What characterizes a philosopher

[chewybrian]

How do I know if I am a baseball player? I simply try to play baseball. I am not disqualified from being called a ball player just because I am lacking in ability.

I think you mean to ask what makes one person proficient at "doing" philosophy while his neighbor maybe isn't getting it right. First, you have to be willing to try (I can't be rightly called a baseball player, good or bad, if I never take the field; same goes for the philosopher in his or her own weird way). Since there is so much subjectivity involved, we might fairly say that effort, whether well directed or not, (in our own opinion about the would-be philosopher and their ideas) makes a philosopher.

We are likely to have a lot of different ideas about what rises to the level we might call proficient. I'd sum it up by saying that the philosopher is always willing to challenge narratives, paradigms or models, where the non-philosopher usually is not. The philosopher will challenge what you say along with the rock-bottom foundational assumptions about reality that ostensibly support what you say. The philosopher treats theories about the subjective universe (ethics, morality and such) as a scientist treats theories about the natural world. "Everything is permitted", meaning that right and wrong must be worked out over and over, with no real hope of getting things correct, but only perhaps making progress.

The non-philosopher will tend to agree or disagree with you based on whether or not your ideas fit neatly within his preferred models. He will fight to protect his preferred model rather than challenging it willingly to see if it survives scrutiny and thus lives on in his mind for one more day.

[gad-fly]

we might fairly say that effort, whether well directed or not, (in our own opinion about the would-be philosopher and their ideas) makes a philosopher.

We are likely to have a lot of different ideas about what rises to the level we might call proficient. I'd sum it up by saying that the philosopher is always willing to challenge narratives, paradigms or models, where the non-philosopher usually is not. The philosopher will challenge what you say along with the rock-bottom foundational assumptions about reality that ostensibly support what you say. The philosopher treats theories about the subjective universe (ethics, morality and such) as a scientist treats theories about the natural world. "Everything is permitted", meaning that right and wrong must be worked out over and over, with no real hope of getting things correct, but only perhaps making progress.

The non-philosopher will tend to agree or disagree with you based on whether or not your ideas fit neatly within his preferred models. He will fight to protect his preferred model rather than challenging it willingly to see if it survives scrutiny and thus lives on in his mind for one more day.

The topic has shifted to "What makes a philosopher", but it is alright. I can see your point about effort makes a P, and i take effort as the effort to philosophize.

Taken broadly, anyone philosophizing is a P. If he keeps going, he is a veritable P. If he stops, he is a non-P.

"The non-philosopher . . . will fight to protect his preferred model rather than challenging it willingly." Good point.

[Sunday66]

we might fairly say that effort, whether well directed or not, (in our own opinion about the would-be philosopher and their ideas) makes a philosopher.

We are likely to have a lot of different ideas about what rises to the level we might call proficient. I'd sum it up by saying that the philosopher is always willing to challenge narratives, paradigms or models, where the non-philosopher usually is not. The philosopher will challenge what you say along with the rock-bottom foundational assumptions about reality that ostensibly support what you say. The philosopher treats theories about the subjective universe (ethics, morality and such) as a scientist treats theories about the natural world. "Everything is permitted", meaning that right and wrong must be worked out over and over, with no real hope of getting things correct, but only perhaps making progress.

The non-philosopher will tend to agree or disagree with you based on whether or not your ideas fit neatly within his preferred models. He will fight to protect his preferred model rather than challenging it willingly to see if it survives scrutiny and thus lives on in his mind for one more day.

The topic has shifted to "What makes a philosopher", but it is alright. I can see your point about effort makes a P, and i take effort as the effort to philosophize.

Taken broadly, anyone philosophizing is a P. If he keeps going, he is a veritable P. If he stops, he is a non-P.

"The non-philosopher . . . will fight to protect his preferred model rather than challenging it willingly." Good point.

Socrates criticized the sophists because they gave up too easily. They only wanted to win arguments and prove the other person was wrong.

[gad-fly]

The non-philosopher will tend to agree or disagree with you based on whether or not your ideas fit neatly within his preferred models. He will fight to protect his preferred model rather than challenging it willingly to see if it survives scrutiny and thus lives on in his mind for one more day.

On second thought, why should he be called a non-philosopher, if he
tend to disagree or disagree
fight to protect his own model
not challenge his own model

With these characters, he is more a philosopher than not. If you put up a model, and assuming you are a P or PP, would you not challenge it right away unless you are persuaded otherwise?

[chewybrian]

The non-philosopher will tend to agree or disagree with you based on whether or not your ideas fit neatly within his preferred models. He will fight to protect his preferred model rather than challenging it willingly to see if it survives scrutiny and thus lives on in his mind for one more day.

On second thought, why should he be called a non-philosopher, if he
tend to disagree or disagree
fight to protect his own model
not challenge his own model

With these characters, he is more a philosopher than not. If you put up a model, and assuming you are a P or PP, would you not challenge it right away unless you are persuaded otherwise?

Why, then, should I be called a scientist if I am unwilling to challenge my model of the sun revolving around the earth and such? In contrast, the world of science (modern science, at least) will embrace you if you can disprove the current theories about the nature of the world. Show that a widely accepted model of science is likely wrong and, rather than being burned at the stake, you might get a Nobel prize.

What is the model of the non-philosopher? Perhaps it is the Bible or the constitution or whatever his Grandpa told him. If he is unwilling to hold these models up for scrutiny, then he does not seem to be much of a philosopher to me, any more than someone clinging to creationism, unwilling to even examine other options, could be called a scientist.

[gad-fly]

[
Why, then, should I be called a scientist if I am unwilling to challenge my model of the sun revolving around the earth and such? In contrast, the world of science (modern science, at least) will embrace you if you can disprove the current theories about the nature of the world. Show that a widely accepted model of science is likely wrong and, rather than being burned at the stake, you might get a Nobel prize.

What is the model of the non-philosopher? Perhaps it is the Bible or the constitution or whatever his Grandpa told him. If he is unwilling to hold these models up for scrutiny, then he does not seem to be much of a philosopher to me, any more than someone clinging to creationism, unwilling to even examine other options, could be called a scientist.

I take you to mean that, scientist, P or PP, he does not deserve to be so called unless he is open-ended, and even to mount challenge, which is a common characteristic among them all.

[chewybrian]

[
Why, then, should I be called a scientist if I am unwilling to challenge my model of the sun revolving around the earth and such? In contrast, the world of science (modern science, at least) will embrace you if you can disprove the current theories about the nature of the world. Show that a widely accepted model of science is likely wrong and, rather than being burned at the stake, you might get a Nobel prize.

What is the model of the non-philosopher? Perhaps it is the Bible or the constitution or whatever his Grandpa told him. If he is unwilling to hold these models up for scrutiny, then he does not seem to be much of a philosopher to me, any more than someone clinging to creationism, unwilling to even examine other options, could be called a scientist.

I take you to mean that, scientist, P or PP, he does not deserve to be so called unless he is open-ended, and even to mount challenge, which is a common characteristic among them all.

Yes. I can't be said to be "doing" science unless I make observations and create theories about what I am seeing. Further, I must attempt to show the theories work, but more importantly try to disprove them. After trying and failing to disprove the theory (and showing that it could have been disproved by my tests), then and only then I might latch onto it as a fact. Such a fact must be provisional, subject to be disproved any time.

The philosopher would seem to take over where the scientist is unable to show that his theories are grounded in facts and potentially falsifiable. The philosopher seems to work with shaky, loose probabilities and intuition. He can stack logic to the moon, but the foundations are not solid. If they were, he would be a scientist. The raw material for the philosopher is subjective, where it is objective for the scientist. So, the methods must be different, but the attitude should be similar. The philosopher should hold his theories to be provisional, subject to be disproved (to his subjective satisfaction) at any time.

"If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed." (Marcus Aurelius, “Meditations”)

[Pattern-chaser]

I can't be said to be "doing" science unless I make observations and create theories about what I am seeing. Further, I must attempt to show the theories work, but more importantly try to disprove them. After trying and failing to disprove the theory (and showing that it could have been disproved by my tests), then and only then I might latch onto it as a fact. Such a fact must be provisional, subject to be disproved any time.

I read something recently that clarified this for me. It stated something I should've realised, but had not. Science is an inductive practice, not a deductive one. If it was deductive, we could rely on its conclusions absolutely. But it is not. Science starts with (empirical) evidence — specific evidence — and seeks to generalise it. The logical/reasoning shortcomings of induction are well understood, so I don't need to repeat them.

Science is inductive, seeking to derive general rules from specific observations.

(Philosophy is not structured the same as science, but sometimes it has to rely on induction too, or even sheer guesswork, on occasion.)

[gad-fly]

It is never my intention to pick on the Philosopher, especially when there are so many around here. Not that he must be humble, but it helps for everyone to be humble. Nor does he need to deconstruct or reconstruct, but it helps if he can quiet down once in a while to review and re-examine.

One characteristic of the P is his arrogance in the belief that, in his propensity to P, he is smarter, especially since what he P is not what can be understood by himself, let alone by others. Say he is unreal, and he will identify you to be stupid. With due respect, I would say he is not smarter, and that applies to most P. I would, however, ascribe his talent to think more, and to think outside the box.

Sorry if I have made you uncomfortable. It is never the intention.

[JackDaydream]

It is never my intention to pick on the Philosopher, especially when there are so many around here. Not that he must be humble, but it helps for everyone to be humble. Nor does he need to deconstruct or reconstruct, but it helps if he can quiet down once in a while to review and re-examine.

One characteristic of the P is his arrogance in the belief that, in his propensity to P, he is smarter, especially since what he P is not what can be understood by himself, let alone by others. Say he is unreal, and he will identify you to be stupid. With due respect, I would say he is not smarter, and that applies to most P. I would, however, ascribe his talent to think more, and to think outside the box.

Sorry if I have made you uncomfortable. It is never the intention.

You probably don't make people feel uncomfortable but trying to classify the characteristics of a philosopher may not be particularly helpful. Philosophy, especially on forums, can become more and more about word definitions, which can leave out the deeper aspects of understanding. Personally, I wouldn't describe myself as a philosopher, but say that I am simply interested in philosophy. However, I would query your idea that a philosopher is necessarily arrogant about being smarter. It is in contradiction to Socrates' statement, 'I know nothing.' Perhaps, humility is a better approach to knowledge and understanding than one of arrogance.

[Sunday66]

It is never my intention to pick on the Philosopher, especially when there are so many around here. Not that he must be humble, but it helps for everyone to be humble. Nor does he need to deconstruct or reconstruct, but it helps if he can quiet down once in a while to review and re-examine.

One characteristic of the P is his arrogance in the belief that, in his propensity to P, he is smarter, especially since what he P is not what can be understood by himself, let alone by others. Say he is unreal, and he will identify you to be stupid. With due respect, I would say he is not smarter, and that applies to most P. I would, however, ascribe his talent to think more, and to think outside the box.

Sorry if I have made you uncomfortable. It is never the intention.

You probably don't make people feel uncomfortable but trying to classify the characteristics of a philosopher may not be particularly helpful. Philosophy, especially on forums, can become more and more about word definitions, which can leave out the deeper aspects of understanding. Personally, I wouldn't describe myself as a philosopher, but say that I am simply interested in philosophy. However, I would query your idea that a philosopher is necessarily arrogant about being smarter. It is in contradiction to Socrates' statement, 'I know nothing.' Perhaps, humility is a better approach to knowledge and understanding than one of arrogance.

I am a philosopher. I find the discussion on this thread baffling. Maybe folk need to have actual contact with a philosopher instead of making it all up.

[stevie]

I am a philosopher.

I don't envy you for this self-identification.

[JackDaydream]

It is never my intention to pick on the Philosopher, especially when there are so many around here. Not that he must be humble, but it helps for everyone to be humble. Nor does he need to deconstruct or reconstruct, but it helps if he can quiet down once in a while to review and re-examine.

One characteristic of the P is his arrogance in the belief that, in his propensity to P, he is smarter, especially since what he P is not what can be understood by himself, let alone by others. Say he is unreal, and he will identify you to be stupid. With due respect, I would say he is not smarter, and that applies to most P. I would, however, ascribe his talent to think more, and to think outside the box.

Sorry if I have made you uncomfortable. It is never the intention.

You probably don't make people feel uncomfortable but trying to classify the characteristics of a philosopher may not be particularly helpful. Philosophy, especially on forums, can become more and more about word definitions, which can leave out the deeper aspects of understanding. Personally, I wouldn't describe myself as a philosopher, but say that I am simply interested in philosophy. However, I would query your idea that a philosopher is necessarily arrogant about being smarter. It is in contradiction to Socrates' statement, 'I know nothing.' Perhaps, humility is a better approach to knowledge and understanding than one of arrogance.

I am a philosopher. I find the discussion on this thread baffling. Maybe folk need to have actual contact with a philosopher instead of making it all up.

I wonder about why you identify as a philosopher. Do you work as a philosopher professionally or at least have a PhD in the subject? I don't consider myself as a philosopher even though I have studied aspects of on courses. I prefer to say that I have an interest in it. However, I do take it seriously and have had contact with people who may be considered 'philosophers' because I have been taught and mentored by professors in the field, and I value their expertise.

As far as 'making it up' is concerned if is complex, because it is about ideas. Empirical methods and rational logic, as well as reading may be important, and it may be a juggling act. But, the question of the thread is about what is a philosopher which could be about the pursuit of philosophy on an individual level, or being recognized as one. On this forum, I see the actual discussion of philosophy as being more important than trying to clarify who is or isn't a philosophy, and on what basis. To do so would seem like trying to fit philosophers into a tick box classification system.

[gad-fly]

trying to classify the characteristics of a philosopher may not be particularly helpful.

I take you to mean that pointing out P's inclination to feel smarter than others is not particularly helpful.

[JackDaydream]

trying to classify the characteristics of a philosopher may not be particularly helpful.

I take you to mean that pointing out P's inclination to feel smarter than others is not particularly helpful.

I am not trying to criticise or attack you in any way. In most instances,each person believes in their own viewpoint primarily. Without some kind of belief in the importance of one's own beliefs, it would be hard to have any view at all. Some people may be considered smart by others, whereas others may not. However, there are probably no absolute measures and some of it may be about consensus and popularity, which may be limited and may fluctuate so much. Hopefully, there is no 'day of judgement' in which the real philosopher and those who are not are divided into the heaven or hell of philosophical consideration, in their aspirations and merits.