(2 water molecules) — CallMeDirac

Saying something doesn't make it true. I wouldn't call you a philosopher or a serious thinker looking at your posts. Someone curious and likely to dig further in the future? Yes. Go for it! I wish you the best even though it may sound like I am not offering much encouragement here.

I don't waste time sugarcoating things for people as I don't think it is useful for them.

Different scenario and not really pertinent to what I was saying.

While a useless definition, I define wetness as the quality of being saturated in water. This definition does define nearly everything as being slightly wet, so on the smallest possibly scale, only 2 molecules need to be touching for either to be wet.

I would say the artist example is directly related to your point, you said that if no one reads someone's writing then they are not a writer, by that same logic if no one sees someone's paintings they are not an artist. If that same person's paintings are discovered after their death, were they any less an artist before dying? Does a title only apply if what the title references is experienced by others?

It's been covered here before on this thread but the notion of expertise is important if someone is going to be given certain titles such as a philosopher. It's probably important to be familiar with key questions of philosophy and to know what others have already written about these often highly complex matters. Otherwise you are just reinventing the wheel or, more likely, getting stuck in problems that have long been untangled or resolved. For my money to be a philosopher is to be part of a tradition, not some bloke sitting on the back step musing philosophically.

I guess some believe 'to enjoy using knives' (e.g. carving the holiday turkey / ham) 'makes one a surgeon'. :mask:

Our definitions differ in that you consider mine to simplistic and all-inclusive, and I consider yours arbitrary and with no objective way to determine who deserves a title. Can you provide some way to determine what makes one a philosopher more specific than "to be part of a tradition"?

If someone does surgery they are a surgeon, surgeons aren't defined by knives, they are defined by surgery.

For a philosopher, must haves:
1. Brain (truth/verum)
2. Heart (good/bonum & beauty/pulchrum)

Can one who is unintelligent not practice philosophy? If the practice of philosophy does not make one a philosopher, why must there be other characteristics to define a philosopher?

Exactly. Philosophers are defined by doing philosophy. But how? Competently. Who's to judge? Her peers in the context of the extant philosophical tradition wherein living philosophers (academic or otherwise) dialogue with (the extant works and embodied influences) – perhaps dozens of generations before her – dead philosophers. Yeah, anyone can navel-gaze and speculate in excess of known knowns, but the vast majority of men and women who have not dedicated themselves to reflective / contemplative discipline-as-a-way-of-life cannot do either well enough to express anything of philosophical significance to anyone else but themselves and those only as dedicated or less so.

And what of the founders of philosophical schools, who didn't engage with previous generations of philosophers? What of Thales, who had no predecessors to engage with? If they are philosophers, then is only dedication to the field required? Can one not be dedicated to a field without education in the field? If one requires education in a field to be considered in the field, how can one found a field or school of thought?

What of Thales, who had no predecessors to engage with? — CallMeDirac

How do you know this? :eyes:

If they are philosophers, then is only dedication to the field required? Can one not be dedicated to a field without education in the field?

Why do you ask me about being "dedicated to the field" when I wrote dedicated ... to reflective / contemplative discipline-as-a-way-of-life?

If one requires education in a field to be considered in the field, how can one found a field or school of thought?

Confusing yourself – shadowboxing – with a strawman.

Given current knowledge, historians consider Thales the first philosopher, if that's the case he had no predecessors.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I assumed you meant dedication to the discipline of a reflective/contemplative way of life as meaning philosophy. If not do elaborate.

Given that I didn't feel like posing each question, waiting for the answer, and responding after, I asked the next question under the assumption that the answer was disagreeing. Had you answered in a different way than the following questions were assuming I would've asked different questions.

Given current knowledge, historians[Aristotleans] consider Thales the first philosopher, if that's the case he had no predecessors. — CallMeDirac

Okay, no shame in it, you simply do not know – no one, in fact, knows – that Thales "had no predecessors." Appeal to ignorance. Neither you nor anyone else knows who his predecessors might have been (if he had had any). Calling him "the first philosopher" (Aristotle believed this a couple of centuries after Thales' had died) does not entails – hasty generalization – that he had "no predecessors", only that none have become known to his posterity.

Then what of the nameless first philosopher? Whether or not Thales was the first is irrelevant to my point.

Why must there have been a "first" individual and not a group of thinkers in dialogue from which the practice emerged and then became (for one or more) a discipline / way-or-life? Like language. Like music. Like courtship? Like worship? Why an unique "first" instance of culture? Just because counting on your fingers begins with "one"?

Can one who is unintelligent not practice philosophy? If the practice of philosophy does not make one a philosopher, why must there be other characteristics to define a philosopher? — CallMeDirac

While I won't go so far as to say one has to be a genius to do philosophy, it goes without saying that philosophy is not for everyone; whether this is a matter of preference/intelligence is debatable. Perhaps both!

Take me for example. I'm an average Joe and I find some topics inscrutable. Makes me wish I were smarter.

Our definitions differ in that you consider mine to simplistic and all-inclusive, and I consider yours arbitrary and with no objective way to determine who deserves a title. Can you provide some way to determine what makes one a philosopher more specific than "to be part of a tradition"? — CallMeDirac

Actually it's your definition which is arbitrary as it sets no criteria or competence at all and therefore is not even a definition. You'll remember you originally said:

A philosopher is anyone who examines the nature of life and metaphysics — CallMeDirac

Pretty arbitrary.

Then you added that it was a hobby and enjoyment was part of it. Pretty arbitrary.

Unlike you, I am not attempting to define what a philosopher is. I am simply proving feedback that competence and knowledge is a very important component of any potential definition. Defining philosophy isn't easy but I know it isn't just anyone who has deep thoughts about life and being.

I think this is a good foundation:

Philosophers are defined by doing philosophy. But how? Competently. Who's to judge? Her peers in the context of the extant philosophical tradition wherein living philosophers (academic or otherwise) dialogue with (the extant works and embodied influences) – perhaps dozens of generations before her – dead philosophers. — 180 Proof

That's still irrelevant to my point. Why is the engagement with previous generations of thinkers necessary, and if it is necessary to be a philosopher what about those who could not engage with previous generations?

But why is competence necessary to be a philosopher, why does one have to be competent to be a member of a field?

But why is competence necessary to be a philosopher, why does one have to be competent to be a member of a field? — CallMeDirac

Surely that can't be a serious question? Would you use a mechanic who isn't competent? A plumber? Would you use an accountant who can't add up or use financial software packages? Would you call a person who knows next to nothing about philosophy - epistemology, metaphysics, logic - a philosopher? Or do you not take philosophy seriously enough to consider competence a criterion of value?

I think we are done here. We're going around in circles.

What Constitutes A Philosopher?

Elbow patches on a jacket?

Elbow patches on a jacket? — Mayor of Simpleton

No that's English literature. Philosophy is a comb over and a black turtleneck.

No that's English literature. Philosophy is a comb over and a black turtleneck. — Tom Storm

Indeed. Since I don't bother with either much anymore I keep forgetting who is whom?

As I don't own a jacket (much less one with elbow patches) or a turtleneck (not even a black one and have a full head of hair I figure I just don't qualify to field answers and only try to post questions.

I think ucarr might mean 'engaging'. — Tom Storm

That occurred to me too, but I wonder if it has something to do with television and video. Sesame Street is educational and entertaining. It was fast paced and visually and auditorily stimulating. There now seems to be a preference for content delivered via video rather than books.

We live in different worlds. Put differently, we interpret ideas
in accordance with a larger worldview that each of us carry around with us. — Joshs

A given culture consists of many worldviews that often don’t understand each other, as our politically polarized times demonstrates. — Joshs

If a philosopher or writer or scientist offers an idea that we cannot assimilate within our worldview we will reject or misinterpret that idea, or it may simply be invisible to us. — Joshs

It does t matter how many ways you try and package the content of a given philosophy. You could translate it into poetry, have it delivered by a stand-up
comedian or by corporate-style bullet point presentation. — Joshs

The central problem won’t be the delivery or language or style, but the readiness of the recipient to assimilate it into their worldview. — Joshs

The statements above contain an excellent summary of the daunting challenges facing any person seeking to communicate in depth.

Is not communication in depth the main project of the philosopher? If so, then, as I believe, the project to communicate in depth is a good way to define both philosophy & the philosopher.

What is communication (in depth, or otherwise)?

Jon Anderson, vocalist for rock band Yes, sang it to us when he sang, "Don't surround yourself with yourself."

This is the challenge posed to all of us by the effort of communication.

As a philosopher, don't you want to reach as many people as you can?

Josh presents us with a brilliant elaboration of the work before us as both human beings & as philosophers. But look at his attitude, as evidenced below,

The ‘everybody’ you talk about is a fiction. It can take hundreds of years for segments of a given culture to grasp the ideas of a certain era of philosophy. Conservative America is a long way from understanding post-Hegelian thought, which is already 200 years old, and you can’t blame it on the messenger. — Joshs

He sees clearly the work that needs doing, and yet the clarity of his vision seems to be in service of a cynical despair about the possibility of success.

Of course it's impossible to be a philosopher. That's why everybody laughs at us. We're errant fools for trying.

"Any bloke wit common sense knows 'ees better off quaffin' a pint 'n tryin' to explain the world."

Donald O'Connor, of Singin' In the Rain told us about storytelling, "Make 'em laugh!"

Alrighty then. Who's got a couple of post-Hegelian jokes?

I guess some believe 'to enjoy using knives' (e.g. carving the holiday turkey / ham) 'makes one a surgeon'. :mask: — 180 Proof

Just an aside - When you're destroying one of my propositions, try to do it with some of the wit shown above. :blush:

That's still irrelevant to my point. — CallMeDirac

Perhaps. Nonetheless your "point" is irrelevant as well.

Can one who is unintelligent not practice philosophy? If the practice of philosophy does not make one a philosopher, why must there be other characteristics to define a philosopher? — CallMeDirac

Can one not be dedicated to a field without education in the field? If one requires education in a field to be considered in the field, how can one found a field or school of thought? — CallMeDirac

You ask highly intelligent and thought-provoking questions. More power to you. A Person-On-The-Street type of philosopher is much needed. Perhaps you can join the ranks of those who keep philosophy street-level.

When your child takes her first steps, it ain't ballet. But you, an inveterate walker, stand there, ready to catch her when she falls forward into your arms.

When the philosopher-royal, momentarily bored by the priesthood, steps out of bounds of university for a Sunday walk, but nonetheless refuses to dialogue with the curious rabble, suddenly affrighted; s/he reaffirms the public face of philosophy*: ill-tempered snobbery.

*In this context, philosophy refers to higher learning without regard to a particular discipline.

I was trying to make heads or tails out of the Monadology when I lost focus after seeing the other kids outside the window, throwing knives they had just made in Shop class at a spare tire conveniently mounted on the back of the Gym teacher's Bronco.

"Paine!" barked Don the Don. "How will you ever become unemployable if you keep drifting off like that!"