[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.05 MB, 3264x2448, 1593739129508.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15810831 No.15810831 [Reply] [Original]

At what point does someone become a philosopher? Is it just a matter of enough people deciding to call them one? Are we all technically philosophers? Do you need to be published first? Can you just decide to call yourself one?

>> No.15810864
File: 164 KB, 401x314, 860780606860.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15810864

Technically anyone who philosophizes is a philosopher.

>> No.15810868

>>15810831
Comedians are the modern day philosophers.

>> No.15810879

>>15810831
If you can put philosophy into practice in your day-to-day life, even in simple ways, you're a philosopher.

>> No.15810950

>>15810864
>>15810879
Is that literally all it takes?
>>15810868
So you don't actually have to come up with a complicated framework of new ideas?

>> No.15810971

>>15810950
I find that a useful way to look at it. Practicing a little philosophy is worth more than engaging in a lot of theoretical gymnastics.

>> No.15810998

>>15810950
>>15810831
yah, why is it so astonding. if you do a little science, you are a scientist. a little painting, you are a painter. the only difference with phil (and maybe science too) is that the art can be preformed at any time and in ones own mind. of course, there is qualitative levels to philosophy. just like how testing the tempurture of a chicken with a thermometer is in a way doing science, but we would prefer calling a true scientist someone who does more academically rigorous scientific persutes/

>> No.15811010

>>15810831
I think it is a career nowadays, anon. As in you get into education and get a degree. You can be called informally as one but I think this isn't nice to actual philosophers. What is wrong with thinker?

>> No.15811015

>>15810831
1. Develop an original and significant idea
2. Spread it around widely (publication helps but is not mandatory)
3. Defend your idea against the many criticisms you will receive
4. Argue, argue, argue and argue some more

Anyone who says its easy is just plain wrong

>> No.15811030

>>15810971
How do you ''practice philosophy''?
>>15810998
Things like science and the arts can be evaluated objectively to a point i.e, ''that painting is shit'' what's the litmus test for someone being legitimate deep or just a pseud who's full of shit?
>>15811010
How do you differentiate between a thinker and a philosopher?

>> No.15811051

>>15811030
>Things like science and the arts can be evaluated objectively to a point i.e, ''that painting is shit
i agree partially with the science thing, partially, but for painting not so much. you know with post modernist art and the feild of aesthetics being by many a subjective thing. Phil is an in between of an art and a science since its very being requires a logical foundation, or at least an explanatory one. what makes a painting legitamately good and not just full of shit? i ask you this anon.

>> No.15811112

>>15811051
>what makes a painting legitimately good and not just full of shit?
I suppose the level of craftsmanship. Some people like some cars more than others, for instance, I'd never get an 80's Ferarri but it's obviously just objectively ''better'' than an old Ford. I suppose how well the artist executed their vision and was able to express it could answer that too.

A great artist in an hour could make something much ''better'' than a beginner could in a day, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any given person would enjoy the pro's work more. Does that make sense?

>> No.15811123

>>15811015
Don't listen to him op, I've done this and I've gotten worse off. Now nobody debates me.

Suck off a bunch of ppl and get on nyt or some yter debate

>> No.15811143

>>15811123
kek, obviously you had not actually done step 1

>> No.15811151

>>15811143
uwus are more preferable owos ;c

>> No.15811194

>>15811112
I think that totally makes sense. and id give the general same description of philosophy. the level of craftmanship in the created system. how in depth, evokative, or truthful it is. id never get into Kant, but its objectively "better" than the pseudo- intellectual with half formed unexamined thoughts on youtube.

>> No.15811207

>>15810831
When someone realizes they know nothing like the great idler himself Socrates. Is that what Nietzsche called him? The idler? Lol

>> No.15811250

>>15810868
They're pretty shit at it.

>> No.15811267
File: 302 KB, 1920x1080, 1593916248064.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15811267

>>15811030
Not the anon you're replying to. Here's my 2 cents anyway

While a thinker can be any mundane author who writes in an abstract framework of ideas without necessarily believing in Truth, a philosopher is one who makes his ideas publicly known and engages with his ideas in the real world (reflects it in his behavior, in his dealings with other people who may also be philosophers). Ideally he also carries his ideas to their logical extreme to show the full potential of his philosophy for getting us closer to the Truth

This is why I personally disagree with the academic use of the term "philosopher" to describe thinkers who get published in scientific-sounding papers rather than those who write non-fiction in the established philosophical tradition of seeking after wisdom

>> No.15811279

>>15811030
Formal education, anon. Someone can study psychology, build a lab at home and try it out on people around them. But that doesn't make that person a psychologist.

>> No.15811283

>>15811250
That's more of a reflection on you and your taste. Listen to more podcasts.

>> No.15811309

When they get their heart broken and start to cope with the thoughts of dead people and acquire the habit for the rest of their lives
Or maybe that's just me

>> No.15811338

>>15811309
<\3

>> No.15811347

Here's what kant said:
>Until now, however, the concept of philosophy has been only a scholastic concept, namely that of a system of cognition that is sought only as a science without having as its end anything more than the systematic unity of this knowledge, thus the logical perfection of cognition. But there is also a cosmopolitan concept (conceptus cosmicus) that has always grounded this term, especially when it is, as it were, personified and represented as an archetype in the ideal of the philosopher. From this point of view philosophy is the science of the relation of all cognition to the essential ends of human reason (teleologia rationis humanae), and the philosopher is not an artist of reason but the legislator of human reason. It would be very boastful to call oneself a philosopher in this sense and to pretend to have equaled the archetype, which lies only in the idea.

>> No.15811355

>>15811338
>He had a pretty daughter who became the successful rival of Latin for the affections of Spinoza; even a modern collegian might be persuaded to study Latin by such inducements. But the young lady was not so much of an intellectual as to be blind to the main chance; and when another suitor came, bearing costly presents, she lost interest in Spinoza. No doubt it was at that moment that our hero became a philosopher.
Will Durant

>> No.15811377

>>15811355
Hahahah damn word