What makes a person a true philosopher?

[Charlemagne_III]

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?

Yes, they had schools back then. But the Ph.D. didn’t come into existence until the Middle Ages in Europe when the Catholic Church invented and sponsored the university system.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, they had schools back then. But the Ph.D. didn’t come into existence until the Middle Ages in Europe when the Catholic Church invented and sponsored the university system.

Right, the modern designations didn’t exist, yet. But at the same time, he was recognized and qualified to have the title, “Philosopher.” He wasn’t just some random person coming along and appointing himself.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

I don’t know about the exponentially more difficult business.

One thing I know for sure is that it is the most exponentially difficult business in the world to explain the Big Bang. It will probably never be done to our complete satisfaction without looking seriously into the question of a Creator God.

Physics deals with physical reality. But you can’t study physics at the same time assuming that the mind is a physical reality and nothing more. That would be matter studying matter. Quite a trick, don’t you think? So the underlying principle of metaphysics is that it is the business of studying something more basic than physics: that would be the study of the Self and the destiny of the Self in a physical universe. Questions that arise would be whether there is a God, whether we have a soul, whether we are immortal, whether we can find happiness, what is the beautiful and the true, what distinguishes good from evil, etc. All these questions defy the realm of scientific inquiry.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Right, the modern designations didn’t exist, yet. But at the same time, he was recognized and qualified to have the title, “Philosopher.” He wasn’t just some random person coming along and appointing himself.

This is debatable. There is no record of Socrates that I know of regarding his being appointed a resident philosopher of Athens. He was simply one who roamed the streets looking for a good argument. And he certainly found a few. He was widely respected, but at the same time also widely disrespected, so who would have been in a position to give him the title? Plato? But Plato was his student. Aristophanes in a play referred to him as a philosopher, but more so as a buffoon.

In those days it was simply a matter of an aspiring thinker to study under a man considered to be wise, accumulate a certain amount of knowledge and wisdom, then go out and offer his services to whomever would pay. This was the strategy of the Sophists, whom Socrates himself did not much respect. But this was because, being retired, Socrates did not depend on his teaching for a salary.

If you hear of any system prevailing at the time for the appointment of philosophers, I’d like to hear about that. I really don’t think such a system developed in the West until the monks invented it in the 12th Century.

 

[KindredSoul]

I believe that a true philosopher is anyone who “loves wisdom” (which is the meaning of the word “philosophy”), and who therefore seeks it out in earnestness. Anyone who is not content to just accept truth, but who seeks to understand it as well, who contemplates on it, who uses his sense of reason to dissect it and grow in it. Practically speaking, this does mean that true philosophers tend to be the “thinkers”, those who are not content to just go about their daily lives, but who have a need to contemplate about things as well.

That said, as a Catholic I believe Catholics absolutely should be willing to “just accept truth” regardless of understanding, but just because we are willing to accept truth “no matter what” does not mean that we can’t seek to understand it farther at the same time. A philosopher is willing to “just accept truth” if he must, but he’s never content with it.

From our own theological point of view, the ultimate realization of a philosopher’s dream can only come in the Beatific Vision, when at last we will fully see and understand all which, on this earth, we can only understand in part. So I dare say that a true philosopher will never be content with his search until he has attained that ultimate and perfect understanding of Truth.

But I also believe that there is a sort of philosophy in ruminating on Truth. That is to say, a philosopher need not constantly be seeking new truths or new insights, but in his love for Truth he may also derive great joy just in contemplating those truths and insights he has already obtained. After all, there is no requirement in “loving wisdom” that says it must be NEW or NOVEL truths that one loves. So in that sense of the word, anybody who even loves to ruminate on Truth, rather than just “accepting it but not really reflecting on it,” might be said to be a philosopher as well, at least in the purest sense of the word…

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[ChainBreaker]

A true philosopher is concerned with answering or finding answers to ultimate questions about the reality in which we find ourselves, and they spend a large portion of their lives seeking enlightenment on the matter and sharing what they believe to be true and debating perceived truths.

Philosophers are generally uncomfortable with the idea of simply accepting the world to which they are presented, while other people just get on with the game of consuming and releasing waste.

 

[jmcrae]

This is debatable. There is no record of Socrates that I know of regarding his being appointed a resident philosopher of Athens. He was simply one who roamed the streets looking for a good argument.

That’s very Romantic, but even the most primitive societies assign roles according to merit and qualifications, or else by hereditary appointment - you don’t get to be a Shaman or a Chief, or an Elder, by randomly deciding to call yourself that. These roles are either inherited or merited.

He was widely respected, but at the same time also widely disrespected, so who would have been in a position to give him the title? Plato? But Plato was his student. Aristophanes in a play referred to him as a philosopher, but more so as a buffoon.

The same thing happens in modern Universities. The fact that some people didn’t like him doesn’t mean that he had no recognized qualifications.

 

[ChainBreaker]

That’s very Romantic, but even the most primitive societies assign roles according to merit and qualifications, or else by hereditary appointment - you don’t get to be a Shaman or a Chief, or an Elder, by randomly deciding to call yourself that. These roles are either inherited or merited.

The same thing happens in modern Universities. The fact that some people didn’t like him doesn’t mean that he had no recognized qualifications.

I’m sorry but it is simply not true that one need be merited or related in order to serve the function of a philosopher. Of course one might not be taken seriously if one has no merit by a recognised system of merit, but that is more to do with the right to teach for financial gain under a specific academic authority.

Anybody can serve the function of a philosopher and it is not unlikely that you would do better than a man or woman that is merited since philosophy is to do with understanding than it has to do academic title.

 

[Oreoracle]

I don’t know about the exponentially more difficult business.

I’m reasoning mostly by analogy on that point, since I’ve never actually attempted to convert a biological problem into a metaphysical one. Basically, since metaphysics takes as broader perspective than physics, and physics take a broader perspective than chemistry, and chemistry take a broader perspective than biology, surely the language of metaphysics is far removed from the language of biology.

I don’t think there’s a way to “jump” directly from biology to metaphysics, so you have to tediously translate the biological problem discipline by discipline, and by the time it reaches metaphysics, it will probably be messy. And that makes sense, because if it were easy to do that, we would just have everyone study metaphysics and be done with it.

That would be matter studying matter. Quite a trick, don’t you think?

I don’t think so, honestly. Perhaps it’s a mildly amusing situation, but I wouldn’t say it’s self-contradictory.

I mean, there are lots of things that sound pretty alarming but aren’t contradictory. A particle occupying multiple places at once sounds absurd, but the idea is the basis of quantum mechanics.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m sorry but it is simply not true that one need be merited or related in order to serve the function of a philosopher. Of course one might not be taken seriously if one has no merit by a recognised system of merit, but that is more to do with the right to teach for financial gain under a specific academic authority.

Anybody can serve the function of a philosopher and it is not unlikely that you would do better than a man or woman that is merited since philosophy is to do with understanding than it has to do academic title.

If you want to privately think you’re a philosopher (or a duck, or a superhero), that’s fine.

If you apply to a University to teach philosophy because you’ve convinced yourself that you’re a philosopher, and you have no credentials, don’t be offended if you don’t get the job.

And don’t be offended if your family members think you’re a notch off the bubble.

 

[ChainBreaker]

If you want to privately think you’re a philosopher (or a duck, or a superhero), that’s fine.

And if I want to privately call my self a Christian I can regardless of how many people insult me…

If you apply to a University to teach philosophy because you’ve convinced yourself that you’re a philosopher, and you have no credentials, don’t be offended if you don’t get the job.

And don’t be offended if your family members think you’re a notch off the bubble.

If I was looking for a career in philosophy then you would be correct. But that was not what I was getting at.

It seems that you have been lulled into this false belief that philosophy is an activity only for those with an academic merit; as if to say the only true philosophy or philosopher is one that that has been merited by an academic authority. But it is unlikely if not blatantly false that philosophy started out as an academic process or title. Am I not a musician if I privately study and produce music? You are clearly being unreasonable.

 

[jmcrae]

If I was looking for a career in philosophy then you would be correct. But that was not what I was getting at.

If you don’t plan to take up a career in philosophy, then what would be the point of calling yourself a philosopher?

It seems that you have been lulled into this false belief that philosophy is an activity only for those with an academic merit; as if to say the only true philosophy or philosopher is one that that has been merited by an academic authority. But it is unlikely if not blatantly false that philosophy started out as an academic process or title. Am I not a musician if I privately study and produce music? You are clearly being unreasonable.

It’s a lot more likely that someone could acquire the skills to become a musician through non-academic means, than that they could acquire academic skills such as philosophy without academic training.

And even with music and the arts, there is a certain level where formal training becomes required. They don’t hire you for First Violin in the Philharmonic Orchestra if you’ve never taken violin lessons, even if you can play a mean jig.

 

[ChainBreaker]

If you don’t plan to take up a career in philosophy, then what would be the point of calling yourself a philosopher?

Don’t you mean what would be the point of doing philosophy? Doing philosophy is what makes one a philosopher.

It’s a lot more likely that someone could acquire the skills to become a musician through non-academic means, than that they could acquire academic skills such as philosophy without academic training.

Your doubts are irrelevant; the principle remains the same. If a philosophical argument is reasonable, then it is reasonable; it does not need an academic title to be accepted as true. The word unlikely is not the same thing as the word impossible. If you have access to the right information, if you are capable of learning, and you have good conceptual skills then it is possible to become a great philosopher without ever stepping foot in a university. Some people sometimes have a gift and a calling, and I assure you that lack of merit is not necessarily a stumbling block unless you plan on being a university teacher.

And even with music and the arts, there is a certain level where formal training becomes required. They don’t hire you for First Violin in the Philharmonic Orchestra if you’ve never taken violin lessons, even if you can play a mean jig.Philharmonic Orchestra

That is just not true. Nobody has to join an orchestra. You can make your own orchestra and the audience can decide how your music sounds. Who trained the first musician? Let me guess…The Philharmonic Orchestra university!!!:rotfl

 

[jmcrae]

That is just not true. Nobody has to join an orchestra. You can make your own orchestra and the audience can decide how your music sounds.

And I can go around calling myself a “carpenter” because I once hammered a nail into a board without bending it.

There is more to a title than just claiming the title and doing one or two of the things that people who have actually earned that title do.

Who trained the first musician? Let me guess…The Philharmonic Orchestra university!!!

Jubal was the first musician, and it was God who infused him with the knowledge of music. (Genesis 4:21)

 

[ChainBreaker]

And I can go around calling myself a “carpenter” because I once hammered a nail into a board without bending it.

That’s hardly what I am saying. So according to you, there was no such thing as philosophers until some university created them out of nothing.

Jubal was the first musician, and it was God who infused him with the knowledge of music. (Genesis 4:21)

According to you only universities have the right to call people musicians since academic merit is what justifies the title. Looks like either the bible has error in it or God is not all powerful.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s hardly what I am saying. So according to you, there was no such thing as philosophers until some university created them out of nothing.

No. I am saying that it is insulting to real philosophers, if you think you can call yourself a philosopher just because you occasionally have pretty thoughts.

According to you only universities have the right to call people musicians since academic merit is what justifies the title.

Universities, despite their many failings, are the institutions who know what it takes to be: artist, philosopher, musician, engineer, doctor - and who can tell us who actually is, and who is not.

 

[Oreoracle]

My guess is that jmcrae is that guy who majored in philosophy and insists on being addressed by his title at Christmas parties.

Calm down, bud. No one is trying to take your grade-inflated liberal arts degree from you. If it makes you feel better, we’ll call ourselves philosophers and you can be a super-philosopher, how about that?

 

[ChainBreaker]

No. I am saying that it is insulting to real philosophers

Its either yes or no. If there were no philosophers until they were created out of nothing and given merit by a university, then I guess it is insulting to real philosophers.

You’re not very good at this are you

Universities, despite their many failings, are the institutions who know what it takes to be: artist, philosopher, musician, engineer, doctor - and who can tell us who actually is, and who is not.

Then I guess there were no artists philosophers or musicians until universities came along, right?

 

[ChainBreaker]

My guess is that jmcrae is that guy who majored in philosophy and insists on being addressed by his title at Christmas parties.

Calm down, bud. No one is trying to take your grade-inflated liberal arts degree from you. If it makes you feel better, we’ll call ourselves philosophers and you can be a super-philosopher, how about that?

 

[adawgj]

Wow never thought my thread would get so big.

So far it seems like i stirred up some debate on a what makes a person a philosopher.

Which is good. Keep it up mates.