Oh you bad man! You chopped my sentence in half and quoted only that which suited. The full sentence is:
Here we don’t preach at each other we share or we are supposed to share not preach. LOL You know the inference of the last part.
So for that you only get one lens from my glasses. Oh and I will need it back after you are done, I am near sighted. 
Yes, as you note Mastriani, telling people how to behave is a step below telling people how to think, but the link is only morality.
Kris, I think you and I are referring to two very different things but using the same word. English can be woefully inadequate at times. I would term what you are talking about as ‘philosophies’ and what I am talking about as ‘Philosophy.’ But, you could also call what I am talking about ‘Academic Philosophy’ or ‘Professional Philosophy’ or perhaps ‘Up itself Philosophy’ but either way it is a objective discipline within which there is no space for personal lifestyles that cannot be argued for in a certain way within a certain accepted structure. I would put those kind of animals in the cage labelled ‘philosophies’ or ‘spirituality’. I really think your concept of what ‘Philosophy’ is is what my concept of what ‘Spirituality’ is - sharing personal things and hoping to help people, but no one is gonna get any more intelligent.
Your idea that Philosophy doesn’t make anyone more intelligent I can’t agree with (I have a personal interest in not doing so!) and until they offer PhDs in Spirituality I will have to maintain that position. Oh wait, they do offer PhDs in spirituality. Ok, tough. Still - you need a really big brain to be awesome at Philosophy but most awesome philosophers did not always have a big brain - they thank the discipline itself for improving their critical thinking.
Yes, and I get to be one eventually to some unsuspecting future daughter-in-law. Hmm, my son knows me too well, he may keep her hidden from me.LOL
I am truly honored and flattered, Thank you
I dont’ think it’s much their job to dictate how people live their lives, but certainly to tell them.
The difference here is that when I come on ILP I am sometimes writing purely for my own amusement but for the most part, it’s for you reading this.
I, like most of us, have rather distinctly detailed observations about life and the concepts within. So in that light we are, in a way saying 'this is how you should define your life; and we all know that the definitions in our mind comprise the world we live in.
I’m not saying ‘you must think like this!’
I’m saying ‘Hey… think like this cause I think I’m pretty accurate’
Philosphers do the dirty work for the world. We delve into the chams of meaning, stretch our thought processes to the metaphysical limit with logical step-ladders just so we can return to earth and be like “Hey… want this concept? You should probably use it”
Philosophy is hardly a discipline, well maybe to some it is. It requires only an open mind and a capability to comprehend that there is more then one way to express and find the answer to 2+2. That takes no great intelligence just an ability to do gymnastics with your mind and gleaned knowledge of the world and universe.
Do you know why the great philosophers are great? Because they are published and copied and a great many people have read them and since they are the ones that are published, they are deemed proffesionals or leading experts. Piddle farts. That only means that they had the time to write stuff down and then get people to read it. To me they are just sources of input, nothing to live by, just learn from. They are no different then you or I, they just found a way to get philosophy to pay for their beer and smokes. They have intelligent ideas and philosophies but, I have seen much better here.
Sorry Carpathian, we do not agree, and as I stated, you have no understanding of what it was that I stated.
On your way then.
It’s an industry. There are little children who eat thanks to a parent making money from the profession of Philosophy. In order to become a professional you need to learn the way it works - it has a certain structure. It is not a free for all. It is a discipline. You don’t have to be a professional to enjoy it, but at least dont try to tell the professionals (i.e. the ones you criticise as making it only thanks to getting published yet their ideas being no better than something a bunch of amateurs on this site can come up with) that you know better than them.
You’re talking about Spirituality, or something else, here. Philosophy is not about how 2+2 can have more than one answer, it might be about why 2+2 is four and the explanations that requires may be Philosophy but at its core, for all but the very most fluffy modern thinkers and a few existentialists (who no one takes seriously except like minded existentialists) 2+2 will always (and indeed must always) equal 4 by definition.
But history disagrees with you - the first Philosophers were not ‘published’ and they affect the discipline still today! What gives you the authority to be so condescending to such a massive amount of people (about whom you seem to know relatively little!).
Such a cynic you are! 
I am tempted to ask why you think yourself capable of judging whether or not the philosophy here is better or worse philosophy when you seem to think it a subjective free-for-all where everyone is right in their own way and we’re all just here to share our own truth. I’m not saying you have to experience a website in a particular way but when it comes to what Philosophy IS, it is not us to us to define it. It’s up to the people who spent their life doing it and who get paid for it and teach it to others. I.e. the disciplined members of the discipline.
What do you mean by leading experts? Are you talking about Authority figures such as Aristotle or modern thinkers such as Daniel Dennett? I can assure you neither was/is in it for the money primarily. Honestly I think you are just spouting nonsense that while sounding quite ‘hip’ (“they found a way to make it pay for beer and smokes”) is actually quite offensive to anyone who cares. Cheer me up and tell me you were only half serious.
Ok the beer and smokes were only half serious.
The first Philosphers were not published? Then how did they become so well known if their thoughts were not written down and published? I am hardly condescending, just realistic in my view. Industry? Well it is good you make your living by teaching philosphy. I applaud that. but, still it does not make the philosphers great. They just got published that is all. Good philosphy or even great philosophy does not mean that you are a great philospher In my book that animal doesn’t exist. All that philosphy is, is a tool to learn about our universe. Nothing more nothing less, those that are published are not worth following because, if you follow you can never see what is ahead. Use what they learned as a tool and forge ahead that is how to use philosphy. Not follow what they say like a religous follower. That is silly and insulting to those that truly grasp Philosophy, such as those you teach your students about.
Oops missed that one little statement of yours so I have to edit. You said:
I would of social manners say “no offense but,” I just can’t do that here , I will apologize for any perceived rudness from my following statement baout your statement. So, I apologize whole heartedly for any perceived rudeness you feel comes from my statement.
My Statement: LMFAO what a load of bull! And so friggin snobby and condescending and judgemental and crappola. Go get a beer and loosen up, you might be a better educator for it.
What is philosophy but a mirror to see the world’s reflection from. Everyone has such a mirror. Proclaimed philosophers have a shinier mirror because they’ve made it their job to look at the mirror, that’s all.
One has an obligation to tell their kids how to lead their life, but not their follow man. That’s the religious and the politicans job.
For the record I don’t teach Philosophy - I class myself in the amateur bandwagon, but I do know what people who teach Philosophy say and think about the nature of Philosophy (for the most part at least). I agree it’s not about following ideas as if by religion - that is faith and Philosophy is not compatible with Faith.
They became well known because what they said made people sit up and listen!
There’s no point in arguing on this; its crystal clear;
The great philosophers are great not because they’re more published, but because of their important contribuition in the field.
Great philosophers are great because:
Reflection on this statement reveals to me that human life is really a philosophical endeavor. We do not realize it but every thought we have, every decision we make, and every action we take are based upon some philosophical assumptions. Philosophers have molded these assumptions into theories that now form the very essence of our life.
We ‘know’ what is real, what is knowledge, what is moral action, how the mind works, etc. because these philosophical theories permeate every aspect of our life. Metaphysics is a philosophy word that really means ‘what is real, what is time, what is essence, what is causation, etc’.
Of course their contributions were important they got published! So that is what the field has to work with, the published works. That is not hard to figure out. If they were not published how important would they be? Zip, Zero, That they have intelligence in their work is undeniable but, that certainly does not qualify them as the best nor authoritive on philosphy. It is just their opinion after all, educated yes but, still an opinion. I would put a few of the characters here up against them and it would prove more benificial to philosphy then anything else.
No. It is an ethicist’s job to tell people how to live their lives. People live their lives competently. If an ethical system is correct then everybody is already using it.
It is the philosopher’s job to deduct by thinking logically. Philosophers are merely scientists without experiments. It takes longer that way, but it is cheap (free) and can go where experimentation cannot.
The woman is arrogant and dumb.
i dont think so… there’s a progress in this field aswell.
Hey, notice the major edit?
We know that there are trillions of humans on the face of this earth right now. Now if we add to that the billions and or maybe trillions that have died since man first started Philosphy plus the trillions or quadrillions that have yet to be born.
That number would be phenominal. So right now to date there are a mere thousand or four thousand people that have contributed in any significant amount to philosophy. Why? Because they had the means to get published! Or someone took the time to write down their thoughts then publish it for them. Odds are pretty good the the best has never or will never make that contribution list. Why?
Because maybe they care more for helping others then spending time writing thoughts down or maybe because they just don’t have the time to do it. They maybe struggling to survive. The best on that list are the best because they were published and acknowledged. It certainly does not give them the right to any such title. Maybe the best only cares to teach when it is needed Maybe the best is yet to come.
Throwing the titles master and the best shows that true thought has not struck. Titles are for those that need an ego boost or feel inferior or for those that pay homage because they feel inferior to those they give the title to. Piffle. it is an insult to any philospher.
Obw -
I have to disagree with you, here. Just my opinion. But I would rank Kris as a better philosopher, and just plain smarter person, than a man many would call the greatest philosopher of all time - Immanuel Kant. In a way, this does not say much, because I think that Immanuel Kant was just a big fucking dope. But he does have that rep.
In fact, Obw, I would rank you as smarter and a better philosopher than Kant, because I do not think that you are a big fucking dope. I am not paying either you or Kris a left-handed compliment - I am making a minimal case.
I will compare myself to Hegel. It is clear, at least to me, that Hegel was a much smarter guy than I am. Cleans my clock. But he was wrong about everything. How could he not have been? He made it all up. There is a difference between great and good.
If philosophy cannot teach us to make these kinds of judgements (whether you agree with my specific judgements here or not) then it is indeed a useless thing. No professional wishes that his or her influence remains entirely within the realm of academia. One of the things we miserable peons can learn from these demigods of reason is how to make judgements about other demigods of reason.
I wish that I had a record of a conversation that I once had with a paid professional philosopher. He couldn’t formulate a valid argument. Couldn’t do it. Was getting paid - as a logician, if he was to be believed. Maybe he was lying. It was on another board. I’ll never know.
But Kant, the philosopher, anyway, is a big fucking dope either way. Can’t think of a single thing he was right about that someone else wasn’t already right about before him, and, well - the guy just couldn’t think straight. He has more inconsistencies, failures of logic and just plain, ordinary stupidities per page than a Bill O’Reilly book.
In academia, in publishing, in academic publishing - there is this thing politics. If you ignore this, you miss. Surely these are very smart people. Nonetheless, I have read journal articles that a bright junior high school kid could tear apart.
By the way - all philosophy, every word of it, everything that every philosopher has ever written - ever - is, in a sense at least, one thing and one thing only. It’s not epistemology, not the philosophy of history (whetever the hell that is), not linguistics, not theory of mind, or of human nature, or even (primarily) metaphysics, or any of the other categories of philosophy your favorite textbook might mention.
It’s morality.
It is Nature’s job to teach us how to live. Humans ‘teaching’ humans is an educational system that has critically screwed up life. We are just too busy telling each other how to live to have noticed.