Here you go.

Okay, it seems that, in general, a man may have favourite female philosophers... as long she is not his wife, I guess :D

Now, it is time for a serious point to discuss.

I used wondering if, for a typical atheist, his favourite philosophers are, as guidance in life for him, equivalent somehow to the favourite prophets/saints for a theist.

Of course not.

Of course not — 180 Proof

I guess you meant the serious point, not the thread's title :)
In this case, could we say that a typical atheist is somehow an individual philosopher?

ABSOLUTELY! Please see my last post in the Lounge.

In this case, could we say that a typical atheist is somehow an individual philosopher? — KerimF

I don't understand this question. Reformulate?

ABSOLUTELY! Please see my last post in the Lounge. — Mapping the Medium

Sorry, after about 12 hours, I am not sure which post you were referring to.

By the way, our friend '180 Proof' answered "Of course not." for the following question:

I used wondering if, for a typical atheist, his favourite philosophers are, as guidance in life for him, equivalent somehow to the favourite prophets/saints for a theist. — KerimF

So I added:

In this case, could we say that a typical atheist is somehow an individual philosopher? — KerimF

But it seems the expression 'an individual philosopher; is not clear.
I liked saying that in case a typical atheist is not supposed to have favourite thinkers/philosophers to guide him in his life (as theists have certain God's stewards on earth), he has to depend on himself only (his mind) to discover the best path(s) for him; in other words, be a philosopher for himself.

I don't understand this question. Reformulate? — 180 Proof

I liked saying that in case a typical atheist is not supposed to have favourite thinkers/philosophers to guide him in his life (as theists have certain God's stewards on earth), he has to depend on himself only (his mind) to discover the best path(s) for him; in other words, be a philosopher for himself. — KerimF

So sorry for the confusion. What I had posted in the Lounge has been deleted. I am active on two threads in 'General Philosophy', and since they are very complex topics, I will bow out of this one. Best to you :)

I will bow out of this one. Best to you :) — Mapping the Medium

I had a look on your profile. I wonder if in your various long studies you ended up realising, as I did, that:

If someone cannot trust himself (his mind, his heart and his soul) more than anyone else, he has no choice but to be a shadow of someone else.

Wish you good luck in your discussions.

I wonder if in your various long studies you ended up realising, as I did, that:

If someone cannot trust himself (his mind, his heart and his soul) more than anyone else, he has no choice but to be a shadow of someone else. — KerimF

Hmm.... I'm not sure exactly in what context you mean this towards me. My only response would be that there is a big difference between being a 'shadow' and understanding that individual identity depends on interactions with others. Cognitive develop happens when we compare our 'self' with the world around us.

Here is a response I shared with someone recently. Perhaps it will help you understand my perspective a bit better. ........

"Early mornings are my quiet time for reading and research. This morning I devoted that time to what you emailed to me. Thank you.

Here are my thoughts...

You make some good points. The only thing I would encourage you to consider is that unwinding the damage that has been done by seven centuries of nominalism in Western Civilization is a monumental task. One that I have determined to be impossible without us teaching the masses where it started and how we got here. Yes, the media has definitely contributed to it, but I would suggest that the media is just as much a victim of nominalism as the consuming masses. They feed off of each other. Please watch this short video with Professor Michael Allen Gillespie explaining the first major media influence on the Western world (the printing press), and how rapidly nominalism spread via Martin Luther's 95 theses. After watching the video, please read this review of his book explaining the terribly wrong turn humanity took with nominalism. I have corresponded with Dr. Gillespie, and he is working on his followup book 'The Theological Fate of Modernity'. I look forward to reading it. Charles Sanders Peirce was a FIERCE anti-nominalist, and after years of study and research, I am in total agreement with him. Nominalism is causing the collapse of civilization, and terrible damage to the resources that support humanity.

https://youtu.be/oYSgj6CziKQ

https://voegelinview.com/theological-origins-of-modernity-review/

Because of 'cognitive mapping' that is unique to each individual, we each take our experiences and perspectives on the world and look for patterns to make sense of them. The media is a mirror of our culture, so this too seems to be its main purpose. When this pattern seeking, cognitive mapping phenomenon exponentiates in the fragmentation brought on by nominalism (nothing exists but 'particulars' and 'individuals'), further slicing community cohesion, and dividing us into smaller and smaller fragments of society, we lose the crucial dialogue needed between people of different perspectives. Synechism explains that there is continuity in all of creation, and that continuity is necessary for human identity. An individual person only becomes unique by recognizing that it is different from another. Without the 'other', even individual identity breaks down. There is no 'I' without the 'other', and it's imperative that that 'other' is actually different for comparison (not identical in class, skin color, or life experience). Consider how a child learns about being a boy or a girl by watching mom and dad. There is no recognition of short or tall, blonde or brunette, without the 'other'. Nominalism causes the severing of otherness, and the fragmentation of society. Dialogue shuts down, and individuals are pulled further and further into those media 'narratives' like a whirlpool. This is even encouraged by our hyper consumer ontological individualism (byproduct of nominalism), right down to our own signature latte or craft beer.

Again, the cause of the huge challenges we face today is 'Nominalism', and until we face that and educate everyone we can, we will keep going down this dead end path.

Stay safe and well.

(hugs)
Cathy"

---------------------------------------------------

Thank you for pointing out 'nominalism' and 'Synechism'. They seem as two opposing extremes in defining our existence.

On my side, I had to discover first the main characteristics of the being that was given to me in order to exist in the time/space realm (our universe). I did it by finding out the action/reaction rules, as many as possible, that define my being (as I test any unknown device if I like to use it in a new design... in electronics). My main goal in doing this was to know the 'end purpose' for which I was brought into this temporarily life. My next step was to discover the real world in which I have to live.

Now. I am 71. It happens that I have no more important questions about my existence (or the existence, if you like) whose logical answers are unknown to me :( But, I am fortunate that my brain still need to think about how to design and update the products which I produce and sell (for the local consumers).

All coherent ideas/truths (based on my personal observations/tests and logical reasoning/analyses) by which I built my set of knowledge may be seen as 'science of life reality'.
It happens that one person only, throughout history, knew already whatever I discovered about my being and the world!
Anyway, by walking under the light of knowledge, I have no reason to be confused or afraid in any situation I may live (even death/afterlife is no more a mystery to me :) ).

I am not a believer because I don't accept an idea based on faith.
I am not a philosopher because I never had the intention to write books on what I know or convince anyone about anything.
It happens that I am just a rational man... an independent realistic spiritual thinker :)

May your dreams become real.

Dear KerimF,

I just posted an interesting story that I think you will enjoy. Follow this link if you would like to read it. A Letter to My Sisters

Kindest regards to you. :)

I just posted an interesting story that I think you will enjoy. Follow this link if you would like to read it. A Letter to My Sisters — Mapping the Medium

It is an interesting story indeed and thank you for sharing it.

Your story reminded me what I posted, in this philosophical forum, about death and afterlife too.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460571
It was one of my first crucial questions which I had to find out its best logical answer, about 50 years ago.

Kerim

I enjoyed reading your story as well. Thank you for sharing it.

Have a very pleasant morning or evening, depending on where you are in this world. :)

I am a hott super adept female philosopher. I have a paper published in a philosophy journal: https://independent.academia.edu/TinaAnderson19

Also I can humiliate and destroy almost anyone in debate. Here is my Youtube channel and social media https://www.youtube.com/c/GodlessGirl
https://linktr.ee/Godless

Also I can humiliate and destroy almost anyone in debate — GodlessGirl

I pity your victims :)

Being a rational man, I personally don't argue or debate anymore. The reason is simple. In my rather long life, I didn't have the chance to meet even one person (a serious mature one) who has real doubts in whatever he ended up believing as being true, real and/or useful to him.
Don't you see this common beauty in human nature?

But this doesn't prevent people to argue and debate, for a certain reason, if not reasons. They are usually young people (I was one of them :) ) who see the world as they like it to be and not as it is in reality.

By the way, I met many men who don't mind following a philosopher if she is beautiful and hottt :)

Wish you a long happy life.