What makes a Philosopher

[JD@af]

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.

[1989 DX R]

So philosophy is finding out what makes you tick?

[enginerd]

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.

[JD@af]

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.

[Moppie]

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

I like that!

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.

[Moppie]

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.

[1989 DX R]

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

[Moppie]

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. )

[1989 DX R]

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

[taranaki]

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

[1989 DX R]

Dont worry, i am just the same.

[Moppie]

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!

NOW!

:alien:

[fritz_269]

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:

[taranaki]

Originally posted by Moppie


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

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...

[Moppie]

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. )