An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
celebritydiscodave wrote:I think of a philosopher in terms of a person possessing well beyond the average range of philosophical powers,whether currently recognised,or not,by the greater public. The capacity for thinking outside of being human(beyond one`s personal programming)is essentially in my view what defines philosophers from the rest. Am I?
philoreaderguy wrote:Do you consider yourself a philosopher? Do you think other people do? Why or why not?
ape wrote:philoreaderguy wrote:Do you consider yourself a philosopher? Do you think other people do? Why or why not?
I second and ditto this reply by Max since I thought it before I saw it:
"I consider myself a philosopher. Philosophy or in Greek Æ¹»¿Ã¿Æ¯± (philosophía), means "love of wisdom". I am a lover of wisdom. Everyone that loves and seeks wisdom may consider themselves philosophers."
I wd just add
that the Wisdom of Love is infinitely greater than the Love of Wisdom,
and that since every one who loves wisdom or foolishness is a philospher, everyone is a phiolospher,
just as since everyone has a psyche, then everyone is a psychologist, major!smile
Those who think I am and those who think I am not a pilosopher both confirm that I am a philosopher since I think that they are all philosophers and it takes one to know one!smile
A disbeliever in me as a philosopher:
You, ape, are not a philosopher.
I know that you are a philosopher!
So since I, a non-philosopher, who you also think is not a philosopher, know that you are a philosopher, and my sentiment agrees with you who are a philosopher, then it is clear that I must be a philospher too!smile
ape wrote:Martin Ekdahl wrote:There is of course also the question of; how to designate someone a philosopher?
Once it is realised that Love or the Wisdom of Love is the basis of philosophy, then any and every one who loves is a philosopher.
Love is philosophy basically because it loves all words and their opposites, and thus makes good philosophy, and makes any philosophy good.
Hate is also philosophy because it hates all words and their opposites, but thus makes bad philosophy, and makes any philosophy bad.
All the philosophy that Hate makes bad, Love makes and can make good.
All the philosophy that Love makes good, Hate makes and can make bad.
Is the person that loves wisdom a philosopher?
Yes, because in loving wisdom, that person already has the Philosophy of Love.
To complete or enlarge or expand or perfect or make whole his POL, he just needs to add Love of fooldom, the adverse of wisdom, to his Love of wisdom. Smile
Is the person that engage in rhetoric debates on topics such as moral, religion, politics, the universe, life, and so on a philosopher?
Yes, on any subject or word.
Do you need a grade or certificate proving that you are a philosopher?
It is automatically conferred as soon as any child loves the letter a!
By the time s/he gets to z, each child is a degreed philosopher, post-graduated to the 26th degree!smile
No philosophy has ever improved on what any child says in Love, untutored by any teacher:
It takes one to know one!
Do you need other people saying that you are a philosopher to be one?
No, and once it is recognised that everyone is a philospher, that is and would be an NA.
Do you have to think out some new innovative theory on philosophic topics to be a philosopher?
Love is the basic and ulltimate philosophy, and since all kids learn to love their alphabets, we all have the capacity to innovate based on the basics.
And when we love all words, any topic is, and all topics are philosophical.
All innovation based on Love is the same idea or story, expressed in endlessly different words or ways.
There are more things in the POL
than there are in the Universe,
than have been dreamt of in heaven and on earth.
Paraphrase of AsYouLikeIt.
Romeo and Juliet[III, 3]
I'll give thee armour to keep off that word: Adversity's sweet milk, philosophy,
To comfort thee, though thou art banished.
As You Like It[II, 1]
Sweet are the uses of adversity,
Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous,
Wears yet a precious jewel in his head;
And this our life, exempt from public haunt, Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,
Sermons in stones, and good in everything.
I would not change it.
Martin Ekdahl wrote:In that case I proudly consider myself a philosopher.
ape wrote:Martin Ekdahl wrote:In that case I proudly consider myself a philosopher.
And I do too consider you as such!smile
Schopenhauer had three relieves from what he considered a cruel world. They were; empathy, arts and philosophy.
And all 3 reliefs based on his Love for himself as empathetic, as an artist and as a philosopher!
And The Love on which all 3 were based could have made him find relief from everything else, chiefly from himself!
If only he had known that, with the Love he had, he also had the tool to turn cruelty into kindness:
that he could be cruel, only in Love, to be kind;
Thus good begins, and better remains behind.
Shades of Hamlet [III, 4]
'In nature there's no blemish but the mind;
None can be call'd deform'd but the unkind:
Virtue is beauty, but the beauteous evil
Are empty trunks o'erflourish'd by the devil.'
Love's Labour's Lost [V, 2]
and so find relief in all subjects:
I wouldn't be surprised if he did not know that math is also art and philosophy,
and that to have empathy with others is to first have pity/pathy for self?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests