What Classifies Someone As A Philosopher?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Storm

Adam_PoE
A philosopher is one who specializes in Philosophy, not simply one who lives and thinks according to a particular philosophy, i.e. ideology.

Mindship
I'm not sure what the question is asking.

If you mean professionally, a philosopher is someone (usually) versed in the history and methodologies of Philosophy and who gets paid for talking/writing about his view on the Big Picture. He or she (yes, she, dammit) is generally recognized by others (especially the intelligentsia) as smart and insightful.

On the other hand...a "philosopher" may also be someone who talks a good game (I'm Not necessarily being sarcastic here) but has no marketable skills. smokin'

PS. Personally, I would Not classify Jesus as a philosopher.

Regret
Here is my opinion, it is a debated position, and is based in my belief of the answer to the question, "What is a philosopher?" A question that I believe requires a philosophical approach to properly answer. This question must be answered prior to defining Christ as a philosopher or not.

Lao Tsu was considered a philosopher, yet his teachings are the basis of a religious movement. A philosopher is someone who offers a unique perspective on life and/or thinking/rationale. An individual with a master's or doctorate in philosophy may have an extensive knowledge of philosophy, but they are not necssarily philosophers themselves. A true philosopher is a rare commodity, and religious individuals are members of this group, imo.

Christ is a philosopher in that he presented philosophical questions and answers to these questions. He stated that, the premeditation of an act was of the same substance as the act. He presented commentary on the question of judgement, stating that one with error is incapable of making a judgement without the possibility of error in said judgement, and thus should not judge. Many of Christ's statements can be taken as philosophical commentary on Jewish beliefs, thus he most definitely can be considered a philosopher of religion at the very least.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Regret
Christ is a philosopher in that he presented philosophical questions and answers to these questions. He stated that, the premeditation of an act was of the same substance as the act. He presented commentary on the question of judgement, stating that one with error is incapable of making a judgement without the possibility of error in said judgement, and thus should not judge. Many of Christ's statements can be taken as philosophical commentary on Jewish beliefs, thus he most definitely can be considered a philosopher of religion at the very least.

This makes him a theologian.

debbiejo
I'm not a philosopher........ sad But I philosize a lot.

Bardock42
what

debbiejo
I try on different philos? I size em up....maybe...Quite different I know..but it works for me.... blink

Mindship
Originally posted by debbiejo
I try on different philos? I size em up....maybe...Quite different I know..but it works for me.... blink
That would make your overall philosophy one of pragmatism. evil face

debbiejo
By Jolly, you may be right!

I have name now............Blessed be Mindship!!

*lights a candle in his honor*

Eclipso
A philosopher is someone who thinks outside the box,

And wonders why things are outside the box,

And not in the box with us where they belong,

And why there is an outside the box to begin with,

And if it's better outside the box then in,

And why the box isn't bigger,

And... *gets smacked in the head*

Ouch, oh right then,

A Philospher is someone who thinks allot about weird things.

debbiejo
then they are Thinkers/Wonderers/Dreamers.........yes....I thought so.....I just haven't read many of them.

Regret
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This makes him a theologian. A theologian studies religion, not necessarily the philosophies behind religion. He by no manner defines a religion.

If religion is held as fact by the individual, it should not be held against him if it is an integral piece of his philosophy. Existential proposition is all that religion is, if one shapes a philosophy using such a proposition as a portion of consideration one is still engaging in the very acts that define a philosopher. It is merely semantics separating Christ, Buddha, Lao Tsu, etc. from Socrates, Plato and the rest, the exact same argument used by mainstream Christianity to separate Mormons from what they term "Christians." Religion is only philosophy with a deity assumption attached, although the position one has on deity impacts whether one believes religion is God's philosophy or man's.

Fire
To me personally a philosopher is someone who thinks (can be about anything) specifically about 'why' questions. Why do we do this, Why do we do that.

I know tons of people won't agree with this definition but that's there problem. I don't believe that one needs to have a philosophy degree to be a philosopher. I know a few people who have a philosophy degree who I don't consider philosophers. Yes knowledge of philosophy is useful for anyone wanting to be a philosopher but not essential in my book.

My favorite field of philosophy is political philosophy because science can't say anything about it.

Mindship
Originally posted by Regret
A theologian studies religion, not necessarily the philosophies behind religion. He by no manner defines a religion.

If religion is held as fact by the individual, it should not be held against him if it is an integral piece of his philosophy. Existential proposition is all that religion is, if one shapes a philosophy using such a proposition as a portion of consideration one is still engaging in the very acts that define a philosopher. It is merely semantics separating Christ, Buddha, Lao Tsu, etc. from Socrates, Plato and the rest, the exact same argument used by mainstream Christianity to separate Mormons from what they term "Christians." Religion is only philosophy with a deity assumption attached, although the position one has on deity impacts whether one believes religion is God's philosophy or man's.
I copied this from another thread:

"Philosophy is an analytical perspective on life which may or may not involve reverence.
Religion is a perspective of reverence which may or may not involve critical analysis."

As you can see, there is overlap, but the reason I don't consider Jesus a philosopher is this:
Jesus, being a devoutly religious individual, did not even consider--Would not even consider--questioning God's existence. The Reality of God is taken as an absolute given from which everything else derives, including any critical analysis of His intent, His laws, and so on.
A "true" philosopher, on the other hand, would (at least, potentially) Question Everything via critical analysis, including whether a Deity exists or not. He or she may later arrive at the conclusion that a God exists, but the reverence / religious perspective was not there at Square One, where in Jesus' case it was.

Again, there is overlap, but I think what separates philosophy and religion is the starting point.

Blue_Hefner

Marxman
Originally posted by Regret
A theologian studies religion, not necessarily the philosophies behind religion. He by no manner defines a religion.

If religion is held as fact by the individual, it should not be held against him if it is an integral piece of his philosophy. Existential proposition is all that religion is, if one shapes a philosophy using such a proposition as a portion of consideration one is still engaging in the very acts that define a philosopher. It is merely semantics separating Christ, Buddha, Lao Tsu, etc. from Socrates, Plato and the rest, the exact same argument used by mainstream Christianity to separate Mormons from what they term "Christians." Religion is only philosophy with a deity assumption attached, although the position one has on deity impacts whether one believes religion is God's philosophy or man's.

I agree and disagree. Theology is philosophy but with a religious outlook. A theologian would be a philosopher who philosophizes (if that's a word) on life through religion.

debbiejo
Oh my god......It's soooooo me...... cool big grin

quickshot
Philosophers have degrees and read up on these things.

Ideaologists are people with their own philosophy

lord xyz

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, first they must think independantly. Second they must make sense. And finally, be heard.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Oh my god......It's soooooo me...... cool big grin

she gets one out of three at least

debbiejo
I only read the impressive posts.......



I AM...... smart

Strangelove
I personally don't think this has been answered sufficiently, so I'm going to weigh in.

What Storm is asking, IMO, is that what made Descartes, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Pascal, Spinoza, and all those guys become known as philosophical minds?

My take is that to become a 'philosopher,' one has to seriously question the construct of reality, society. In essence, a true philosopher has to try and tackle the 2 Big Questions: Who are we and Why are we here, and answer them with some validity. Philosophers have to operate under assumptions all the time (Descartes: I am the only thing I can trust that exists) and so on and so forth. However, because of their innate skeptical nature, it's impossible for them to certain.

That's why I think Jesus is not a philosopher. He did not question anything. He merely stated, matter-of-factly who we are and why we are here. There was no question. He thought he had all the answers.

Marxman
Philosophers can definitely be certain. Socrates questioned what justice was in "The Republic". He discussed the different views of all the people who offered their opinion on the subject. Finally he put forth his own opinion. He was pretty certain about his idea of justice.

Maybe in the first 30 years of Jesus' life he asked himself these questions of life. Then he went out to teach the last 3 years of his life the answers that he came up with.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Marxman
Philosophers can definitely be certain. Socrates questioned what justice was in "The Republic". He discussed the different views of all the people who offered their opinion on the subject. Finally he put forth his own opinion. He was pretty certain about his idea of justice.Maybe so, but the philosophers that I read are pretty heavily questioning or second-guessing themselves

Fire
The idea of justice presented in 'The Republic' is not one that is shared by many people today. But that doesn't change the fact that Socrates was certain about his view on justice.

Quiero Mota

speiderman
they are depressed and pessmistic

The Libertine

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.