What makes a person a true philosopher?

[opusAquinas]

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?

To begin with: 1) Good intuition and then 2) logic.

Have you heard of myers-briggs personality types. All true philosophers are INTJ’s in my opinion. St Thomas Aquinas and Augustine were. There are some INTP’s but they are the most often confused since they often deify logic without reference to intuition (Kant and most all analytic philosophers).

 

[Petaro]

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?

A true philosopher is a person whose philosophy is true?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

Richard Dawkins found it easy to jump from biology to metaphysics when he said that the theory of evolution made it respectable to be an atheist. I’m not saying that’s a valid jump. In fact, it’s a pretty messy jump!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

Yes, and you can certainly be a mathematician without a degree in mathematics.

Before he reached his teen years, Blaise Pascal demonstrated extraordinary insight into complex mathematical problems by proving Euclid’s 32nd Proposition and by discovering an error in René Descartes’ geometry. At the age of sixteen he sent his “Essay on Conics” (today referred to as Pascal’s Theorem) to the great mathematician Père Mersenne in Paris. At the age of twenty he astounded the mathematical world with his "Treatise on the Arithmetical Triangle.”

So I think we call a person by a certain title if he has earned it, regardless of whether he has a degree or two conferred on him.

 

[KindredSoul]

Yes, and you can certainly be a mathematician without a degree in mathematics.

Before he reached his teen years, Blaise Pascal demonstrated extraordinary insight into complex mathematical problems by proving Euclid’s 32nd Proposition and by discovering an error in René Descartes’ geometry. At the age of sixteen he sent his “Essay on Conics” (today referred to as Pascal’s Theorem) to the great mathematician Père Mersenne in Paris. At the age of twenty he astounded the mathematical world with his "Treatise on the Arithmetical Triangle.”

So I think we call a person by a certain title if he has earned it, regardless of whether he has a degree or two conferred on him.

I agree with this. We must keep in mind that people who are paid and have careers based on certain titles do not hold a monopoly on claiming that title, assuming the title also has a broader meaning than “one who makes money doing X.” So long as a person who is sufficient (or especially if he is proficient) in and regularly engages in philosophy is not claiming to have a degree in it, and therefore not deceiving anyone, it is accurate for him to call himself a philosopher.

I might call my wife the primary cook in our family, for instance, but that doesn’t mean she has a culinary degree or is a career cook, nor should she have to be in order to have the title of “cook” should she desire to claim herself as one. Because the idea of a cook as someone who cooks well is broader and more fundamental than the idea of a cook as someone who makes money doing it. Just so, “philosopher” is not merely a job title, it is a descriptive noun. If the description fits, the title is appropriate, regardless of whether one holds a degree or earns a living doing it.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[PRmerger]

You’re not very good at this are you

Be careful, ChainBreaker. Comments such as the above are reportable and are not consonant with the general bonhomie that exists here on the CAFs.

Even if you post some sort of cutesy smilie accompanying a snarky comment, you may be reported for such comments.

In the future, be a bit more circumspect.

At any rate, since you are a newbie I give you some leeway.

And, after that piece of advice, I offer a welcome!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The question has been asked: “What makes a person a true philosopher?”

Another question that might be asked is: “What makes a person a false philosopher?”

The difference, I think, is in the circumstances of one’s life. The true philosopher needs to be well versed in the art of reasoning. He must also have acquired a familiarity with the talent for insight. On top of this, he needs to be emotionally mature and stable. It helps greatly in this regard if he has been reared with objectively true and reliable values.

The false philosopher might have none of the above traits and still call himself a philosopher. He might even be regarded by others like himself as a philosopher, and be applauded by the world for great achievements when in fact he has failed miserably. Such philosophers have their day, but in due time are forgotten. Nietzsche once had his followers, but he is not so well read and admired today.

The world’s soul has been transformed, as he imagined it would be, but not toward the Superman. At present the case could be made that we are the Superbeast.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Be careful, ChainBreaker. Comments such as the above are reportable and are not consonant with the general bonhomie that exists here on the CAFs.

Even if you post some sort of cutesy smilie accompanying a snarky comment, you may be reported for such comments.

In the future, be a bit more circumspect.

At any rate, since you are a newbie I give you some leeway.

And, after that piece of advice, I offer a welcome!

Thanks, God Bless.

 

[Hans_W]

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.

Hi Steph 86

I would be interested in reading your essays. I have studied philosophy here in New Zealand and currently write a thesis on methodological and ontological naturalism.

 

[Hans_W]

Without reading all the previous posts (and I apologize for any repeats), here are the headings from an introductory university-level book on philosophy:

Core Questions in Philosophy (Elliott Sober)

• Philosophy of religion
• Theory of knowledge (epistemology)
• Philosophy of mind
• Ethics

There are many other branches: logic, philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics, environmental philosophy, philosophy of language, to name just a few.

 

[Nihilist]

A true philosopher is someone who says (and believes), like Socrates, “I know nothing except that I know nothing.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A true philosopher is someone who could never be a victim of false scientism.

He could never be trapped in that paper bag of logic.

 

[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.

There were also carpenters around before they came up with the idea of the Carpenter’s Union, but it would be foolhardy to hire a non-union carpenter just because he is calling himself a carpenter - anybody can call themselves anything, but credentials do, in fact, matter.

 

[opusAquinas]

You have to have the right temperament to be a True Philosopher. Myers-Briggs is important here. INTJ’s are True Philosopher. All the famous one’s were. Hegel, Heidegger, Plato, Aristotle. Kant was an INTP. he worshipped logic but had awful intuition.

I think the real question here is: who is a True Truth Seeker. Those who follow the Holy Spirit.

 

[ChainBreaker]

There were also carpenters around before they came up with the idea of the Carpenter’s Union, but it would be foolhardy to hire a non-union carpenter just because he is calling himself a carpenter - anybody can call themselves anything, but credentials do, in fact, matter.

Credentials only matter if i am going for a Job.

Philosophy doesn’t have to be a Job, but it can be something you do greatly.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Credentials only matter if i am going for a Job.

Even then they may not matter if the quality of the education that produced the credentials is inferior.

I’ve known Doctors of Education who cannot write one paragraph of prose without oodles of errors.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A true philosopher loves knowledge and wisdom, but loves wisdom more than knowledge.

 

[steph_86]

Hi Steph 86

I would be interested in reading your essays. I have studied philosophy here in New Zealand and currently write a thesis on methodological and ontological naturalism.

Alright, I am sending them to you by personal message. Thanks again.