a philosopher is....

Diderot wrote this:

''He is philosopher who tramples underfoot prejudices, tradition, antiquity,
universal assent, authority, in a word, everything that overawes the mass of
minds, wo dares think for himself, to go back to the clearest general principles,
examines them, discuss them, admits nothing save on the testimony of his experience
and his reasoning"

what would you add or subtract from this?

Kropotkin

Sounds just right to me. :slight_smile:

I would definitely replace that, with He is a philosopher who is always asking deep and foundational questions about anything and everything.

“Trampling underfoot” sounds both arrogant and stupid to me. That phrase definitely has to go.

So no more textbooks, professors, universities, science and all the rest of it? It would certainly be cathartic. (There are several academics who I would love to see sent to the guillotine.) But foolish.

“Tradition”, “antiquity”, even “authority” are far more than prejudices, they are the collected wisdom and ideas of all the humans who came before us. That has to be respected. We learn most of what we know from textbooks and from the testimony of others. Obviously tradition, antiquity and authority aren’t immune from questioning and from doubts. But no wholesale dismissals either, no trampling underfoot in a fit of adolescent hubris.

There’s seemingly an unstated premise tucked in there that has to be challenged, namely the idea that everyone who lived before Diderot was an evil idiot.

The fact is that we learn from those who came before us. As the phrase goes, we see further today because we stand on the shoulders of giants. I’m personally very interested in ancient philosophy and think that we can learn a great deal from it. Medieval philosophy was doing extraordinarily good work in a number of areas like the philosophy of language. It would be impossible to learn from them if we followed those like Diderot in dismissing the medievals as the “dark age”, best forgotten in Diderot’s brave-new “Enlightenment” world.

I find the conceit that the average person is an idiot, to be led by an intellectually elite group of “philosophes” (that inevitably in Diderot’s mind included Diderot) is hubris of the first order. It runs directly counter to the ideal of Athenian-style democracy that motivated the American founders.

Yes, I would endorse that. But with the proviso that all of our conclusions are fallible and might very well be wrong. And with the recognition that experience and reasoning, to say nothing of our “clearest general principles” are among the foremost things that a philosopher should be questioning.

Peter Kropotkin: Diderot wrote this:
''He is philosopher who tramples underfoot

Y: I would definitely replace that, with He is a philosopher who is always asking deep and foundational questions about anything and everything.
“Trampling underfoot” sounds both arrogant and stupid to me. That phrase definitely has to go.

K D: prejudices, tradition, antiquity, universal assent, authority

Y: So no more textbooks, professors, universities, science and all the rest of it? It would certainly be cathartic. (There are several academics who I would love to see sent to the guillotine.) But foolish.
“Tradition”, “antiquity”, even “authority” are far more than prejudices, they are the collected wisdom and ideas of all the humans who came before us. That has to be respected. We learn most of what we know from textbooks and from the testimony of others. Obviously tradition, antiquity and authority aren’t immune from questioning and from doubts. But no wholesale dismissals either, no trampling underfoot in a fit of adolescent hubris.‘’

K: as I have noted elsewhere, universities are meant to train for jobs/careers, and universities
operate under their own prejudices and superstitions… for example, when my Brother
was in the University of Chicago school of economics 1980’s, working for his PHD, he would call me
asking about the economic theories of communism/Marxism, because they didn’t teach any of
that in the premier economic institution in the world…universities are very selective about
what “traditions” and “authorities” they would teach…anything that was not official
“tradition” or “authority” was not taught or dismissed… as Nietzsche was dismissed by
many, many collages as insane or as forerunner of Nazi’s…for example even today,
in Texas, textbooks can only espouse the official party line of conservativism…of god,
country and guns…as the Critical race theory is attacked as not being part of
the official party line…

Y: There’s seemingly an unstated premise tucked in there that has to be challenged, namely the idea that everyone who lived before Diderot was an evil idiot.

K: an idiot yes, evil, no… and that has been the operating standard position of just
about every thinker, philosopher and writer since forever…I am the first to see the truth
has been the mantra of every thinker since the beginning of time…

Y:
The fact is that we learn from those who came before us. As the phrase goes, we see further today because we stand on the shoulders of giants. I’m personally very interested in ancient philosophy and think that we can learn a great deal from it. Medieval philosophy was doing extraordinarily good work in a number of areas like the philosophy of language. It would be impossible to learn from them if we followed those like Diderot in dismissing the medievals as the “dark age”, best forgotten in Diderot’s brave-new “Enlightenment” world.

K: we also learn the prejudices and superstitions of the ones before us…I have done a modest
amount of study in Ancient and medieval philosophy… in between the pearls of wisdom, lies
a lot of junk and simple bad information…and that bad information has been passed down
for generations… should Copernicus have simple accepted the long held traditions of the
cycles of the sun because it was codified into accepted tradition and facts? Taught in schools
as fact and held as sacred doctrine of the church?

K D: in a word, everything that overawes the mass of minds"

Y: I find the conceit that the average person is an idiot, to be led by an intellectually elite group of “philosophes” (that inevitably in Diderot’s mind included Diderot) is hubris of the first order. It runs directly counter to the ideal of Athenian-style democracy that motivated the American founders.

K: and yet the Greeks had their leaders of schools, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus for example,
as leaders of an intellectually elite group of philosophers who taught the “average person”…
now the second aspect is this, don’t connect the “Athenian-style of democracy”
with an education of some sort… a democracy is a political system which motivated
the American founding fathers, it wasn’t an educational system that the Greeks offered…

K: who dares think for himself, to go back to the clearest general principles,
examines them, discuss them, admits nothing save on the testimony of his experience
and his reasoning"

Y: Yes, I would endorse that. But with the proviso that all of our conclusions are fallible and might very well be wrong. And with the recognition that experience and reasoning, to say nothing of our “clearest general principles” are among the foremost things that a philosopher should be questioning.
[/quote]
K: yes, all of our conclusions maybe wrong, but apparently, according to you, not
traditions nor textbooks nor authority is wrong… if some are wrong, then
we must assume that all is wrong and we must endeavor to work out the parts
that are wrong and the parts that are right even if means attacking traditions,
textbooks and authorities…even if it is ancient philosophy and has the stamp
of authority as given by the universities…

Kropotkin