What is a poor philosopher?

One who has no money and who is easily converted and submissive.
Perhaps, one who does not think, but how can it be, if one is already a philosopher?

But what do you think?

Mike Tyson.

Someone who accepts dogma without question. But then I guess he wouldn’t be a philosopher anymore.
Perhaps someone who is a bit too fond of a certain doctrine, to the extend that he’s prepared to use faulty argumentation to defend it.


can I borrow five bucks till payday?


Dan Brown. :smiley:

“beggars can’t be choosers”

:laughing: :laughing:

seriously though, i think a poor philosopher is the one who is hungry for materialistic items, thus i’m sure there are very few “poor” philosophers

one who calls himself/herself a philosopher and is really just a sophist!

example ?

Whose dan brown?

gemity for one :laughing:

then one who calls himself not a philosopher then who is he?

mmmmmmm, sweet sweet materials…

Haha! :smiley: :smiley:

He wrote The Da Vinci Code. What I find less than funny about this book is the way that ‘critics’ (by which I mean journalists with postgraduate qualifications who call themselves ‘critics’) say things like ‘it’s just one of those books, it happens once in a while, that just taps into the zeitgeist and captures the popular consciousness’.

Why not just be honest? The book sold 60 million copies because of exceptional marketing and the press have bought into it, just like the Harry Potter books. It has nothing to do with capturing some pre-existing state of mind among those 60 million people that have bought it; it has everything to do with the snowballing effect that is completely and utterly predictable because mass media is actually a rather stupid beast with stupid masters.

I watch Australian soap opera ‘Neighbours’ almost every day and occasionally catch a couple of minutes of ‘Newsround’ before it’s on. ‘Newsround’ used to be a fine show, a short news show for children that actually covered a remarkable range of different topics. Now it’s just a space for advertising products to children. It’s really quite embarassing, it’s presented by this glassy-eyed hamster:

and like I say, seems to exist purely to sell things like the Da Vinci Code and the Harry Potter books, and the latest Pixar movie.

Once again, the press using very simple rhetoric to convince people that the reason why something is popular is because people were waiting for a product like that to turn up (the old Freudian crap about latent desires) rather than because mass media organs have spent months and months and hundreds of thousands of pounds advertising these products.

You know you’re a poor philosopher when you arrive early at the Family Dollar in the mornings to make sure you get a parking place.

Dedication. Patience. Both virtues becomming of the poor philosopher.

A poor philosopher is one who accepts uh, what was someone just posted here? Oh and one who only repeats what others say with out learning from it. A rich philosopher is one who is prone to striking out against cultural beliefs and is not afraid to be scorned or laughed at for thinking different thoughts.

It seems to me that all of the posts, you all are talking about yourself.
You all are the poor philosophers. I think I am.

The measure is pleasure. A poor philosopher is not thinking pleasurably at the moment. He bores himself with his herdish concepts and nonimagination. Also, he bores himself in reading concepts that are not herdish, because he is not understanding those and hence no pleasure is derived in reading them. I would redefine “philosophia” as “philokephia”. Thinking is the end itself, not the means to wisdom, which serves as one of the incentives, among which the pleasure derived from thought should be the main incentive. It’s like trying to prove a geometrical hyphothesis, we don’t care if it’s true or false, we just want to mess with the diagram.


A joyful elaboration. Enjoy.

The measure is pleasure. A poor philosopher is not thinking pleasurably at the moment. He bores himself with his herdish concepts and nonimagination. Also, he bores himself in reading concepts that are not herdish, because he is not understanding those and hence no pleasure is derived in reading them.


I would redefine “philosophia” as “philokephia”. Thinking is the end itself for philosophers, it is a profession, it’s their life. Wisdom is never the true end, because absolute truth only exists in infinity, it even can’t be reached by the time man has to stop thinking. On the contrary, wisdom is the means to thinking in two senses. One, things can be thought upon only when previous knowledge conditioning such things exist, for nobody envisaged jaguars with four wheels before he had actually seen jaguars with four legs. Two, the glories and advantages associated with “wisdom”, essentially the will to that “knowledge is power”, act as incentives to restless intellectual progression.

It’s like trying to prove a geometrical hyphothesis. We don’t really care if it’s true or false except for examination, we just want to mess with the diagrams for fun. Actually, this is how most practical wisdom is gained. Regardless of the plausible validity of the hypothesis, something else that we may have discovered during the process, is likely to be more concret. “We temporarily abandons life, in order to fix our gaze upon it” Fritz. Here, we “abandons” the tast of assessing the hypothesis in order to “fix” our concentration towards whatever ground that the course of discovery is leading us onto. Conditioned accidentality is the mother of high inspiration. This is why so many people are intuitively keen to the notion of luck. This is what Nietzsche meant by saying, “greatest thoughts arise during cross-country walks”. Note that “conditioned” is indespensible Nietzsche does not mean that wisdom or knowledge come just like that, otherwise we should all go hiking immediately even if we are total idiots. We must “cook” our chances in our own “pot”, according to Nietzsche.

The problem of probability, also as in Bohrian quantum physics, is why this “condition” to accidental inspiration is necessary.

Deleuze goes on to say that Nietzsche’s winning formular is basically, “the dicethrow is multiple affirmation, the affirmation of many… parts… fragments”. This reminds me of some of Nietzsche’s piano pieces that he entitled as “fragment in itself”, which implies that these pieces are fragmentary but it is an unity nevertheless, an unity that is consisted of self-containing fragments. The dicethrow is therefore successful as a union of fragments. The essence here is “organising chaos”, applying a body of seemingly unrelated knowledge together, creating a firm result. Thus the accidentality is conditioned by an affirmative attitude towards multiplicity-chance, an attitude that is based on a mature and ready mentality.

This is basically why pleasure in thinking is so important in forming such positive attitude, hence in garuanteeing the successful return. This attitude is of Dionysus, of the tragic hero’s “innocence”, as mentioned by Deleuze just before the quoted section above. Compare this with the poison of the spiders, as Zarathustra spent a whole chapter on “of the tarantulas”.

Deleuze’s comment below. The parenthesis is mine.

In conclusion, what matters most is this positive attitude towards philosophy, or life in general, amor fati, without conformation to herdish mentality. The innocence of the daring hence tragic man is expressed by his joyful nature, the profoundess of this innocence is shown by his pleasure in thinking. He is the good player of the game of life. His dice gurauntees the eternal return of happiness. His God is called Dionysus, the fatal lover of all fates. “Fearless men act and succeed”, as Goethe wrote in Faust. “Merry philosophers go ILP-happy and fruitful conclusions occur”, so says Uniqor. This is perhaps why reliance on pure intuition is valued alongside luck, as the power of intuition is inextricably linked with its accidentality. Also, people say “you’ll be luck if you believe that you are lucky”.

A poor philosopher is one that offers answers instead of questions.

A philosopher just at the moment he realizes he is a philosopher. From then on he can no longer be poor. He will be rich beyond measure.

See above.

Therefore, posts or comments or theories or all reflects upon thereselves. You just have made youself a poor philosopher.

Rich in terms of what? Will it not be that he will no longer be practical?
Does this means he is thinking negatively or positively, or neither?

Being rich as a corollary to Socrates’ maxim ‘The examined life is not worth living’. It follows that the examination of life adds value to it that was not previously there.