Head trauma, anti-social behavior, and a brightly colored ceremonial sash.

Reclusive, insane, people that are usually poor writers relatively speaking.

Seriously though, anyone can be a philosopher as long as they are on a quest for truth (whatever that means), have a love for wisdom, and most of all are capable of learning and listening. People that employ the dialectic when learning, thinking, and communicating tend to fall into the category of the philosopher.

The question: "I wonder what that (person) means?"

The power of abstraction, or as Charles Hockett puts it, The Ability to Temorally and Spatially Displace Subject and Object. This is what makes a philosopher, thus all humans are philosophers.

I am not entirely sure, many people would like to have the respect that professionals bestow upon their peers. I would think that ones work would need the continuity, order and systematic process to bring ones entire work into a rational totality. That each part might be seen to relate not only to other parts but also to the whole.

I knew I was missing *something*.

One who pursues wisdom; not only loving it, but showing effort through discourse and/or study over the long term.

A philosopher is one who loves wisdom. I say this plainly, because if one loves wisdom, they will seek it, and through seeking it, everything will fall in place to fulfill the love.

Love is not something passive, but is an ever enduring relationship between the loved and beloved.

Everyone is a philosopher if they speak there perception of how they view are existence, yet some lack a form of peotical art to it, due to the lack of intented thought that they put into there philosophy

Intellectualy based thought and wisdom from trail and error, spoken into word's with intent to show there point of view and perception of such.

Yet there come's to a point within philosophy that a philosopher would not call him/her self as a philosopher, for they would understand what it really is, and that's only what you or another say philosophy is, therefore you would not need to call it such, nor would philosophy mean the same as another has defined as.

So What qualifie's a person as a philosopher?

The point of view and perception of this existence that you follow and speak, or the point of view and perception of another's of this existence.

So it's what you say, or another has said for you that will only qualifie you as such, yet a true philosopher:rolleyes: would not define him/her self as such, yet other's would define him/her by such.

But have to have some shared known word to relate or communicate.

Wana make a new word for such?? Wonder how we can make a new word:rolleyes:

So every person that posted in this thread and shared there point of view(founded in wisdom or intellectualy based thought or observation of this existence) and perception of what qualifies a person as a philosophy, has just commited an act of philosophy, therefore wouldnt every person that has intent to do such be such?

Well I think such, that's why it all rym's like such:rolleyes:

bottom

I think NoOne has a pretty good handle on this. A philosopher is someone who philosophizes. A student is someone who studies, and actor is someone who acts, ect.

If I philosophize, I am a philosopher. The real question is whether or not I'm any good as a philosopher.

Interesting question. I think everyone has a philosophy, even if it's a philosophy about philosophy. What constitutes a philosopher though? Maybe if philosophy and that higher thought dominates other thoughts. Speaking for myself, I see philosophy being applied to everything I do. Whether it be the golf swing, relationships, religion or books, the philosophy of it all is more of the dominating thought pattern behind everything. Analyzing everything from a philosophical view.

However, what separates philosophers from those who just philosophize may be the written work or the work written by someone else about a philosopher. Our tendencies are wanting to see everything in writing and while many of us may in fact be great philosophers, what is written that would give us a title of philosopher? Interesting indeed. Everyone on this forum is a philosopher of the sort. Are we qualified? I'd certainly think so.

Love of wisdom. I don't necessarily think it's the love of wisdom that makes us philosophers as much as it's the desire to understand things at a higher level that aren't questioned or understood correctly by the masses of men. How a man can cruise through life without ever questioning some of the great unknown questions of faith, philosophy and science is beyond my comprehension. Following just to follow has never made any sense. The desire to understand and discuss with like minded individuals is far more rewarding than cruising through life never questioning the greatest unanswered question of all.... Why?

Philosophy... isn't it fun!

If we are somehow excluding general population from the title of Philosopher there must needs be acceptance or accreditation from one's peers, by either popular public acceptance, peer vote, or earned degree. If that is the case I would think that not many of us here can justifyably use the title Philosopher.

A phillosopher is a person that finds that their life doesn't make sense, but keeps hoping it will.

Well, that's me anyway...

There is a difference between the professional philosopher and... hobbyist philosopher; I think that term works well and covers the majority of us on the forums.

That said, and in this sort of follows what Justin said, being a hobbyist doesn't mean you are less of a philosopher than the professional. As far as I recall, Socrates was never what we would call a professional philosopher - he was a retired mason who became a hobbyist philosopher (though, perhaps the greatest hobbyist philosopher). Plato became a professional philosopher; he founded a school.

According to Blaise Pascal (not me...):

"To make light of philosophy is to be a true philosopher."

Plato's dialogs have Socrates making jokes all of the time.

Intriguing query.

I may cite that being a philosopher can be any age,the genuine one is the one who can be amiable,potent in philosophizing.The perception he/she gave must be able to be comprehended and practical.

Everyone can philosophize, but this does not make them a philosopher. I would really support the idea that some others, like Leo Strauss, have held...the word "philosopher" should really be reserved for those "great thinkers", who devote themselves to the study of philosophy, and who make a meaningful contribution to the field.

Rather than being able to regurgitate books read for a BA in philosophy, a true philosopher should actively devote himself to philosophy, engaging others via lectures, articles, or books, and should contribute new, bold ideas or interpretations to the field. An amateur can philosophize, but I wouldn't use the term "philosopher" lightly.

Well there is a distinction between Philosopher--a title given to the person who philosophizes for a living usually as a Professor of philosophy--and the philosopher--an individual who philosophizes.

The problem with only using the word philosopher in the case of someone that has devoted their study to the field and contribute to it, is that it ignores all the scientists and thinkers that advanced other fields by applying philosophic concepts. Individuals like Albert Einstein, Noam Chomsky, and even Al Gore (the author not the politician--he is two people stuck in one body) are not philosophers in the former definition, but many would consider them philosophers that contributed to physics, linguistics-and then latter political science, and environmental ethics, respectively.