It does not seem to me that authors who put philosophical digressions (whatever those may be) are therefore philosophers.

The part I don't understand is what it is to use philosophy as a tool. Logic is a tool. Mathematics is a tool. But philosophy?

Considering that logic falls under the umbrella of philosophy wouldn't that make philosophy a tool of sorts by its virtue of consisting of logic?

Logical Fallacy: Composition

Though it doesn't have the form listed there:[INDENT]All of the parts of the object O have the property P.
Therefore, O has the property P.
(Where the property P is one which does not distribute from parts to a whole.)
[/INDENT]But this instead:[INDENT]Some of the parts of the object O have the property P.
Therefore, O has the property P.
(Where the property P is one which does not distribute from parts to a whole.)
[/INDENT]As in:[INDENT]Some of the parts of the philosophy have the property being a tool.
Therefore, philosophy has the property being a tool.
(Where the property being a tool is one which does not distribute from parts to a whole.)[/INDENT]

Considering that logic falls under the umbrella of philosophy wouldn't that make philosophy a tool of sorts by its virtue of consisting of logic?

Philosophy has two aspects. An academic subject of study and an activity. I am not talking about the subject Philosophy when I say that philosophy can be used as a tool. The activity of philosophy is the process of using critical thinking, reasoning, logic, and argumentation to arrive at conclusions. It is not necessary to be an academic Philosopher to use this tool, and thus, the idea of the unofficial philosopher.

Thus, there are the philosophers that study Philosophy, and there are the intellectuals that use philosophy in their work. We are making a list of the latter. (as a digression, I have had Philosophy professors that were not philosophers but rather historians.)

Oh man gots to love the hijacked threads, i Just want to add one thing, GAH!

. I'll call a philosopher whoever I want to call a philosopher.


.

Apparently not, since you are desperate to hijack this thread. You should join the thread properly. It's not logical to be a Troll.

Oh, I've another name to drop:

Juan Luis Borges

I would like to start a free-flowing discussion about our favorite thinkers who are not often thought of as philosophers. I'm always on the look-out for a great new personality to expose myself to. Perhaps we can trade little known writers with one another.


Here are a few of mine.


Friedrich Schlegel: His concept of the "transcendental buffoon" I found sublime. He's a strange brew of faith and irony, intuition and criticism. He was one of Hegel's favorite targets, but now seems mostly forgotten. Like Blake, he had prophetic ambitions. He wrote a book Lucinde that uses sexual symbolism for the transcendent. "Lucinde" derives from light. Yet again, Truth is described as a woman. He is sometimes described as a philosopher but rarely described at all.

Benjamin De Casseres: I discovered a 1930 edition of his Mencken/Shaw and it remains one of my favorite books. It's very much philosophy. He responds to Mencken whom he loves with enthusiasm and correction. De Cassere is a brew of the skeptic and the mystic, however strange this may sound. His final work remains unpublished. He's been almost forgotten. I recommend Mencken/Shaw to anyone who can find it.

Tristan Tzara: I think some of the Dada manifestoes are sublime, especially those written by Tzara. Paradox and irony touch their limits within. Dada is the transcendental buffoon prophesied by Schlegel. Motherwell assembled a great book of DADA manifestos. It's like the Tao on Nietzsche and Rubber Cement.

Looking forward to replies....