I don't know. I don't think I can answer that question. Maybe you have to know certain things to be able to make assumptions..

On a light note, I have a professor who says, "Ya wanna be a philosopher that people still talk about 500 years from now? Ask questions that a five year old would ask."

It's a funny thing, we are philosophers because we are humans, but maybe we can't be real philosophers because we are only humans

More poetry than substance ^^

---------- Post added 03-10-2010 at 10:37 AM ----------

Imo there's no such thing as a "real philosopher" there's rangeing from really good or really bad. Imo it's heavily dependant on which principles you found your principles on.

Some philosophers may have a high endulgence value, but rarely produce anything contructive ..I'm sorta the opposit.

Founding principles upon principles? That's what real philosophers do? Can you say more?

If a philosopher founds philosophy principles upon people being "good" or "bad" it clearly screams of stupidity, since that person wouldn't take account for even the most basic of psycology, and worse ..being utterly naive.

Thanks for expanding on this. I think I understand what you mean.

Does basic psychology, in your sense, consist of certain principles, principles that are the necessary groundwork for anything else? If so, does that make the good philosopher the good (basic) psychologist?

Thanks for expanding on this. I think I understand what you mean.

Does basic psychology, in your sense, consist of certain principles, principles that are the necessary groundwork for anything else? If so, does that make the good philosopher the good (basic) psychologist?

I studied both as an undergrad, and the answer is, it depends very heavily on which school of psychology is asked the question.

Most of them would strongly differentiate psych and philosophy, and in fact I failed my first Psych essay by being 'too philosophical'. The schools that fancy themselves as being scientific, in particular, wouldn't touch philosophy with a barge pole.

All of that said, one wonderful author that I would strongly recommend is William James. He wrote the Principles of Psychology, which is not really very influential in modern psych, but also wrote a lot of philosophy and comparative religion. They were the good ol' days. They don't write 'em like that anymore.

I studied both as an undergrad, and the answer is, it depends very heavily on which school of psychology is asked the question.

Most of them would strongly differentiate psych and philosophy, and in fact I failed my first Psych essay by being 'too philosophical'. The schools that fancy themselves as being scientific, in particular, wouldn't touch philosophy with a barge pole.

All of that said, one wonderful author that I would strongly recommend is William James. He wrote the Principles of Psychology, which is not really very influential in modern psych, but also wrote a lot of philosophy and comparative religion. They were the good ol' days. They don't write 'em like that anymore.

I wonder how many people have failed essays for the reason you failed yours - being too philosophical. Most teachers would likely not know what to do with a real live philosopher. How did you adjust in order not to keep failing (if you did)?

Please allow me to ask what you value such about philosophers/philosophy?

I passed my degree studies, and psychology, in the end, in fact later I got a High Distinction for a psych essay on Altered States of Consciousness (comment: very brave!) My interests really lie elsewhere and I majored in Comparative Religion. I never fitted into any of the departments neatly, and still don't, but if I return to finish my postgrad degree it will be in Dept of Studies in Religion.

Philosophy is, in part, the attempt to replace opinion with knowledge. I value that.

Thought that was sience.

You've had an interesting path. What adjustment did you make to go from failing to high distinction?

It's a looong story. I entered University as what was then called a Mature Age Student - I was in my late 20's. I had some, how shall we say, spiritual experiences in the 60's and was trying to create an intellectual framework for them. Strangely (or perhaps not!) the entrance exam for my year consisted of a long comprehension test, the subject of which was Bertrand Russell's brilliant Mysticism and Logic. This more or less set the course for me. I studied Philosophy, Psychology, Comparative Religion, Anthropology and History. But generally I was, and am, self-taught. Nobody at uni was really the least interested in, or knowledgeable about, what I wanted to understand, but I found pieces here and there and synthesized my own answer. It is actually very close to theosophy - not the society of that name, but in the sense of spiritual philosophy based on mystical insight.

So sometimes I got high marks, sometimes not, but I finished with a Honours Degree in Religious Studies for a thesis in American Transcendentalism. And I am still studying to this day, but my interests are tangential to philosophy as it is now understood.

A good CONMAN make good philosopher.

I'm still wondering how you made the change from being "too philosophical." I'm trying to imagine the scene in which your professor told you that. One might think he would encourage you instead of giving you a bad grade.