Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.

Post Number:#31  Postby wanabe » December 2nd, 2008, 4:20 pm

i practice philosophy, but i am not a philosopher. I think that narrows it down too much, and makes me too focused. i seek to know everything

i think there are a lot of sophists out there that call themselves philosophers and do a good job. but they in that state of mind, could never become as great as the Grand daddy's of philosophy. socraties plato confusious budda.....

i "wanabe" omnipotent. not to assert my powers, but to guide the world to be good, in a passive way that does not ever even imply that my methods are better than anyone else's.

i am for now a lowly being, no better than a pile of $hi+

but I'm changing that! (because, "there is no try")
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
User avatar
wanabe
Moderator
 
Posts: 3388 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Location: UBIQUITY
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Post Number:#32  Postby Akhenaten » December 2nd, 2008, 5:13 pm

No, I am simply me, others can designate me as they please, as is their right. Some call me a philosopher, some call me an idiot... eh, its really all the same in the end.
DISCLAIMER: THIS DOCUMENT does not cover all individuals in the infinite and variable universe. This is in no way is speaking on cases of incredible, random, or odds of more than 1 : Pi against probability.
User avatar
Akhenaten
 
Posts: 209 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: August 29th, 2008, 6:22 pm

Post Number:#33  Postby Seraphim » April 14th, 2009, 3:24 am

Well, i don't consider myself as a philosopher, but i just consider myself as someone "lucky", because i can realize about things that mostly other people don't and try to learn it.
But even so, everyone is capable in doing that, the question is, why don't they try to learn it? It's because they don't realize it, that's all, so basically we all have the same "quality".

That's my opinion
Seraphim
 
Posts: 2 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 15th, 2009, 9:21 am

Post Number:#34  Postby Martin Ekdahl » April 14th, 2009, 6:46 am

I consider myself a philosopher.

Philosophy or in Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophía), means "love of wisdom". I am a lover of wisdom. Everyone that loves and seeks wisdom may consider themselves philosophers.
"The meaning with life must be to do something meaningful with your life".
User avatar
Martin Ekdahl
 
Posts: 245 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 30th, 2008, 11:01 am
Location: Rostock

Post Number:#35  Postby Invictus_88 » April 14th, 2009, 11:51 am

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?


I don't know what your website is, but please don't advertise here without permission.

And no, if one considers the ability to think coherently to be a (super)power beyond one's 'programming' I would have great reservations over calling that person a lover of knowledge.
Invictus_88
 
Posts: 597 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 5th, 2007, 4:25 am

Yes

Post Number:#36  Postby ontologic_conceptualist » April 14th, 2009, 4:55 pm

I consider 'Myself' a philosopher for '
Myself' in the sence that I live by a set of way either self discovered, or inspired by another, but I donot attempt to push my philosophies upon others, I may share them, but only as what I define externaly of 'Myself' as oppinions, it is another's choice to do as they wish with the ways I have discovered or been inspired by, but 'My Way' no matter how good it may seem outwardly by my oppinion, will always just be 'My Way'

it would be religion or law if you were not given self choice and no longer "philosophy"

But even that's "Just my oppinion" LOL !!!
User avatar
ontologic_conceptualist
 
Posts: 518 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 3rd, 2009, 9:59 am
Location: Mobile, Alabama

Post Number:#37  Postby Vlad » April 15th, 2009, 3:46 am

Yes I do.

No, others do not as I often keep this to my self.
User avatar
Vlad
 
Posts: 136 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 12th, 2009, 3:11 am

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post Number:#38  Postby ape » April 15th, 2009, 8:35 pm

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 ƹ»¿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

Example:
A disbeliever in me as a philosopher:
You, ape, are not a philosopher.

Me:
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
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post Number:#39  Postby Martin Ekdahl » April 17th, 2009, 6:19 am

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 ƹ»¿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

Example:
A disbeliever in me as a philosopher:
You, ape, are not a philosopher.

Me:
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


There is of course also the question of; how to designate someone a philosopher?

Is the person that loves wisdom a philosopher?

Is the person that engage in rhetoric debates on topics such as moral, religion, politics, the universe, life, and so on a philosopher?

Do you need a grade or certificate proving that you are a philosopher?

Do you need other people saying that you are a philosopher to be one?

Do you have to think out some new innovative theory on philosophic topics to be a philosopher?
"The meaning with life must be to do something meaningful with your life".
User avatar
Martin Ekdahl
 
Posts: 245 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 30th, 2008, 11:01 am
Location: Rostock

Post Number:#40  Postby ape » April 17th, 2009, 3:04 pm

[quote="Martin Ekdahl"]
There is of course also the question of; how to designate someone a philosopher?
Ape:
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.

ME:
Is the person that loves wisdom a philosopher?
Ape:
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

ME:
Is the person that engage in rhetoric debates on topics such as moral, religion, politics, the universe, life, and so on a philosopher?
Ape:
Yes, on any subject or word.

ME:
Do you need a grade or certificate proving that you are a philosopher?
Ape:
No!smile
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

Example:
No philosophy has ever improved on what any child says in Love, untutored by any teacher:
It takes one to know one!

ME:
Do you need other people saying that you are a philosopher to be one?
Ape:
No, and once it is recognised that everyone is a philospher, that is and would be an NA.

ME:
Do you have to think out some new innovative theory on philosophic topics to be a philosopher?
Ape:
No.
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,
and
than have been dreamt of in heaven and on earth.
Paraphrase of Hamlet.

Romeo and Juliet[III, 3]
Friar Laurence
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]
Duke:
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.
Last edited by ape on April 18th, 2009, 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#41  Postby Martin Ekdahl » April 18th, 2009, 2:42 am

ape wrote:
Martin Ekdahl wrote:There is of course also the question of; how to designate someone a philosopher?
Ape:
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.

ME:
Is the person that loves wisdom a philosopher?
Ape:
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

ME:
Is the person that engage in rhetoric debates on topics such as moral, religion, politics, the universe, life, and so on a philosopher?
Ape:
Yes, on any subject or word.

ME:
Do you need a grade or certificate proving that you are a philosopher?
Ape:
No!smile
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

Example:
No philosophy has ever improved on what any child says in Love, untutored by any teacher:
It takes one to know one!

ME:
Do you need other people saying that you are a philosopher to be one?
Ape:
No, and once it is recognised that everyone is a philospher, that is and would be an NA.

ME:
Do you have to think out some new innovative theory on philosophic topics to be a philosopher?
Ape:
No.
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,
and
than have been dreamt of in heaven and on earth.
Paraphrase of AsYouLikeIt.

Romeo and Juliet[III, 3]
Friar Laurence
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]
Duke:
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.


In that case I proudly consider myself a philosopher.:)

Schopenhauer had three relieves from what he considered a cruel world. They were; empathy, arts and philosophy.
"The meaning with life must be to do something meaningful with your life".
User avatar
Martin Ekdahl
 
Posts: 245 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 30th, 2008, 11:01 am
Location: Rostock

Post Number:#42  Postby whitetrshsoldier » April 18th, 2009, 5:11 am

What kind of self-indulgent post is this?
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"
User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
 
Posts: 1774 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Location: San Diego, CA
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat

Post Number:#43  Postby ape » April 18th, 2009, 12:08 pm

Martin Ekdahl wrote:In that case I proudly consider myself a philosopher.:)

Ape:
And I do too consider you as such!smile

ME:
Schopenhauer had three relieves from what he considered a cruel world. They were; empathy, arts and philosophy.
Ape:
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?
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#44  Postby Martin Ekdahl » April 18th, 2009, 6:06 pm

As you all probably realize it is the same problem if you try to describe yourself as whatever (by many considered self-oriented or maybe even pretentious).

Ask similar questions about identity to other people doing what they appreciate doing, not as a profession but as a passion.

Ask the person creating art: Do you consider yourself an artist?

Ask the person writing novels: Do you consider yourself a author?

Ask the person making music: Do you consider yourself a musician?

Do these people have to be called artists, authors or musicians in media, by art museums, universities or other public and official channels to gain acceptance for their choice of practice or do they dare giving themselves titles?

I believe in the latter alternative.

If I like calling myself a philosopher, then I do it.

It's really simple actually.
"The meaning with life must be to do something meaningful with your life".
User avatar
Martin Ekdahl
 
Posts: 245 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 30th, 2008, 11:01 am
Location: Rostock

Post Number:#45  Postby Martin Ekdahl » April 18th, 2009, 6:22 pm

ape wrote:
Martin Ekdahl wrote:In that case I proudly consider myself a philosopher.:)

Ape:
And I do too consider you as such!smile

ME:
Schopenhauer had three relieves from what he considered a cruel world. They were; empathy, arts and philosophy.
Ape:
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?


All forms of art, philosophy, science, belief, psychology and so on are inter-tangled with each other. I consider empathy the highest form of fantasy (i.e. imagination), which is a sign of intelligence. Showing empathy with others is imagining how they feel in a given situation. Art, philosophy, science, belief, psychology is different angles of the same picture - our existence (and existence itself). Empathy/Fantasy is the key to this picture. It is what helps us solve the puzzle, if we so are called Newton, Darwin, Einstein or anything else.
"The meaning with life must be to do something meaningful with your life".
User avatar
Martin Ekdahl
 
Posts: 245 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 30th, 2008, 11:01 am
Location: Rostock

PreviousNext

Return to General Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST