what qualifies a person as a philosopher?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Khethil
 
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 03:15 pm
@ratta,
ratta wrote:
well that what i love about this place, who really cares who U are dont u think people are more concerned about their own thoughts than delievered messages on this forum especially up setting ones like this , that comment was like saying the fleas bit the dog so the fleas are more significant than the dog when everyone kn ows that a dog is a mans best freind in this context only u speak as if u were me leaving a message from a state in the future however since i have miniplualted this computer in to thinking u are different computer and since i believe that this moment in life is simply the best thing ever as do alot of fleas and since u exist in a totally different universe than i do u have a longer life than me were u born before me will u live for the same time as me are we enemies i have filled that question with energy and the file was removed from my computerso that means u must be an enemy i am ashamed that i would put my name to such a message PLEASE MESSAGE ME BACK AND SEND ME REPLY TO LET ME SAVE MORE ENERGY ON THE OTHER COMPUTER IF U DONT KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT MESSAGE ME BACK TO IM UP FOR A LAUGH



There are rare cases where I'm left completely speechless. This is one of them.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 06:49 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
Every forum has its fleas.
 
ratta
 
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 06:54 pm
@jgweed,
i am the original flea my name is lee and i am a flea. speachless in a good way or a not so good way.
 
Salo phil
 
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 02:05 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
I think that a philosopher is someone for whom an answer is never sufficient.
 
Aristoddler
 
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 04:42 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
People who risk an opinion.
 
Catchabula
 
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 07:54 pm
@Aristoddler,
I think a philosopher is a lonely person, starting with loneliness, ending with even more of it. He uses difficult words to cover that up. It's painful to see really...
 
Catchabula
 
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2008 06:01 am
@Catchabula,
I actually intended this for another thread, but it may be better placed here. That is for what it's worth...

"Consider a philosopher from the moral point of view. At first sight there is much to say for him. A man in doubt and yet courageous, boldly reasoning where no one has gone before, always suffering and sometimes dying for what he feels to be the truth, a soldier of wisdom and a captain of virtue, the finest of men and a leader for humanity. As great a man as a man can ever hope to be, incorporating humanities highest ideals, reaching mankind's loftiest goals. He's seated at one table with the gods and keeps telling us about them, shining almost like a god himself. But is he?? Feels as if we could go on like this forever, lauding, incensing.. the "Laus Philosophiae" being once a common genre, written of course by philosophers themselves.

Socrates? A nagging old aunt! Plato? A verbose schizophrenic! Aristotle? A boring schoolmaster! Philosophers are proud, vain, ruthless, egocentric, antisocial, insane... refusing the warm blanket of society, the comfort of conformity, the consolation of mediocrisy. Speaking while nobody listens, listening while nobody speaks. Refusing to be understood, setting their own standards for understanding, while not even understanding themselves. Dirty men playing dirty tricks, trying to be human while stubbornly refusing this at the same time, seeing that refusal as a dubious honor. Exterminate! Exterminate!

So I'm not asking the question: what is the best of a philosopher? I'm asking: what is his worst? We have heard all sorts of talk about the virtues of a philosopher, now what about his essential vices? What can make a philosopher a person to be avoided, especially by the young? What is making him not the best but rather the worst of men (Propagand-Minister Joseph Goebbels once being a doctor in philosophy). Philosophers, let us look into your black hearts and show us the dark side of the Force. We heard enough about your virtues. Now let's be honest: what are your vices?! "

Was, let's see.. a Glenfiddich 12 yrs old? I have to remember where I bought that one... Smile
 
schloopfeng
 
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 05:03 am
@ltdaleadergt,
Blimey thats a good one, personally i feel that for a person to be a philosopher then that person must surely believe with absolution that everything is entirely their fault as they thought themselves into this mess.
TTFN
 
balhallah
 
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 02:40 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
I see some academic definitions of 'philosopher', philosophical definitions of 'philosopher' and some totally random, self-serving (and ironically self-elevating) definitions of 'philosopher'. Perhaps philosophers are like artists: Many are thought of as great at their art but few are actually gifted at it. Perhaps the tell-tale sign of a true philosopher is the one who partakes in such with no goal of gaining attention.
 
Bonaventurian
 
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 02:47 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
A philosopher, so far as I can see, is one who attempts to find some underlying structure of reality using the power of the reason. So, there are two parts here:

1. There is the method involved. The philosopher uses rational arguments.

2. There is the subject. The philosopher must have (as Nietzsche says) a view of the whole.

Scientists use rational arguments. Scientists are not philosophers.

Theologeans have a view of the whole. Theologeans are not necessarily philosophers.

In this fashion, Parmenides, Socrates, Plato, et al. are philosophers.

Confucius, Buddha, Homer, Hesiod, etc. are not philosophers.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 03:10 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
My question is, if you include Socrates as a philosopher, why not Confucius?
 
Bonaventurian
 
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 04:36 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
My question is, if you include Socrates as a philosopher, why not Confucius?


Socrates engaged in rational argument, whereas Confucius did not. Socrates engaged in dialectic. If you'll read the Apology, it is obvious that Socrates' way of going about things was way different from Confucius'. Philosophy is first and foremost method. It is a science.
 
Anthrobus
 
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 01:35 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
Philosophers are born not made....
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 02:02 pm
@Bonaventurian,
Bonaventurian wrote:
Socrates engaged in rational argument, whereas Confucius did not. Socrates engaged in dialectic. If you'll read the Apology, it is obvious that Socrates' way of going about things was way different from Confucius'.
Interesting, considering that Plato wrote the Apology, and for all we know his idol Socrates may have been a raving homeless neurosyphilitic madman. Plato for sure engaged in rational argument. But who exactly was Socrates? He's a character ridiculed by Aristophanes, which is to my knowledge the only non-Plato depiction of him.
 
Bonaventurian
 
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 02:06 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Interesting, considering that Plato wrote the Apology, and for all we know his idol Socrates may have been a raving homeless neurosyphilitic madman. Plato for sure engaged in rational argument. But who exactly was Socrates? He's a character ridiculed by Aristophanes, which is to my knowledge the only non-Plato depiction of him.


I'm obviously assuming that Plato isn't a liar. :listening:

In any case, I don't think that it's an error to think that Socrates was indeed one who employed rational arguments, given the "scene," so to speak. Confucius wasn't writing in a time when the Sophists and the Physicists were "thinking" and arguing all over China. That was the "scene" at Athens and general Greece, though.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 02:08 pm
@Bonaventurian,
Bonaventurian wrote:
I'm obviously assuming that Plato isn't a liar. :listening:


But Confucius' students were liars?
 
Bonaventurian
 
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 02:09 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
But Confucius' students were liars?


See the addendum to what I previously wrote.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 02:12 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
Here is the beginning of Confucius' Analects. How is this not philosophy?
Quote:

The Master "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance
and application?
"Is it not delightful to have friends coming from distant quarters?
"Is he not a man of complete virtue, who feels no discomposure
though men may take no note of him?"
The philosopher Yu said, "They are few who, being filial and
fraternal, are fond of offending against their superiors. There have
been none, who, not liking to offend against their superiors, have
been fond of stirring up confusion.
"The superior man bends his attention to what is radical. That being
established, all practical courses naturally grow up. Filial piety and
fraternal submission,-are they not the root of all benevolent
actions?"
The Master said, "Fine words and an insinuating appearance are
seldom associated with true virtue."
The philosopher Tsang said, "I daily examine myself on three
points:-whether, in transacting business for others, I may have been
not faithful;-whether, in intercourse with friends, I may have been
not sincere;-whether I may have not mastered and practiced the
instructions of my teacher."
The Master said, "To rule a country of a thousand chariots, there
must be reverent attention to business, and sincerity; economy in
expenditure, and love for men; and the employment of the people at the
proper seasons."
The Master said, "A youth, when at home, should be filial, and,
abroad, respectful to his elders. He should be earnest and truthful.
He should overflow in love to all, and cultivate the friendship of the
good. When he has time and opportunity, after the performance of these
things, he should employ them in polite studies."
Tsze-hsia said, "If a man withdraws his mind from the love of
beauty, and applies it as sincerely to the love of the virtuous; if,
in serving his parents, he can exert his utmost strength; if, in
serving his prince, he can devote his life; if, in his intercourse
with his friends, his words are sincere:-although men say that he
has not learned, I will certainly say that he has.
The Master said, "If the scholar be not grave, he will not call
forth any veneration, and his learning will not be solid.
"Hold faithfulness and sincerity as first principles.
"Have no friends not equal to yourself.
"When you have faults, do not fear to abandon them."
 
Bonaventurian
 
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 02:20 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
What's the argument?
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 02:27 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
Considering there are code words such as "if" and the implied "then" there are arguments buried in there. I think you are guilty of ethnocentrism--seeing the world from your world view. Eastern philosophy is fundamentally different than Western. But I do not see that much of a difference between the style of the Analects and Plato's dialogues other than the fact that Chinese is far different than English that Greek and English and thus, does not translate as well.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/03/2020 at 12:13:15