Some negativity towards "philosophers"

There was a nice little “poem”, if you will, written by a poet I prefer not to name to save the essence of this post. The name of the poem is The Philosopher and it goes as follows:

Do you feel what I feel
see what I see, hear what I
hear, there is a line you must
draw between your dream
world and reality.
Do you live my life or share
the breath I breathe.
Lies feed your judgement of others.
Behold how the blind lead each other.
The philosopher.
You know so much about nothing at all.

Ideas that fall under shadows
of theories that stand tall.
Thoughts that grow narrow
upon being verbally released.
Your mind is not your own,
what sounds more mentally
stimulating is how you make
your choice.

So you preach about how I’m
supposed to be, yet you don’t
know your own sexuality.
Lies feed your judgement of
others.
Behold how the blind lead
each other.
The philosopher.
You know so much about
nothing at all.

I found this little poem very interesting. I don’t know about what you guys have to say about it. That is why I posted this. Basically, the poet claims the philosopher knows a whole bunch about nothing at all. That a philosopher is narrow minded and tries to tell people how things should be. I agree with the poet and can support his claims.

And the oracle said, Socrates was the wisest man in Athens.
but Socrates said he knew he knew nothing, unlike others
who were ignorant of their lack of knowledge.
A philosopher is someone who knows they know nothing,
but is willing to learn.

Kropotkin

Then ILP has very few philosophers.

I know everything. No really. Ask me anything. Anything at all.

Well, that would mean this forum needs a new name…

How about…
‘I love to be right’

What about any philosopher who writes a book? Are they not knowing anything? Nietzsche for example. One of the most profound philosophers to this date and he seems to know a lot. Is he not a philosopher in Socrates’ definition? I like where you are going with this. There are philosophers … and then there are people like Nietzsche.

Well, it all boils down to a defintion. And I don’t think that there is one universal definition, an absolute one, describing the habits of the philosopher. I like thinking of myself as a philosopher, since I read books on the subject - not because I’m constantly repeating to myself that I don’t know anything, and therefore I have no right to say anything, because it’d not matter anyway. I think that most philosophers arrive at a point where they accept the fact that all things are unobservables, and that we will need to find solutions to the problems we face in life through our own subjectivity. Most people I know of nowadays don’t like to philosophize with me, because they are obsessed with the objective, with the axioms of science… ‘There is an objective world out there’ and ‘Everything has to be validated through experiment’… To enter a field where this all does not count any longer, they don’t like it.

I think that’s the big diffirence between a philosopher and a scientist. Whether you hold the ‘I know only that I don’t know’ thing in high regard, that should be a matter of individuality… But it should not be one of the necessary properties a philosopher should have in my opinion. We are not living 2500 years ago, but we are living today, under entirely diffirent circumstances, and therefore, the old ‘job description’ of the philosopher does not count in the present day world!

The definiton of a philosopher has changed since Socrates’ time. We as of more modern times have labeled Socrates as a philosopher because of some of the things he has said but I don’t believe Socrates would be comfortable with the title of Philosopher especially when looking at other philosophers of our time. I think he would be disgusted to be called a philosopher. Maybe it is more like there are people like Socrates … and then there are philosophers.

I absolutely agree with you there. It’s very ‘dangerous’ to label any kind of person, because if there’s misidentification, you get a lot of ruckus about something which isn’t really worth making trouble about. That’s like fighting over the name of an object, an apple for example. If there’s someone that says ‘well, jeez, I don’t think thats an apple, I think thats an appel’ and you then start fighting about that, you’re getting nowhere, because an apple remains to be an apple, whatever name you attach to it.

We got this whole individuality culture nowadays struggling with that apple issue. They are all just apples, but they all try to disguise themselves. I’m not buying it!

If philosophy might be the act of discovering how little you know…then a good philosopher might be someone who discovers new ways to know nothing.

Ah… The art of dying! :smiley:

Aren’t those lyrics from a Death song?

I’m convinced! We finally have a philosopher king for president!

They sure are, Bmaos. Good job. :slight_smile:

What Gamer says does make you think, doesn’t it? I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a king, though.

I am more leaning towards a good individual discovers new ways to know nothing. Leave the “knowing” to the philosophers and scientists.