What makes a philosopher?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

According to the word itself, a philosopher is someone who loves wisdom. I think that is a bit coquettish - a philosopher is someone who creates wisdom. A law-maker, a law-destroyer if he must. Every established philosopher has added something to the repertoire of human thought.
Socrates invented human value beyond the physically and determinable. Plato developped this idea into the ideal, ‘real’ world beyond illusion. Aristotle conceived the bulk of the laws inherent in this world - logic.

For a long time, this was all there was in terms of human thought. Until the rise of persepctivism, which started with Descartes ‘I think therefore I am.’ Man now chose his experience as the basis of wisdom, instead of the assumption of an all encompassing reality (even though Descartes feared to admit this to himself). Kant’s imperative was an attempt to make the singular perspective allign with all perspectives, Schopenhauer wrestled with the notion that the individual cannot be determined by itself and Nietzsche accepted this and made the individual and the all encompassing into one by sheer force of will. Nothing in terms of consequent thought can surpass Nietzsche’s idea that the arbitrary individual is the sole justification of all of existence, and that all existence exist only to experience itself in the power of an exceptional individual. It is the brute law of our times, whether we like to admit it or not, and in all likelihood it will be until humanity actually produces individuals which do justice to all of existence on a regular basis, and gets bored with the concept and asks itself ‘Now what do we do?’
Until that time, the task for us who are not lawmakers is simply to justify our existence, and to justify as much of existence in general as possible by means of our own. The most profound thought in this age will not be answering the questions beginning with ‘why’ or ‘what’, but beginning with ‘how.’

-How to overcome the limitations of our morality?
-How to keep the planet fertile and inhabitable?
-How to use technology to for the aim of our self-justification? Etc.

“Stop whining!” - Kindergarten Cop
“The board is set… the pieces are moving.” - Gandalf

2

Interesting post, Jake. Perspectivism will take these questions in order. First what, then why, then how - saving the most important for last. But these are, ultimately, all the same question - it’s a matter of focus which specific formulation is used. I cannot agree that Descartes gave birth to perspectivism, however, which holds, “I am will, therefore I think - and do other stuff, too”. Perhaps I don’t quite get your point.

This matter of focus is sometimes overlooked in an analysis of perspectivism. Part of the permutation of philosophical analysis within perspectivisn is the narrowing and widening of context. Descartes knew nothing of this. I’m not sure how you trace perspectivism back to him. There is a great gap between perspectivism and subjectivism - perspectivism contains no epistemology of any significance.

3

Interesting reply - I’d like to go into it but I’m not sure I follow. Actually I’m sure I don’t.
What is the gap between subjectivism and perspectivism?
What did Descartes not know of narrowing and widening of context?

A bit embarrassing, but I’d like to know.

4

If you love “wisdom”, then what kind of “wisdom” shall that be? Will it be the sort of wisdom which outwitts its enemies? Does it destroy the unfit with its wise ways? Does it show itself off in some flash of bright color and fashion? Or does it preserve the health and well being of the body?

“Wisdom” itself can be either destructive or healthy.

Having any strong concentration of attribute – will not change the “plastic” “freedom” of application & karmic result…

5

A human being can love all the kinds of wisdoms he encounters in his life, but a philosopher can only create one kind of wisdom.

‘There are no philosophies, only philosophers’. -Nietzsche

Philosophy is born of necessity. A philosopher is an embodyment of a conflict in a certain pivotal point in a culture. The way he resolves his personal conflict determines the hierarchy of values for the culture reflecting on his work.

As to the love of wisdom; I’m certain many (of the few) philosophers often hated their wisdom, as such conflict causes a lot of suffering.
But, of course, the birth of a philosophy is worth all pain.

6

Jake - Subjectivism is essentially an epistemic view. Descartes wasn’t questioning whether he existed, but how he could know he was. Perspectivism holds no epistemic view - it is meta-epistemic at most. Perhaps a case can be made that it is epistemically “agnostic” - I think this is the usual reading of Nietzsche. But I cannot discern a functional theory of knowledge in his writing. I have seen a couple of attempts made to tease one out, but I have not seen a sucessful one. For this reason, I see subjectivism and perspectivism not as mutually exclusive, but as two philosophical ships passing in the night - there is no intersection between the two. The “individualism” in each is superficial, as Descartes only defines himself though his god.

As to the question of focus - Descartes never questioned the motives of his forbears, nor their morality. He didn’t question their goals, but only their methods. He didn’t read them “historically”. Nietzsche read them both historically and as descrete, “out of time” thinkers. That is one example.

7

What makes a philosopher?

Hmmm … …

That’s it! – it’s that humming sound; that makes a philosopher. :laughing:

All seriousness aside … :confused: …

… A philosopher is someone who uses all his brain in search of the truth.

A pseudo philosopher is someone who uses only his mind in process-addictive thinking to justify his ego and hide from painful feelings.

A clever person can be both at the same time … and no one is the wiser. :wink:

8

JennyHeart, that was clever.

9

And you’re so much the wiser. :wink: … :laughing: … … :confused:

10

The similarity I see in both is the acknowledging of experience as root of the argument. If Descartes were a glutton instead of a thinker, he might have said ‘I eat therefore I am.’ I don’t think it matters. He was just checking if he really existed and found himself thinking. However naive about what and if ‘he’ was and if thinking was indeed what he did as instead of what ‘he’ at that point consisted of, there is truth in his proof, and that is where I make the link to perspectivism. A very crude link, but I was making a very crude comparison. The image of the ships is clear enough; I can understand that both crossed a similar ground on a different trajectory.

The point remains that the hardest work of lawmaking has been done for the coming centuries. I wonder if that is true, though. I think it is.

11

Jakob you asked a very very easy question.

What makes a philosopher?

Obviously…a genius.

12

Jake - I just don’t think they do. I think the root of Descartes’ argument, which is not the cogito at all, is God. I also don’t think the perspectivist, qua perspectivist, checks at all. But this does not deny what you have said about Descartes himself - he surely could have used almost any activity as his “antecedent”. He did not think so, it is clear - but a perspectivist would. That is the difference. It’s a matter of perspective.

It’s arguable that a perspectivist could see the link, and that a subjectivist could not, I suppose. Okay.

13

But would you agree that Plato and consorts did not meet these ships at sea? Because if they did, I would have no ground to stand on. Not that that usually matters, but I’m actually starting to wonder if my arguments about the philosophers task in the present have any substance.
I’m seriously troubled by the idea that technology is racing ahead of us as we fail to create new archetypes of meaning in front of us that will do justice to out highest values. I do not want out values to be created by random functionality. That would suck. I think. I could speculate that computergames would feed us stimuli and such and that we have ourself matricized but then the whole idea of a future would become instantly boring. I hate boring futures.
I have some ideas for the implementation of nanotechnology, but not enough to keep it under control I want to drive towards the Nietzschean value of self-justification the impersonal forces of evolution.
(…)
What the hell does that mean?
I mean by it that i want to make some movies. I have a couple of ideas of establishing more profoud myths than the battle of good and evil either won by good, evil or neither - I want to show the worlds beyond good and evil - the worlds of archaic Gods- merciless seduction - primal rage - that sort of stuff would look good on the poster anyway.
Weary Locomotive would probably sneer at my Christian worry that my values of humanity and it’s worth will be crushed by effectivelty superior instruments of power. But who says the machines have to be effectively superior? I think if we commercialize and industrialize the mythification of the future ruthessly instead of the ruthless descruction thereof, we could end up in some pretty cool places. And that’s what it’s all about in the end. Am I wrong here?
Wait - don’t answer that. I think I agree with myself here, and I don’t think anyone’s really up for debating it, as it’s all speculation so far anyway…
Am I wrong here?
Anyway, back to the first sentence …

14

Let’s see if I get the crux of your argument with yourself. I agree that we need more and better archetypes. And that we need more profound myths. And we need a moviemaker to help. Have at it. Serve humanity. Just be sure to include a car crash or two, and at least one set of bared breasts, so you can make some money while you’re doing it. But the value of myth is psychological, and only accidentally epistemic (if at all). Is that what you’re getting at?

Weary’s sneering was a modus operandi, and not always an actual judgement. I miss that guy. Know where he’s at?

15

I know myths are pshycological - that’s the idea of movies as well. Just influence, a nudge in a direction. So far, myths of modern making have been about good vs evil and that sort of nonsense. It won’t motivate anyone to look ahead of the present situation where everyone’s presepctive can be defined as antagonistic against one’s own and needs to be vanquished. It’s boring to me, that’s the core issue. So are carcrashes. I mean they weren’t boringin the 80’s, but I’ve seen enough of them. Bared breasts are still interesting to me, though. I’ll try to fit them in the grand scheme of things as I envision it, that shouldn’t be too complicated.
I’m primarily in this to serve myself of course, I’m not going to deny that - to give myself a sense of purpose, anyway. I’m just magalomanic like that, I need to take my boredom out on the future of mankind.

I miss Weary Locomotive as well. Although I disagreed with him on central issues - most centrally his rejection of all I wrote. Anyway, haven’t heard from him since the KDH.

16

So, do you make Eastwood’s “Unforgiven” without that seen at the end where his character moralises to the kid about killing?

17

I’d go along the lines of the HBO series Deadwood if I had to make a western. But I’m not a great cowboy-knower.

18

Holy crap, I just saw how I spelt “scene”. Give me a clue - what kind of movie would you make? Neithergoodnorbadfellas? Deer Hunter with a european ending? (It’s the endings that get you in american pictures).

19

I’m not sure how to answer this. I’m not sure I should. What makes a philosopher, anyway?

20

“a philosopher is someone who creates wisdom.”

I think this phrase is dangerous, and that the term “philosophy” was aimed mostly to avoid that assumption.

Before socrates there were “sophists.” People whom professed to be wise. Socrates began a revolution by arguing that people whom argued themselves to be wise were generally not.

It is comparable to law enforcement . . .

(a) no one is above the law, (b) a police officer serves the law, (c) a police officer is not above the law, (d) a police officer doesn’t create the law.

(a) no one is above the sophism, (b) a philosopher serves sophism, (c) a philosopher isn’t above sophism, (d) a philosopher doesn’t create sophism . . .

Well it’s my thought anyway.

On a more practical note, I say the real criteria to become a philosopher is to prove consistency in the ability to work toward a reasonable conclusion on ANY topic. That doesn’t mean the philosopher can derive conclusions for anything, but acts as the compass for the right direction. This is why it is the science of inquiry.

This differs from a person who’s a reasonable thinker in that a thinker may skillfully carry out a specific task to reach a conclusion for a particular subject, but may not be competent in offering methods to derive conclusions on just ANY topic.

I imagine at least 3 criteria in order to function as this compass . . .

(1) Consistently demonstrates a rigorous understanding in the concept of “axiom.” The axiom is the building block for all logic.

(2) Compares the negation of any conclusion in order to “see two sides of the coin.” Not that there are virtually two sides to everything, simply that there is a possible “NOT” to anything.

(3) Will not base action on argument. For example: A philosopher standing at a toastmasters podium will not necessarily agree with what you say, and may accuse some statements as irrational. But will not come up and punch you in the face for your statement.