What makes a person a true philosopher?

[adawgj]

It seems that many people think that a philosopher is one who either sits and thinks or sits and thinks with friends and talks about it.

However I want to know what a philosopher is and does.

So what makes a true philosopher?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It seems that many people think that a philosopher is one who either sits and thinks or sits and thinks with friends and talks about it.

However I want to know what a philosopher is and does.

So what makes a true philosopher?

From Thomas Aquinas’ Commentrary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics :
" The Supreme Science of Truth, and Knowledge of Ultimate Causes

ARISTOTLE’S TEXT Chapters 1 & 2: 993b 19-994b 11

1. It is only right to call philosophy the science of truth. For the end of theoretical knowledge is truth, whereas that of practical knowledge is action; for even when practical men investigate the way in which something exists, they do not consider it in itself but in relation to some particular thing and to the present moment. But we know a truth only by knowing its cause. Now anything which is the basis of a univocal predication about other things has that attribute in the highest degree. Thus fire is hottest and is actually the cause of heat in other things. Therefore that is also true in the highest degree which is the cause of all subsequent things being true. For this reason the principles of things that always exist must be. true in the highest degree, because they are not sometimes true and sometimes not true. Nor is there any cause of their being, but they are the cause of the being of other things. Therefore insofar as each thing has being, to that extent it is true. "

True philosophy is the study of Metaphysics which is the study of the ultimate causes of things which exist in so far as they exist. It is a search for the cause of their existence, it is not a stucy of their physical structures and relationships, the latter belongs to science, as we understand the term. But there are underlying causes and principles by which things exist and it is this with which Metaphysics deals. The is philosophy, as traditionaly understood.

See Edward Feser’s blogspot and look around there for a better idea.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I believe one can be a true philosopher just by the search for wisdom. In that sense, most people are philosophers to a greater or lesser degree. But the search for wisdom implies first that the searcher is wise to be a searcher. So the philosopher is both a thinker, the doer of his own thoughts, and the recipient of the wisdom he has discovered. There are two kinds of wisdom: the kind that accumulates in the mind as a result of experiencing life and absorbing the wisdom of others; and the kind that is active wisdom, wisdom that requires the immediacy of good judgment impacting our lives just when we need it. This latter point needs elaboration. Certain kinds of wisdom are useful almost anytime; other kinds of wisdom should reflect the ability to made good judgments and draw good conclusions just when they are needed, and not some time later when that wisdom has arrived too late to be of use in a situation where it was needed. The former type of wisdom might be called theoretical wisdom; the latter type might be called practical wisdom. There are many people who possess learned wisdom but are lacking in the practical application of good judgment.

Nor should knowledge be confused with wisdom. It is conceivable for a scholar-candidate for advanced degrees of knowledge of all types (including scientific knowledge) to master all that knowledge without having acquired much at all in the ways of wisdom. I think of all the brilliant physicists who dedicated themselves to making nuclear weapons. They certainly were knowledgeable in their subject. Were they exercising wisdom by what they did? Is the world better off for what they did? Did the physicists themselves come to admit at some point that maybe there are some things science should not know, that science should not do, in order to put wisdom before knowledge?

 

[MatthewMckibben]

Philosophy comes from two Greek words, phileo & sophia which literally translates to “love of wisdom.” So, I would submit to you, any one who claims to be a philosopher has a love for wisdom.

Further, I don’t understand your first premise?

It seems that many people think a philosopher is one who either sits and thinks or sits and thinks with friends and talks about it.

That view is flawed and problematic. One must be considering every human on planet earth because, given mental capacity, everyone thinks, sits, & talks to friends to some extent and most humans do not identify as philosophers regarding these grounds. Someone who thinks, sits, thinks with friends, or talks does not deserve the title philosopher. Someone who pursues wisdom for the benefit of their teleological purpose deserves to be titled philosopher.

 

[celtspirit]

One can only call himself a real philosopher when he can say with all his brain

“I think therefore I yam”

edit ; Hmmmmm

 

[Bahman]

A good philosopher can deduce what is simple from what is composed.

 

[anixx]

If you are thinking of morning coffee, probably your not doing great as a philosopher. If you think and search the answers to the following question, maybe.

1. What is beauty, good, truth?
2. Who am I, where did I come from, where am I going?
3. What is happiness?
4. What is unhappiness?
5. What is death?
6. What happens after death?
7. Why can I think?
8. Why can’t you?
9. Who parks like this?

 

[jmcrae]

It seems that many people think that a philosopher is one who either sits and thinks or sits and thinks with friends and talks about it.

However I want to know what a philosopher is and does.

So what makes a true philosopher?

As a profession, I think it requires a Ph. D. in Philosophy, and several published books to one’s credit.

Otherwise, I suppose anyone who thinks about the meaning of life could be considered a “philosopher,” although I wouldn’t recommend that they try to find a job in the field of philosophy.

 

[pacomius]

who decides by What standard one should be called a philosopher? who gave the criteria for grading the first philosophers?

I have come to realize that philosophy is all about gazing beyond the surface into the depths of anything that otherwise would have passed simplistically. it is more important to ask than to answer

 

[Robert_Sock]

The true philosophers, I believe, are the contemplatives who God reveals true wisdom and understanding. It seems that Saint Thomas Aquinas was made aware of this before he died:

On 6 December, 1273, he laid aside his pen and would write no more. That day he experienced an unusually long ecstasy during Mass; what was revealed to him we can only surmise from his reply to Father Reginald, who urged him to continue his writings: “I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value.”
-Saint Thomas Aquinas

Man is so prone to errors in reasoning, and this is true of even the greatest of philosophers. This also applies to philosophers’ “cousins,” earthly scientists. Theories about how the universe was created and macro evolution, for example, should not be taken seriously. I believe that Saint Thomas Aquinas become well aware of this, and that advanced contemplatives are aware of this also.

LOVE!

 

[jmcrae]

who decides by What standard one should be called a philosopher? who gave the criteria for grading the first philosophers?

The first philosophers gave rise to the Universities, and it’s still the Universities that decide who is a philosopher, and grant them certification to practice.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The first philosophers gave rise to the Universities, and it’s still the Universities that decide who is a philosopher, and grant them certification to practice.

Yes, they must have posthumously awarded Socrates the certificate?

 

[Oreoracle]

A philosopher is someone who looks at the definition of “philosopher” in a dictionary and is so dissatisfied with it that they feel the real definition must be more convoluted.

In all seriousness, I think a hallmark of philosophy is its ability to “translate” content from one discipline into another. It lets us step back and say things like “Every problem in biology is reducible to physics” for example.

 

[Rhubarb]

A philosopher’s job is to work with concepts and ideas - often with concepts and ideas that underpin other disciplines.

For instance we all have a pretty good idea of what a scientist does when they do science. A philosopher of science considers what does it mean to do science, how does one do science, what is science and what isn’t science, and what are the implications of a scientific discovery that affects other concepts or ideas.

I don’t know what a “true philosopher” is, but I think a good philosopher has an open mind, and is always ready to entertain ideas or arguments even if they sound insane. A good philosopher asks questions and always seeks to clarify what is being said or asked. A good philosopher should be patient - philosophy is a very contentious field where ideas are often directly opposed. A good philosopher should be able to think critically about a subject, critically of their own views and their opponents views. I guess I could go on and on about what I think are qualities of a good philosopher, but yeah. They are professional thinkers. But the method of thinking philosophers use is generally different than how others think. At least that seems anecdotally to be the case when I deal with people outside the philosophy department.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In all seriousness, I think a hallmark of philosophy is its ability to “translate” content from one discipline into another. It lets us step back and say things like “Every problem in biology is reducible to physics” for example.

Or every problem in physics is reducible to metaphysics?

 

[Oreoracle]

Or every problem in physics is reducible to metaphysics?

Technically yes, although the extra level of abstraction isn’t always helpful. It isn’t obvious how we could convert the biological problem “are these two animals of the same species?” into a physics problem, and I’m sure it would be exponentially more difficult to turn that into a metaphysical problem.

 

[mixer_shan]

philosophy refers to the attempt to satisfy human mind to know the truth.this addiction is natural.
According to Pythagoras in his humility,called him self,
a lover of wisdom “philosopher”.
there for a philosopher is a seeker who seeks wisdom for it’s ownsake rather than for other motives.:

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, they must have posthumously awarded Socrates the certificate?

Um - they had Universities back then, and yes, he had the recognized qualifications to teach Philosophy there - that’s where he went to meet his students each day. I remember in my Art History classes, studying paintings of the school where he taught.

Where does this idea come from, that they weren’t educated or they didn’t have schools back then?

 

[steph_86]

Hi everyone,

I posted in the Popular Media forum before a poster recommended that I post here. I was not sure whether I should start a new thread, so instead, I decided to post in an existing thread. So, please forgive me if I may be off-topic.

In any case, I have written a series of four essays on science, religion, and the problem of knowledge and its relation to the existence of God. The essays are only ten pages long in total and I would like to know if anyone is interested in reading them.

As far as my main argument, it is that science is limited by its methodology and its philosophy on the knowledge it can provide. In recognition of that fact, simply because science does not provide knowledge on the existence of God, does not mean that it cannot be ascertained apart from scientific knowledge, and that in fact, it can be known by reason. For the preceding reasons, the problem of knowledge and of the knowledge of the existence of God, needs to be addressed at the philosophical level.

My ultimate goal, is to get the essays published either as a book, or to another Catholic blog, or perhaps, even a Catholic magazine. I really think that they are worth the read.

If anyone is interested, I can forward them the essays so that they can be read, reviewed, and edited. In fact, I would like for someone to assist in this regard.

I appreciate all the help.

 

[oldcelt]

I think that you become a true philosopher when people start to accept what you are saying. It doesn’t necessarily make what you are saying factual, but you have an audience.