Off the top of my head, I can only think of philosophers who actually pioneer new philosophies and epistemologies, like Ayn Rand, or Jeremy Benthem. It's a little funny with the music comparison because all new songs are technically novel to the musical world, so it is much easier to contribute to it, granted you have the skills requisite to craft a completed piece. But, as far as people who don't contribute to philosophy, but are proficient, I would think historians of philosophy, like professor Sugrue, or even Allen Watts. Or, perhaps devotees of philosophies developed. I'll put some more that to this though, because it's interesting as a topic.

I was thinking some basic reading or knowledge of logic. Your definition means my grandmother is a philosopher. Ok. — Tom Storm

Maybe she is. So what? Were the presocratics "philosophers"? What were their "basic reading and knowledge of logic"?

Maybe she is. So what? Were the presocratics "philosophers"? What were their "basic reading and knowledge of logic"? — Xtrix

Well in the case of the pre-Socratics these were noteworthy, perhaps epoch defining explorations of the important questions. There has to be a start to everything.

But the key thing is, if a person was still approaching philosophy like no progress had been made since the pre-Socratics and they are unaware of the key issues philosophy has raised, are they really philosophers just by asking questions?

I can't accept at this point that a philosopher is someone who asks certain questions as the sole criteria for being called one. It seems shallow. To me there needs to be a deeper level of approach and possibly some knowledge of philosophy. I am happy to hear a compelling argument against this view.

Well in the case of the pre-Socratics these were noteworthy, perhaps epoch defining explorations of the important questions. There has to be a start to everything.

But the key thing is, if a person was still approaching philosophy like no progress had been made since the pre-Socratics and they are unaware of the key issues philosophy has raised, are they really philosophers just by asking questions? — Tom Storm

I think so, yes. But this is a minority view, and I don't pretend to speak for everyone. But apart from professionalization, I can't see what philosophy consists in if not that it's a particular kind of thinking, defined by the questions raised. If one is thinking about/turning one's attention to the question "What is a human being?" or "What is being?" or "What is the good life?", etc., then one is "doing" philosophy. That's what the presocratics were doing, that's what Socrates was doing, that's what peoples throughout history have done -- questions about death, about justice, about power, knowledge, value, and so on. Religion and science have much overlap, in this sense.

When you say "progress," I'm not sure that gets us far. We have much more written works than did the presocratics -- we have 2500 years more of history. That's true. Whether there's been progress or not is a judgment call.

It seems shallow. To me there needs to be a deeper level of approach and possibly some knowledge of philosophy. — Tom Storm

I can't help but think, when you say things like "knowledge of philosophy," that you have a particular view of what philosophy is to begin with -- namely, a field of study, a specialization, akin to a division of labor or academic discipline where there are experts about. That's in fact the common view: a philosopher is one who gets a degree in philosophy, teaches philosophy, or publishes works about philosophy. It's not that those people aren't philosophers, really -- it's that the term is not reserved simply for that.

How much engagement with these questions makes one a philosopher? That's the question, really. Is there some kind of time limit, where now you earn your title? I don't think so. Yet I would be leery if someone claimed to be a "writer," yet never wrote anything. If one claims to be a philosopher, but spends almost no time whatsoever contemplating philosophical questions, then I would probably roll my eyes.

Good response.

I think a level of competence is required - however that is measured (and I am not saying that I can identify what this is). Philosophy is an approach, sure, but that doesn't mean that everyone who takes this approach is a philosopher, just as not everyone who writes is a novelist.

How much engagement with these questions makes one a philosopher? That's the question, really. — Xtrix

Yes, that's close. It's not just how much engagement but for me it's in the nature of that engagement.

When you say "progress," I'm not sure that gets us far. — Xtrix

Noted. When I said 'progress' I didn't mean progress of the 'case closed' kind. I simply referred to those ideas that have already been well articulated and are well understood (whether these are useful or deemed failures). Someone who is attempting to answer philosophical questions with no knowledge at all of philosophy is likely to not get very far unless they have other prodigious gifts. Perhaps Wittgenstein was in this category - and even he had read some philosophy.

Maybe it would help to look at an example. If a neophyte philosopher said - "I don't believe that the real world exists because only my senses tell me what there is and they are often wrong" - we'd be right to refer them to the literature to get them up to speed with some of what's been explored in this space.

For me this is the essence of the problem. Asking the big questions with total ignorance of the history of philosophy seems inadequate as a definition of philosopher.

I apologize if this is a bit of a windy post.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of philosophers who actually pioneer new philosophies and epistemologies — Garrett Travers

Thank you for articulating your view. That's a great way of looking at things, and definitely practical for the people studying philosophy. I will attempt to expand on it and articulate other views that I think exist out there. I don't think any of these views is better or more correct than any other. I accept all of them, and my only interest is to acknowledge them.

Here is how I draw an analogy with the musical world. There are three roles that I can identify:

• Composer writes new music
• Performer entertains others by playing music
• Listener enjoys music

A single person can assume multiple roles. Each role is associated with different types and levels of skills. Composers are creative people who bring something new to the world. Performers are skilful people who apply their skills for the benefit of self and others. Listeners are the people who have a taste in music. Although a lot of music doesn't require a skilful listener, I would argue that listening to the music is also a skill that can be developed.

I can see how these roles also exist in the world of philosophy, and they create different ways to view people as philosophers:

• [Composer] In academia, a philosopher is someone who's contributed something new to the field of philosophy. This is a practical view in the academic world. When you study philosophy, the people who are relevant to you are the ones who contributed at least in some way to the field of philosophy.
• [Performer] In the public eye, a philosopher is someone who knows philosophy and applies philosophical thinking to social issues. The term 'philosopher´ will be used by the media to refer to the people who bring a philosophical perspective to the conversation. In this context it's less relevant whether someone has contributed to the field of philosophy. What's relevant is how they have contributed to the society.
• [Listener] On a smaller scale, a philosopher is someone who dedicates their time to engage in philosophical thinking. A person can make philosophy a part of their identity if they're spending a lot of their time wrestling with philosophical questions. For the person, it's not relevant whether they can contribute something new to the field of philosophy or whether they contribute to the society. What's relevant is that they spend their time thinking about philosophy, which makes philosophy a part of their identity.

As I mentioned earlier, these views are different from one another, but I don't think that only one of them must be true, while the rest are false. My only goal is to acknowledge them.

Nice work.

a philosopher is someone who knows philosophy — pfirefry

That seems important to me.

On a smaller scale, a philosopher is someone who dedicates their time to engage in philosophical thinking. — pfirefry

A small scale philosopher? Is that like being partly pregnant? :smile: For me this would be best described as a person with a philosophical imagination. I would never say contributing something new is critical, but I would consider that knowing something about how philosophical questions have been approached previously is.

A small scale philosopher? Is that like being partly pregnant? :smile: — Tom Storm

Haha, I couldn't think of a better way to frame it. I meant the scale of "me and the few other people who I can discuss philosophy with." The scale that is not publicly significant.

I would never say contributing something new is critical, but I would consider that knowing something about how philosophical questions have been approached previously is. — Tom Storm

Is there any way to tell if someone has enough knowledge about how philosophical questions have been approached in the past? Would it suffice if they arrived at this knowledge on their own, rather than by studying historical records?

My goal is to clarify, but not to challenge or dismiss.

This is beautiful. Yes, now that you have elaborated on it, I see your question way clearer. I'm going to be honest, there isn't much that I could add to this. This is exactly what I had in mind as far as classifications were concerned, albeit with different titles, but this is great. In my mind, some of these classifications relegate the individual who represents them as Not a musician and Not a philosopher. Bang up job here.

For me this is the essence of the problem. Asking the big questions with total ignorance of the history of philosophy seems inadequate as a definition of philosopher. — Tom Storm

I guess I disagree as a matter of definition. If one is asking big questions, one is doing philosophy. That doesn't mean it's good philosophy. Having read a little is important, as is engagement with others. So take the example of children -- they ask excellent questions. They're all little philosophers, in this respect. But are their answers very serious? "Why is the grass green?" "Where do we go when we die?" etc....all good questions, but we don't necessarily take their answers seriously.

So by definition, in my view, a person is a philosopher who engages seriously with philosophy (which I further define as thinking about these particular set of perennial, universal human questions) -- and perhaps added to that, holds these questions as utmost importance and returns to them frequently. At that point I think he or she has earned the title, just as a writer would who writes often and seriously. An average person who occasionally asks philosophical questions, just as one who can write, doesn't necessarily earn the title.

None of this is supposed to be concrete. It's all rather vague -- but it's the only way I can make sense of it without resorting to the standard appeals to academic credentials.

As a newbie, here's my opinions on the stuff offered so far.....

The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. — Garrett Travers

I like this and it is what I have in mind most of the time, and my friends.

you usually have to be dead to be a great philosopher. — _db

I get this, and often feel this way too. But there have to be philosophers around now too, don't you think?

A philosopher is a person who loves wisdom and seeks wisdom. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Does anyone know what the greeks meant by wisdom? What are they loving?

I think philosophy, and therefore philosophers, is simply the asking of certain questions. — Xtrix

Woa. This is very general but I actually think I like it the most! Haven't come across this way of putting it that much. Do you consider YOURSELF a philosopher by this definition? What about others on the forum?

You've misread my post and I do not agree with the premises of the questions you raise in your misreading.

Asking the big questions with total ignorance of the history of philosophy seems inadequate as a definition of philosopher.
— Tom Storm

I guess I disagree as a matter of definition. If one is asking big questions, one is doing philosophy. — Xtrix

To philosophize is to pose (big? small? unbegged?) questions in such a way as to make explicit the limits of questioning (i.e. reason's limits).

Is there any way to tell if someone has enough knowledge about how philosophical questions have been approached in the past? Would it suffice if they arrived at this knowledge on their own, rather than by studying historical records? — pfirefry

Good question. It's hard to get too concrete about this but I am reluctant to call anyone a philosopher if they have never read any philosophy, don't know what the key issues have been, but just happen to ask some of the sorts of questions philosophy has asked even if it is often. That's all.

To philosophize is to pose (big? small? unbegged?) questions in such a way as to make explicit the limits of questioning (i.e. reason's limits). — 180 Proof

Yes. I wonder if the matter rests in how 'to make explicit the limits of questioning' might look in practice.

None of this is supposed to be concrete. It's all rather vague -- but it's the only way I can make sense of it without resorting to the standard appeals to academic credentials. — Xtrix

Yeah, it may well be one of those difficult questions, like many of those philosophy covers.

Do you consider YOURSELF a philosopher by this definition? What about others on the forum? — John McMannis

No.

To philosophize is to pose (big? small? unbegged?) questions in such a way as to make explicit the limits of questioning (i.e. reason's limits). — 180 Proof

Again a matter of definition. By "big" questions, or "perennial" questions, or "fundamental" questions, I mean essentially the same as you're saying here. "What is death? What happens when we die?" Etc. Perennial questions, and certainly at the limit of our experience (although we can make educated guesses -- a long dreamless sleep would be my answer; nevertheless).

This is very general but I actually think I like it the most! Haven't come across this way of putting it that much. — John McMannis

Thanks. I don't think it's that original, just slightly different wording of what others have said.

Do you consider YOURSELF a philosopher by this definition? What about others on the forum? — John McMannis

Good question. I've been called a thinker and philosopher from many people in my life. But that isn't necessarily saying much. I personally hate the moniker and would never identify myself this way. But, per my definition, yes I would be one -- as would probably most people on this forum.

I wonder if the matter rests in how 'to make explicit the limits of questioning' might look in practice. — Tom Storm

Well, to build on what you've written previously, 'the history of philosophy' is indispensable as an archive of examples of 'making explicit the limits of questioning (i.e. reason's limits).'

:up:

A philosopher is someone who talks like this:

"Being a philosopher is a sufficient (but not a necessary) condition for being a cunt."

EDIT: for the avoidance of doubt, I do consider myself to be a philosopher.

:smirk:

"What Constitutes A Philosopher?"

Why does this question matter? Yet another categorization attempt that is so typical of philosopher. Is that what philosophy is? The practice of demarcation? Setting boundaries? The intellect can only delineate and carve up, anatomise and atomise. Voilà, a description of typical western philosophers. Eastern philosophers would be described in another manner.

Artificial Intelligence is still very much in it's infancy. Most computer systems only produce INFORMATION as an output to a screen, a printer or through speakers etc. They therefore mostly process raw data, not information.
Systems like the Mars rover etc are often described as having some sort of 'decision making' ability, in that they have a lot of sensors to provide feedback. Even the most powerful computers we have, can only simulate human decision-making. Their 'decisions' are solely based on logic operations involving base concepts such as (IF, AND, OR, NOT, etc) combinations where the bit 1 represents the state 'true' and the bit 0 represents false.
Raw data like 25 has no meaning so is not information. 25 apples or Person age:25 is information.
Data+contextual label = information. This removes examples like Orange 25 which is data until contextualised by perhaps 'My entry code is Orange 25,' then it becomes information.

Demonstrating understanding of an item of information is what I would call knowledge.
Current electronic expert systems contain a component called a 'Knowledge base.'
You can enter your medical symptoms and the system will 'pattern match' with its knowledge base to diagnose your problem and then it will display advice for treatment, that it finds stored in a data file or record structure, matched to the name of an ailment. Such systems are in my opinion not 'intelligent.'

To demonstrate intelligence, a computer must be able to 'demonstrate ability beyond the parameters of its programming.'
If a computer system/robot does ever demonstrate such an ability, would it then be able to philosophise?
No emotion would be involved in such a system. Perhaps like Commander Data on Star Trek, was he/it capable of philosophy?
What is the absolute minimum an electronic system would have to be cabable of to demonstrate an ability to philosophise or perhaps even be called a philosopher?

...

If we can define by example, consider Professor Parkin:



The most philosopher bit is about 20:40 in

This makes me think of @Banno

...

It seems to me, that the main exchanges so far would suggest that the majority view here is that there is no objective example of a 'human philosopher.' There are 'gradations of human philosopher,' which is governed by 'level of study.' and the subjective opinions of others.
But could we create a 'better' philosopher by electronic, perhaps even quantum electronic, means?

???.....Ghosts don't exist.

To philosophize is to pose (big? small? unbegged?) questions in such a way as to make explicit the limits of questioning (i.e. reason's limits). — 180 Proof

I like that you always emphasize questioning, problematizing, etc.

I've been thinking about an analogy to something people are sometimes inclined to say about art, sport, warfare, literature, chess, business -- in short, every creative field: there are interesting cases where people "break the rules", where "rules" means something like "received wisdom". And just as often, people will say that you have to know the rules, have to master the standard techniques of, say, painting, or playing saxophone, or rock climbing, whatever, before you can break the rules. (And alongside this, there is recognition of the occasional masterful folk artist or untutored genius who doesn't even know the rules they're breaking. The exception that proves the rule.)

I've been thinking there may be an analogy here to philosophy's relationship to reason, because philosophy requires going beyond reason, but reason is often the best first step. I don't think reason can be self-grounding, define itself, judge itself, apply itself. There must be something more, and even if we can't pin it down, that more, that something else that might stand above or beyond even reason, is philosophy.

:up: I think of this "something more", which encompasses – enables and constrains – "reason", as the real .

Adapted and directed by Jonathan Miller. I'll put it on my watch list.

Well worth it. The Ghost Stories for Christmas are generally good. Old, but still creepy. Michael Hordern does a nice job as Professor Parkin.

We might say a philosopher is someone who engages in the philosophical method.
I've tried to articulate exactly what that is, and I'm having trouble. How about:

"The philosophical method is an investigation of the world (in the broadest sense of 'world') by the examination of concepts and their relations."

Does that work?

So by extension a philosopher is someone who does that.