technical terms, and the work of Kant only provides you with some more advanced tools.
Yes there is some degree of snobery in accidemic philosophy, but this is true with any accidemic profesion regardless of what it is, and in my mind a philosophy not prepared to listen to ideas from out side his own group or knowledge base is not doing his job properly.


I most defintly consider writers like Heinlein to be philosophers. After reading enough Nietzsche then reading Heinlein it becomes apparent that Heinlein is developing a lot of Nietzsche's ideas and incorperating them into his stories. (as well as ideas from Hegel, Hiedigger etc and his own)
I think you've brought up another excellent definition of a philosopher.

p.s. If you love philosophical Sci Fi (and I dont consider it true sci fi unless it has some deeper meaning that is best expressed through a science fiction world in which all modern ideas can be broken down and disassembled) then if you havnt already get hold of some of Ian M. Banks books, he also rights fiction under the name Ian Banks. All his books are excellent, but its recomended you read the Sci Fi series in the order they appear inside the cover. :)