Philosopher philosophy

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Philosopher philosophy

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 03:06 pm
Do Philosophers need a philosophy?

Is a philosophy personal or public?
Is a philosophy believed or proved?
Is philosophy faith or science?

Does the philosopher ever prove himself or just the philosophy?
Both neither?

What is a philosopher without a philosophy?
What is a philosophy without a philosopher?

Is undcided unaccredited?

Is searching the profession or is it being found?
Seek vs Found?

(answer one some or all of the questions)
(better still ask your own questions)
 
rhinogrey
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 03:08 pm
@sometime sun,
These questions, put together, are the answer.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 03:31 pm
@rhinogrey,
rhinogrey;153272 wrote:
These questions, put together, are the answer.

I understand my form, thanks for recognising, but i dont know what your conclusions are, please expand
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 07:20 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;153271 wrote:
Do Philosophers need a philosophy?


I believe philosophers can do without what is called a philosophy. In fact, I think striving to have a philosophy can send a philosopher astray.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 07:24 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;153334 wrote:
I believe philosophers can do without what is called a philosophy. In fact, I think striving to have a philosophy can send a philosopher astray.

And striving to be a philosopher can send the philosophy astray or away.
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 07:33 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;153335 wrote:
And striving to be a philosopher can send the philosophy astray or away.


It often seems true to me that philosophy is a gentle endeavor, not one to be approached in hard headed problem tackling mode. But then there are times when hard headedness seems necessary. I consider that unfortunate.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 07:36 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;153338 wrote:
It often seems true to me that philosophy is a gentle endeavor, not one to be approached in hard headed problem tackling mode. But then there are times when hard headedness seems necessary. I consider that unfortunate.

Is philosophy problem searching or problem solving?

Consider this for a moment, does not philosopphy dig up more trouble than it puts to rest?

Is the philosopher or the philosophy the psychosis?
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 07:40 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;153339 wrote:
Is philosophy problem searching or problem solving?

Consider this for a moment, does not philosopphy dig up more trouble than it puts to rest?

Is the philosopher or the philosophy the psychosis?


Some things need to be dug up in order to be put to rest.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 07:46 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;153271 wrote:
Do Philosophers need a philosophy?
Is a philosophy personal or public?
Is a philosophy believed or proved?
Is philosophy faith or science?

I think philosophers need a philosophy. Unless we are just giving the title away. I'm not saying that a philosopher must be systematic. One good sentence is enough.
Is language personal or public? Generally, we think in a public language, but the best thinkers enlarge the possibility of thought, create new concepts. So philosophers are perhaps an intersection of public/private language.
What we believe is that which for us is proven. To prove something to others is same as persuading them? Some find proofs, in the classic sense, persuasive.
Quote:

Does the philosopher ever prove himself or just the philosophy?
Both neither?

What is a philosopher without a philosophy?
What is a philosophy without a philosopher?
"How can we tell the dancer from the dance?" Yeats.
Is there ever color without shape, shape without color. This covers black, as a black shape can only be revealed by the color around it. What is the shape of total darkness?
Quote:

Is searching the profession or is it being found?
Seek vs Found?
Ultimately, it seems the philosopher must find something, offer sentences. These answers may be nothing but the praise of questioning, but this is still an implicit answer. Or so it seems to me. At this point, I hope to drag home something good, and give the world some beautiful sentences.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 07:49 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;153342 wrote:
Some things need to be dug up in order to be put to rest.

And some things are better off dead and buried.

Cremate that son of a bich, has many vantages.

Is philosophy the cur eor the disease?
Does not to be the philosopher make you the doctor over the affliction?

Just out of interest are you freed more than you are burdened by your philosophy or philosopher?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 08:10 pm
@sometime sun,
I salute Blake, who asserted without apology that the artist exists to make humanity happier and better...and also that energy is eternal delight. If it doesn't free one, please one, make life more abundant, it's not the real thing. (An opinion)

And if anyone did read this in, the philosopher is also a sort of artist. He sculpts sentences. (Phonemes matter, even if they don't matter as much..)
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 08:13 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;153334 wrote:
I believe philosophers can do without what is called a philosophy. In fact, I think striving to have a philosophy can send a philosopher astray.



All these clever paradoxes. If only I knew what they meant. But they do sound clever. Maybe that is all that counts with you.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 08:38 pm
@sometime sun,
I can't help but note that when we turn to the history of philosophy, music, painting, mathematics, architecture, we are presented with a story at least of change if not of progress. The successful deviation becomes part of the story. The methodical repetition is a footnote. Well, it's represented by the average or ideal of its type. Bad imitations are spacetime trash? The desire to transcend accident, become essential...
And this is not to assert that life's purpose is to become part of this story. One could argue something opposite. One can present history as a decline from a universal that should indeed be submitted to. One can present the circle as preferable to the widening or tightening spiral. But who in the heart believes that? Who does not feel that urge within them to evolve? For me, the number e is a beautiful metaphor for the evolutionary drive. Ideal compound interest. Perfectly smooth acceleration instantaneously proportionate to speed. The faster we go, the faster we are accelerating. "Ah but this is poetry" some grouch will say. Well, it's a free country. One has the right to play the grouch. But Oscar lived in a trash can.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 02:38 pm
@Reconstructo,
Do we not all philosophize?
It not the action of philsophizing personal?

Is a philosopher only a philosospher when being public?

I believe that everyone philsosophizes but now am unsure if everyone is a philosopher?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 02:53 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;153657 wrote:
Do we not all philosophize?
It not the action of philsophizing personal?

Is a philosopher only a philosospher when being public?

I believe that everyone philsosophizes but now am unsure if everyone is a philosopher?


Do we not all do chemistry? Cooking is a kind of chemistry. Is a chemist only a chemist when being "public"? I believe everyone does chemistry, but I am sure not everyone is a chemist.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 03:03 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;153660 wrote:
Do we not all do chemistry? Cooking is a kind of chemistry. Is a chemist only a chemist when being "public"? I believe everyone does chemistry, but I am sure not everyone is a chemist.

Depends if he sets the table for company or just for himself?
Is the microwave chemistry?

Can any one not be a representation of their thoughts?

Are not we all our own book? Our own proof?

Is philosophy only made tangible if taught or even discreditted?
How can we discredit someones thoughts?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 03:27 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;153665 wrote:

How can we discredit someones thoughts?


By showing that they are unsupported, or by showing that they are false.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 03:30 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;153679 wrote:
By showing that they are unsupported, or by showing that they are false.

What if they never share them?
You can be the book but never write it.
You can philosophise but never be a philosopher?
You can learn but never teach?
 
platorepublic
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 04:04 pm
@sometime sun,
This thread should be in Metaphilosophy? Or is it Metametaphilsophy. I am confused.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 04:20 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;153657 wrote:
Do we not all philosophize?
It not the action of philsophizing personal?

Is a philosopher only a philosospher when being public?

I believe that everyone philsosophizes but now am unsure if everyone is a philosopher?


For me, this touches on that age old issue of what words mean. Well, their meaning is not fixed. Such is my assertion. For me, it's always a matter of context. We feel out our listener, or the person talking to us. Poetry(logos/word) has the fullness of life, but also its confusion. Mathema is a little escape from time into eternity. :sarcastic:

So, yes, everyone is a philosopher, as all must think, sometimes, upon the fundamental issues. But if we always used the term this generously, it would ultimately be a meaningless term. We could also call everyone who knows that 2 + 2 = 4 a mathematician, and this is also true, in its way, and also deceptive. :whoa-dude:
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Philosopher philosophy
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/28/2020 at 09:09:57