Am I a philosopher?

[Christina Anikari]

I think this depends on how you define the word philosopher. If it is a label applied to those who have a degree in philosophy, the answer is easy, you are not a philosopher. The same applies if the term philosopher is applied to accepted thinkers, whether they are Plato, Nietzsche or Foucault, you haven't published anything nor are you known among a very large segment of the population. The final way that philosopher is commonly defined is as a person who expresses wisdom and a deep understanding of human nature and the world. If you follow this definition it is up to the individual to determine if they think you are a philosopher or not, thus voiding the question as it is not about what you are, but just about what others think about you. However, i personally do not think that you live up to what would make you a philosopher for me. While intelligent and clearly in possession of understanding of human behavior as well as a great willingness to muse on topics commonly touched on by philosopher, you lack some traits that make your thoughts truly profound and original enough for me to see you as a philosopher. Above all you lack the knowledge of contemporary and past philosophy needed to create a solid foundation for musings to avoid just retreading ground that has been covered. In addition to that you lack both the training in logic and argumentation to tighten your musings into solid thought and something as basic as a coherent expression of your ideas, all traits i consider important for thought to be truly deep and profound.

Ultimately, however, i believe that the entire discussion of philosophy and what is worthy or not is pointless. Philosophy is one of those terms like art that is used to label what you subjectively like better than comparable works and elevate it to an unassailable position. Instead i believe that what we should do is focus on the consequences and uses of ideas, the significance they get when placed in a context if you will.

[Mitera Nikkou]

I'm not really interested in reading contemporary or past philosophy, though. I feel better that where I get to is due mostly to my own thoughts instead of being greatly influenced by the thoughts of others. I mean, when I say something, I want to feel secure that it comes from me instead of parroting another. Or, even if I say the same things, at least I took the effort to get there instead of just picking it up from someone and adopting it as if it were my own.

I guess I'll just have get some of my ideas out there somehow, and damn the consequences. I'm sure I've got a few original ideas that I can offer.

[Duck]

I kinda find a lil fault in the idea that you need any form of learning to be a philosopher.

Each great philosopher finds their philosophy through their own reflection. Weather it's ones who look at other philosophies and finds what faults are in it, or use it to branch out on their own ideas. Or the ones who go out on their own. Philosophy doesn't need real knowledge of other philosophies.

Look at Calvin and Hobbes, sure the author knows a bit of the art of philosophy. That's evident by the characters names. But Calvin himself could be considered a philosopher. He takes critical thinking of issues, just like our nekkid one here does. Sure it's lighthearted, but it's a true deep insight. You can see true insight into Nikkou's writings (even her more rambly ones) just like you can in Calvin. It brushes on some deep truths out there at times, but the language used is far more palpable than the language of professionals.

To me, a philosopher will find their own philosophy. It will always be different than what others say. It may sound similar, but it's individulalized. While I may follow a Locke like philosophy personally, but I followed that before I knew of Locke, does that make my idea any less valid? Of course not. It may not be completely original, but still, one is still a philosopher. Just maybe not one that is recognized. As long as one thinks about things deeply, you're a philosopher. Cause everyone thinks about the mysteries of life, it's just that a few get noticed for it. Or a few tend to try and get it out to other people.

[Christina Anikari]

The reason you need learning to be a philosopher, is because it is only through learning that you avoid just retreading common themes in our society without realizing it. Actually i would say that it is exactly due to learning that what we consider deep wisdom is no longer the likes of "hey, those guys have gods that look like them and not like us" or "always make sure not to charge a superior enemy head on", the first being a paraphrases of...some early Greek philosopher whose name escapes me, the second being Sun Tzu. Simply put knowing what already is, allows you to build on something when you develop your ideas instead of starting from scratch every single time. For me at least for the term philosopher to mean anything you need to not just be smart and insightful, but actually contribute meaningfully and actively to the ideological development of culture to be one. Of course it is also because of this i want to redefine the concept of a philosopher and of philosophy to mean people and thoughts that have had a significant impact on the ideological framework of a culture and not to mean people who are wise. The last is way too subjective to define and way too tied to the culture of the observer. Seen with the eyes of a modern person the thoughts of Plato were laughable stupid and Socrates was just a grumpy old man spouting banalities, yet they were clearly a revelation for their contemporaries.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Good, then it sounds like I have the potential to be the next Plato or Socrates. ;p Long after I'm dead, anyway. ;/

Anyway, all I really have are my thoughts; I don't have much else. I don't have the attention span and focus to delve anywhere else but my own mind and what it has observed or imagined. I'm really detached from reality anyway, so it all works out.

[Duck]

You still don't need previous knowledge.

One can be insightful philosophically, and not have studied previous works. Philosophy is designed like that. It's a falsehood to say that a philosopher is defined by the impact they do, or the knowledge of past philosophers.

I think the misconception isn't in the ideas behind being a philosopher, but your definition of it. You're incorperating change to society. Modern day philosophers don't really change society. Not like the older philosophers do. They may write essays, but the impact they have on socieity is minimal at best.

A philosopher rarely changes the world now a days. Yet they exists. I've got a book of philosophical essays, so, I know people who are philosophers are out there. They find philosophical relavence in todays society, wether it be pop culture (The Daily Show, The Simpsons, Harry Potter) or the political atmosphere, or other things.

A philosopher, can always come from the most humble of starts. With no knowledge, or training, yet still think beautiful articulate theories. Infact, that's where the best philosophies start. They may not ever be famous, or published, but that doesn't make them anything other than a philosopher.

[Lanzerus]

I see philosophers as people with a vast intellect spanning several different topics, most likely if you are older than me and think more than i do, someone here probably does, then i will think of you as an intellectuall philosopher

[Christina Anikari]

So anybody who has an insightful thought that they express in any way is a philosopher, Duck? It sounds sensible on the surface, but it is based on the assumption that it is possible for humans to observe and objective non-negotiable truth, ultimately leading to the positivist fallacy, an idea that has been abandoned by all but the oldest scientists and scholars. The reason for this is not the least through the troubles of the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle and their attempt to erase the subjectivity and impression of language. The problem was ultimately that it is impossible to separate observations from the analysis and judgement of said observations. And as such we cannot touch on eternal truths and possess the objective insight you seem to say that philosophers display.

If it is not the case that there is a completely objective truth that we can observe then the degree of insight of an individual ultimately hinges on how much their ideas make sense to the people who hear them. It is just a social contract to define that people find said person smart and insightful. It also changes what a philosopher does to not be finding the metaphysical truth of the universe, but to be shaping the ideological construction of a specific group in the broadest sense of the term ideology. Basically what a philospher ultimately does is shape the framework of interpretation of the world and our place in it, their ideas does not necessarily have to be true, just accepted as such by the group in question. As such i choose to say that should the term philosopher be applied to anybody apart from those who have taken a degree in philosophy, it has to be those who engage in the philosophical work. Now you could say that everybody who thinks deeply does that, but if they don't have penetration of any sort, such as most, if not all, people here, then you do not engage in the ideological construction of society. However, you do not need to be a scholar to be a philosopher, it just helps to achieve longterm success in building ideology. Also if you look back through the ages then one thing unites all the people known for deep insight, specifically a high degree of academic learning. Even someone as early as Socrates, provided his wisdom isn't just a retoric construct made by Plato, was highly learned in the philosophical thoughts of the time. Likewise most great philosophers only impacted on a small subset of learned people for a long period of time before the consequences of this manifested themself.

[Duck]

Honestly, I do believe that anyone who thinks critically is a philosopher. That's all it takes. Now it takes more to be an EFFECTIVE philosopher it takes a bit of craftsmanship.

It sounds sensible on the surface, but it is based on the assumption that it is possible for humans to observe and objective non-negotiable truth

True, one can't be truly not objective. But FEW philosophers, if ANY are. Decartes, one of the more well known philosophers completely based his philosophy on the fact God leads us all the correct knowledge because god is benevolent. (for those of you who don't know, Decartes is credited with the "I think therefore I am" quote). That's not objective. That's not even anything that can be observed scientficially. But no one would argue he was a philosopher. His "truth" is quite negotiable. Try telling it to an atheist. You'll get disbelief.

And as such we cannot touch on eternal truths and possess the objective insight you seem to say that philosophers display.

I don't believe we can truly feel the eternal truths, but we can think critically. Possibly come close. Get some sort of insight to it. Thus, making us think philosophically. Think ABOUT the higher truths, and the ever ending question of "why".

Now you could say that everybody who thinks deeply does that, but if they don't have penetration of any sort, such as most, if not all, people here, then you do not engage in the ideological construction of society.

Everyone engages in the ideological construction of society, now wether or not you seek to influence change into it, is another story. Don't believe me? Take a look the the concept of family, which seems to change as people mindsets evolve. That is an aspect of the construction of ideological society. We all influence it, we all change it, or support the status quo.

Also if you look back through the ages then one thing unites all the people known for deep insight, specifically a high degree of academic learning.

That's true with the impacting philosophers. But, we aren't talking about impacting one. Everyone can be it. You don't need it, but to really have impact it REALLY helps.

[Christina Anikari]

If all it takes to be a philosopher is to think critically and deeply, then all people are philosophers, not one person exists who doesn't do that at least occasionally and if that is the case the term is devoid of meaning. Instead to argue that all it takes is insight whether recognized or not to be a philosopher, but that there is a way to tell who is a philosopher and who isn't is an objective yardstick to measure by. If not then special insight and thus the decision of who is a philosopher is a personal made by each individual observer, in short philosopher becomes a label we use to label people we think are smarter than others. We can reach various conclusions based on this, one is that it is all bunk and we should just stop talking about it. Another would be that since some people are clearly more insightful than others there is an objective principle that we are just unable to perceive. Both of these seem rather useless to me as they do not lend themselves to reasonable or constructive discussion, but just to a rejection of discussion or dogmatism respectively.

Instead i propose that we look on what a philosopher does and what makes one thinker successful and another not, to determine who is a philosopher and who isn't. And what a philosopher does is construct logical systems of ideas for how to understand the world and our place in it, in short actively participating in the ideological construction of society. Specifically the active side of participating in the ideological construction of society is what separates a philosopher from a member of the masses who shape it through passively holding views and occasionally exchanging them privately. Your average person will not make a work that will be quoted for centuries and used as an inspiration for thinkers, instead their effect on society is an aggregate of the personal thoughts of many individuals, no less important but quite different in how it works.

Of course this is not a perfect definition of philosopher, but it does have some strengths over the common definition as someone who thinks deeply. For one thing it contains a distinction between philosophers and other people. Another is that it places a test for what a person should do to be credited as a philosopher that goes beyond saying that it has always been like that or that you think he is insightful enough to get the credit.

[Duck]

But you kinda make my point. Everyone IS a philosopher in some level. Now there are kinda levels of it, to the ones who actually want to inspire change, to ones I would consider like myself, ones who wish to think of their own road of life and why things are the way they are or aren't.

There can't really be any qualifying status to being a philosopher, because then you put a real constraint on thought and the thought process. Now there can be status to the QUALITY of your philosophy, especially if you try and put your view out there to others in the world. But education really shouldn't be it. Your ability to express ideas should be.

But the term wouldn't be devoid of meaning, because most don't even realize what philosophy even is. It's be definition critical thinking. And I'm sorry, not everyone thinks critically, they CAN but they don't. Most people refuse to even try and wrap their head around complex ideas, but those who do (heck, this conversation could make us philosophers by the fact were trying to define a realatively abstract idea) can be considered philosophers. This doesn't mean every philosopher has the idea. Or even close. But the fact they attempt is the point.

Those who label philosophy as intelligence are looking at it wrong. Philosophy isn't intelligence. Philosophy is an art. The art of thought. The art of thinking. Even a child can think philosophically, and they don't need a large amount of knowledge, just to be able to think.

When you start to think about what a philosopher does, you start to lose what a philosopher is. One can't judge on the impact of the world you may have. But of the person itself. This is true with all art. If one is an artist, but not well known, is one still not an artist? You may not have the most unique style, or training, but you are an artist. And just like being a philosopher, one can be an artist without actual training. Most philosophers, will never change the world. But that doesn't dilute what they do, or who they are. They may lack the charisma to fully further their goal. Or the social status. But, they are still philosophers.

Everyone CAN be a philosopher, but few choose to really analyze critically. Few seek to know why they have knowledge without it being told to them. Look at how people think about religion, which is closely tied to philosophy, most people follow what they are told. They aren't looking critically. They could, but they choose not to. If it's what they truly believe, or it's what they just know by being taught it from loved ones or people of authority. They choose to follow the philosophy they've been told. They may not look into their own philosophy, but they COULD, which is kinda my point. We COULD just take a basic definition, and say that's it. You have to meet these specific criteria to be a philosopher, but when we define it more and more, we loose more and more of what philosophy truly is: critical thinking. A thinking that is rational, and investigating truth of our lives.

[Christina Anikari]

How about we just call it here? The last several posts by both of us have pretty much just stated the same things with increasing amounts of words in an effort to convince the other. We are quite clearly speaking from different philosophical viewpoints and traditions and it appears to me they are effectively incompatible. Basically we are not actually doing anything productive and this discussion isn't entertaining enough for me that i want to continue it purely for the joy of rhetorics and duels on words.

[Lucky]

philosophers are just people with radical new ideas.

From pythagorean to Karl Marx and all the fun stuff.
=P

[Sophia Anieri]

I'd consider you philosophically minded. Whether you're a philosopher is in my opinion a question of whether you consider yourself to be one.

[Mitera Nikkou]

I don't know. I just know that I think too much and I've ruined any chance of being happy. You know... 'cause a lot of what I've thought of isn't anything to be happy about. So "ignorance is bliss" is relevant, at least in my case. I was definitely happier back in the day when I thought little about stuff in general.