@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131840 wrote:They might, of course, have that state of mind (whatever that state of mind is). But suppose they did not. Would they not be philosophers? On the other hand, suppose there was someone who did have that "state of mind", but who never thought about philosophical problems, and was not connected with philosophy in any way. Would he still be a philosopher? Why? I think you should say more about that state of mind, and how we can tell someone has it.
If someone has that state of mind, would that not automatically imply an interest in things philosophical or at the very least a philosophical approach to all the questions of life?
Society unfortunately does not require a large number of paid philosophers. There are many out there that never enter the field because of the limited opportunities. I am not ready to exclude all of them from the definition of a philosopher.
The mind of a philosopher is a free mind. A mind unfettered by conventions and conventional wisdom. A mind also that does not perceive answers merely as final verdicts but as new questions in their own right.
A philosopher is someone who, when asked for his opinion, actually has one(or several lol) of his own and will do more than just quote someone else's opinion.
And maybe here is a useful litmus test. Just ask someone a random question about a complicated matter that has nothing to do with his line of work, his political or religious affiliations or his known hobbies.
Chances are most people will tell you they have never given it a thought and are not about to start now. But those that have or are willing to think about it are the ones we are looking for.