What does it take to be a true Philosopher?

[fionaimmodest]

A philosopher is therefore one who does not profess to know everything. Philosophy is not dependent on an excess of knowledge, but on a respect for knowledge, and, therefore, an awareness of its limits. Socrates famously said that he was wiser than others in one respect only: that at least he knew that he knew nothing.

[Man With Beard]

You need a beard, if you are capable of growing one. If all you can do is a scraggly, patchy beard, you are excused from the beard requirement.

Also, if you think your beard will clash with your gender identity you don't have to grow one even if you can.

You do not have to smoke a pipe, but you need to own one, and hold it when gesticulating while elucidating a philosophical point, especially if you are wearing a tweed jacket at the time.

On a more serious note, I noticed that in general very few people describe themselves as philosophers - especially those with an education of philosophy. They say instead "I am a student of philosophy" or "I teach philosophy".

[Jack D Ripper]

You need a beard, if you are capable of growing one. If all you can do is a scraggly, patchy beard, you are excused from the beard requirement.

Also, if you think your beard will clash with your gender identity you don't have to grow one even if you can.

Hmmm...I don't think that is strictly necessary, though it certainly does not hurt anything to have a beard. Many philosophers have had beards, but there are some who did not. But maybe if one wears a tweed jacket, then maybe one should have a beard....

You do not have to smoke a pipe, but you need to own one, and hold it when gesticulating while elucidating a philosophical point, especially if you are wearing a tweed jacket at the time.

I think one only needs a pipe if one wears a tweed jacket. And that applies to all academics, not just philosophers. Imagine an English professor wearing such a jacket, elucidating some point about some work of literature, without a pipe in hand to move about. It would be quite unseemly.

And one must have smoked it, even if one no longer smokes the pipe. One can then be "trying to quit".

Really, who would want a professor who did not know the most basic things of what is involved with wearing a tweed jacket? If they don't know about such things, how can one have any reason to believe they know anything at all? It would be time to drop the class and enroll in something else, taught by a professor who knows what is involved with tweed, or simply does not wear a tweed jacket.

On a more serious note, I noticed that in general very few people describe themselves as philosophers - especially those with an education of philosophy. They say instead "I am a student of philosophy" or "I teach philosophy".

I suspect that they do so because they are less likely to have to deal with the question of what it takes to be a philosopher, as they are not claiming to be one. Also, it can sound pretentious to say that one is a philosopher, depending on the context.

[Steve3007]

I like the conversation about beards. One thing I've often found mildly interesting is that we often tend to talk of "growing a beard" as if it were an activity, whereas it is actually a lack of activity. It is the default state for adult men. Shaving is the activity.

[Steve3007]

Or maybe growing a beard is an activity (not just a lack of activity) just as atheism is a belief (not just a lack of belief).

[Man With Beard]

Or maybe growing a beard is an activity (not just a lack of activity) just as atheism is a belief (not just a lack of belief).

A person capable of growing a beard does not need to do anything to grow a beard beyond maintaining a minimal proper nutrition. Does this count as an activity?

[Jack D Ripper]

I like the conversation about beards. One thing I've often found mildly interesting is that we often tend to talk of "growing a beard" as if it were an activity, whereas it is actually a lack of activity. It is the default state for adult men. Shaving is the activity.

Growing a beard is an activity. It is just not a conscious choice, but one's body is actively growing hair on one's face.

And yes, settling the beard question is of great importance in this, as would-be philosophers need to get the details right or they will fail to be the philosophers they hope to be. Just imagine spending one's entire life trying to be a philosopher, but missing out on one essential thing and thereby failing to be a philosopher. One could waste one's whole life if one gets the details wrong.

[Jack D Ripper]

Or maybe growing a beard is an activity (not just a lack of activity) just as atheism is a belief (not just a lack of belief).

"Atheism" has two common meanings.

WordNet Dictionary
Noun
1. atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God

2. atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

https://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/atheism


That fact is obscured by some dictionaries that list both as if they were the same definition, and some list one but not the other:

atheism

NOUN

mass noun
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/atheism

atheism
noun [ U ]
US /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪ.zəm/ UK /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪ.zəm/

the belief that God does not exist

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... sh/atheism


Notice how Oxford (Lexico) and Cambridge define the term differently. Given the reputation of those institutions, one might expect them to do better, to do as well as the WordNet dictionary above, which is better and more complete than they are in this instance.


One can also look for "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" online, which are used by some philosophers to distinguish between the two common meanings of the term "atheism". Sometimes, philosophers use other terms, like "positive atheism" and "negative atheism", or "hard atheism" and "soft atheism".

If we look at the word origin, the prefix "a-" means "not", and so the original meaning would be "not theism", which would be the lack of belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. However, both meanings are in common use, and so it is good to say which one that one has in mind when having disputes about atheism.

[Jack D Ripper]

Or maybe growing a beard is an activity (not just a lack of activity) just as atheism is a belief (not just a lack of belief).

A person capable of growing a beard does not need to do anything to grow a beard beyond maintaining a minimal proper nutrition. Does this count as an activity?

Eating and drinking are activities. Moving out of the way of oncoming cars is an activity.

But this thread is disappointing. Not so much for what is here, but for what is not here. What is disturbing is that people who pretend to care about philosophy do not weigh in on this important topic.

I think this beard question should be examined further. I have expressed my opinion on the subject, but it would be good to get more ideas, to make sure that a conclusion is not reached prematurely.

People pretend to care about wisdom, but where is the wisdom in that?

[Burning ghost]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[Terrapin Station]

Re atheism, if you've considered the notion of God and you've come to the conclusion that there is no God, then you have a belief about there being no God.

If you don't have a belief in a God because you've never heard of the idea, then you probably shouldn't be considered an atheist (and obviously you'd not be a theist, either).

[Steve3007]

Growing a beard is an activity. It is just not a conscious choice, but one's body is actively growing hair on one's face.

I guess growing a beard could be seen either as the lack of a particular conscious activity (shaving) or the presence of a particular conscious activity (the activity called "not shaving"). According to the latter interpretation it would be a conscious choice. It would only not be a conscious choice if the man in question was in a coma, and perhaps had never heard of beards.

[Jack D Ripper]

Re atheism, if you've considered the notion of God and you've come to the conclusion that there is no God, then you have a belief about there being no God.

If you don't have a belief in a God because you've never heard of the idea, then you probably shouldn't be considered an atheist (and obviously you'd not be a theist, either).

Another possibility is that one has thought about whether there is a god or not, but does not come to a conclusion, either supposing that there is insufficient evidence one way or the other, or that the subject is not worth pursuing.

To give an example on another topic, I don't believe that you ate eggs for breakfast this morning, but I also don't believe that you did not eat eggs for breakfast this morning. I have no belief at all about what you did or did not do for breakfast this morning, beyond thinking about what people often do or don't do. In the case of your breakfast, I have insufficient evidence to come to any conclusion regarding you eating eggs or not eating eggs, and I also do not think the subject is worth pursuing (i.e., I will not try to get any evidence regarding the matter).

Indeed, when one hears many discussions regarding the existence of a god, one often finds that the god claims do not entail any difference in the universe at all, which would tend to make one think that it is an unimportant question, like what some random person online ate for breakfast. Or, really, since what someone ate for breakfast does make at least a tiny difference in the world, the god question may be of even less importance, if it makes no difference in the universe whatsoever.

[Jack D Ripper]

Growing a beard is an activity. It is just not a conscious choice, but one's body is actively growing hair on one's face.

I guess growing a beard could be seen either as the lack of a particular conscious activity (shaving) or the presence of a particular conscious activity (the activity called "not shaving"). According to the latter interpretation it would be a conscious choice. It would only not be a conscious choice if the man in question was in a coma, and perhaps had never heard of beards.

I mean that the growth of the hairs is something that one's body does automatically; that is not a conscious choice. What one chooses is whether to shave the hair or not, but the growth of the hair is not generally a matter of choice (though, of course, one could try to damage one's face in a way to prevent future growth).

So, growing hair is an unchosen activity.

[Terrapin Station]

Another possibility is that one has thought about whether there is a god or not, but does not come to a conclusion, either supposing that there is insufficient evidence one way or the other, or that the subject is not worth pursuing.

Sure, but I wouldn't say that's a possibility that the word "atheist" picks out. That's more a colloquial sense of "agnostic" (the academic sense of "agnostic" being someone who thinks that knowledge or a conclusion either way isn't possible).