An impressive vocabulary. :smile:

(Oh, forgot. What Aristotle thought about something.)

Humbleness and being a fierce reader.

Patience. Persistence. Creativity. Courage. (And not necessarily in that order.) :chin:

Not sure what you're saying, but surly I've known more words in my youth.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: elbow patches.

Does a person really have to separate themselves of ego and thinking they themselves are important in order to successfully be philosophical?

No
e.g. Descartes, Hegel, Nietzsche et al.

Are you saying they're full of themselves? Lol.

:smirk:

Even the nice guys in philosophy have been full of themselves. Kant believed he’d sorted everything out once and for all.

In that case whose more prone to arrogants? Philosophers or physicists? Physicists at least need to back up most statements but Philosophers touch on many things that aren't necessarily falsifiable?

Must a philosophical mind remove the ego? — TiredThinker

Yes. Except for Descartes who must prove the duality of existence. After that, yes.

Be logical? — TiredThinker

Absolutely.

Prone to splitting hairs? — TiredThinker

No. Philosophers are known to be contentious if there's a thick argument to be made against an idea.

What are the prerequisites? — TiredThinker

One must first be introduced to their first philosopher's works.

Does a person really have to separate themselves of ego and thinking they themselves are important in order to successfully be philosophical? — TiredThinker

Nope!

One of the reasons I love philosophy is its open-ended nature. There are rules as you start to think philosophically, but you are also free. Ala existentialism, at least a certain interpretation of that in a general sense, the only philosophical question is to know yourself. If you know yourself, then you have succeeded, philosophically.

Philosophical Tools for Thinking are necessary otherwise the garbage in / garbage out premise holds as the outcome.

Philosophy texts tend to be Map and territory inducting the reader into the realm of thought. To do the real work of philosophy is to have the tools to operate coherently within a scientific or substantially real social environment. Or privately to construct a creative discourse that develops self and the needs of reality.

If you want to do analytical philosophy that ventures into the treacherous lands of ontology and epistemology, you ought to sideline the ego as much as possible, in my opinion. If you don't, you'll be seduced by beauty, lured by the desire for and illusion of certainty and bribed by your own motivations. In my opinion, there are huge skeptical challenges in epistemology that are treated lazily due to the extreme difficulty a proper treatment poses. At the foundation of our knowledge lie some pretty arbitrary and naïve assumptions, and they persist because our egos require them to.

If you want to do continental philosophy however, I'd say the ego is not a hindrance, but rather a requirement. What is there to speak of in continental philosophy if not the rich contents of our egos?

There appear to me so many dimensions to philosophy I don't think we can say what exactly it is let alone how we need to think to do it well. Is philosophy thinking about thinking? Is it being able to regurgitate and parse phrases from a cannon? Is it original thinking? Is it clarifying what the questions are and not worrying too much about the answers? Is it language? Is it ultimately about epistemology?

Question - if you can think philosophically (assuming we can nail down what this means) does that make you a philosopher or just someone who thinks philosophically?

Must a philosophical mind remove the ego? — TiredThinker

I am disinclined to take "ego" as a given, either as an experience commonly agreed to have happened or as a necessary supposition that means what it means well enough to refer to it as a self-evident thing.

As my grammar demonstrates, the intention to speak for oneself is a requirement of honest discourse but is not a proof of something by itself.

What is there to speak of in continental philosophy if not the rich contents of our egos? — Ø implies everything

Maybe as a concession to the analytical style I differentiate between "ego" and self, investigating techniques (e.g. hermeneutics, ethics, physics, cognitive neuroscience) by which the latter can flourish because of – in contrast to – the defects of the former.

What theory are you using in your reference to the ego and self? Freudian, Jungian, etc.?

An impressive vocabulary. — jgill

Arthur Koestler's definition of philosophy:

the systematic abuse of a terminology specially invented for that purpose.

What theory are you using in your reference to the ego and self? Freudian, Jungian, etc.? — Ø implies everything

None in particular that I'm aware of; certainly not a psychoanalytic "theory". Maybe a Spinozist conatus-inspired hybrid of Iris Murdoch's (platonic) 'unselfing', David Parfit's 'self-continuity' (contra self-identity) and Thomas Metzinger's 'phenomenal self model' ...

A beard. As for women? Also a beard.

It seems we probably share quite similar ideas of the self. Though, my ideas are quite vague and underdeveloped, still.

Is there such a thing as thinking philosophically as opposed to thinking itself. Which in and of itself is a world orienting aspect of consciousness and a reaction to environment need by some resolve of willing. At what point can thinking be classified as having the attribute, philosophically?

At what point can thinking be classified as having the attribute, philosophically? — Alexander Hine

I suppose when first-order calculation (object) becomes higher-order reflection (meta), one begins thinking "philosophically".

Chat GPT answering. A good rule of thumb definition. It would answer my college homework.

What defines a person as being able to reason to posit concrete ideas as logos?

The ability to reason and posit concrete ideas as logos is often associated with qualities such as critical thinking, logical reasoning, and the ability to formulate arguments based on evidence and reasoning. Here are some key factors that can define a person as being able to reason to posit concrete ideas as logos:

Rational thinking: The ability to think critically and rationally is essential for developing concrete ideas and arguments. This involves analyzing information, identifying patterns and relationships, and evaluating evidence.

Logical reasoning: Logical reasoning involves the ability to construct valid arguments based on premises that are logically consistent and coherent. This requires an understanding of basic logical principles such as deduction and induction.

Knowledge and expertise: In order to formulate concrete ideas, a person needs to have a certain level of knowledge and expertise in the relevant field. This knowledge can come from education, training, and experience.

Effective communication: Being able to communicate ideas effectively is crucial for persuading others of the validity of one's arguments. This involves using clear and concise language, presenting evidence in a logical and organized way, and anticipating counterarguments.

Open-mindedness: Being open-minded and willing to consider alternative viewpoints is also important for developing concrete ideas. This involves being willing to challenge one's own assumptions and beliefs, and being receptive to new information and perspectives.

Overall, the ability to reason and posit concrete ideas as logos requires a combination of critical thinking, logical reasoning, knowledge and expertise, effective communication, and open-mindedness