What makes a philosopher Rating:
A philosopher is a person who seeks wisdom and understanding, often through thinking and reflection about the nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophers are curious, open-minded, and deeply committed to finding answers to the fundamental questions of life. They are critical thinkers who rigorously examine and evaluate ideas, arguments, and evidence in order to arrive at reasoned conclusions.
To be a philosopher, one must have a curious and inquisitive mind, a willingness to consider and question assumptions and beliefs, and a desire to seek knowledge and understanding. Philosophers are often characterized by their intellectual curiosity and their ability to think deeply and critically about complex ideas and problems. They have a love of learning and are always seeking out new information and perspectives.
In addition to these personal qualities, philosophers must also have strong analytical skills and the ability to communicate their ideas clearly and persuasively. They must be able to break down complex issues into their component parts and examine them carefully and critically. They must also be able to present their ideas in a clear and logical manner, using evidence and reason to support their arguments.
The work of philosophers is often difficult and requires sustained focus and concentration. It requires a willingness to grapple with abstract and complex ideas, and to think deeply about fundamental questions that may not have clear or easy answers. Philosophers must be persistent in their pursuit of knowledge and understanding, and be willing to challenge their own assumptions and beliefs in the face of new evidence or arguments.
Overall, what makes a philosopher is a combination of personal qualities and skills. It requires a curious and open-minded personality, strong analytical skills, and the ability to communicate and defend one's ideas effectively. A philosopher is someone who is deeply committed to seeking wisdom and understanding, and who is willing to put in the hard work and dedication required to achieve it.
What makes someone a philosopher? : askphilosophy
A more self-referential interpretation of the idea that a philosopher enables other people to do things is that a philosopher is one whose work lends itself to the production of more philosophy. The pettifogger, the jury, and by implication the whole society, live with the constant pressure of time. Interpersonal disagreement, or disagreement between people, is incidental. Even if the philosopher acts in contrast to their own philosophy as has so often occurred , it must occupy their thoughts unceasingly. But someone had told me that my answer was just a comment of opinion, and that I needed to add some insight from a philosopher or something similar to that, rightfully so because it was just my opinion. And how does one become a philosopher? A philosopher is therefore one who does not profess to know everything.
That is, philosophy is not a simple art of forming, inventing, or fabricating concepts, because concepts are not necessarily forms, discoveries, or products. You answer by paragraph: 1. From inside we do not see: we conform and abide. A given person might have one opinion about one thing and a completely contrary opinion about something else, without ever realizing that the two just don't fit with each other at all. All our writers are native English Speakers.
Retrieved 31 March 2016— via Internet Archive. I even considered starting a 12-step program. The philosopher must therefore be one who utilises the work of other philosophers, and allows their work to be used by others. We can see this in the treatment of the Uighur Muslims by the Chinese state where they are being forcibly made to reject their heritage. Indeed, each great philosopher seems to have their own great concepts. It seems to me that the difference between the professional and armchair philosopher is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. I don't think philosophy is inaccessible to the layperson in the same way that science isn't inaccessible.
First, we should recall that Thales believed that water was the universal substance out of which all things were composed. Motivations for Self-Examination When we recognise an inconsistency in our beliefs we may find this irresistible to puzzle over. That is the work of philosophy, to cut paths for that transition. All this said, there is nothing that says that a person without a Ph. These and other problems of philosophy are spring cleaning for the mind. People can see the true value in philosophy once they are actually exposed to it. On the other hand, why not? Part of the goal of philosophical thought is to reconcile our many views into a coherent whole and so act and be as one in the world.
But by your analogy, this is not at all what I'm saying. The philosopher must therefore be one who utilises the work of other philosophers, and allows their work to be used by others. Ideal knowledge involves further confidence that the justification is grounded completely coherent and directly salient. And how does one become a philosopher? You actually need the academic background to get into this conversation and provide some insights. Ethicists have historically argued over the value of a human life, and their ideas can sometimes be useful to doctors facing hard decisions. What I'm denying is that laypeople contribute significantly to our understanding of normative ethics and meta-ethics, not that they can't make ethical decisions or aren't interested in them.
Chinese and other Asian civilizations became known for their schools of thought, such as Confucianism. Thinking about something and wondering about it are not necessarily the same thing. Explain these two models in your own words and provide a unique example that illustrates how each method might function. Philosophy is not merely derivative, but nor is it isolated: it spreads itself around. This was the avowed goal of the school of Pyrrhonian scepticism founded by Pyrrho of Ellis c. A more self-referential interpretation of the idea that a philosopher enables other people to do things is that a philosopher is one whose work lends itself to the production of more philosophy. I appreciate the long-winded rant, but it completely misses the point.
In the end, then, it seems we are left with a fundamental choice. Nevertheless, we may feel this sense of wonder and deep intrigue when considering philosophical possibilities and still not be moved to investigate. However, these lay neuroscientists don't generally have anything interesting to contribute to a discussion of the biology of Alzheimer's or addiction. Rather, our concern should be with a distinctive class of intuitions. It is not there to appease or to make people feel better; it is there to provoke a constant restlessness of being. While it's true that philosophers do contemplate the meaning of existence, they are deep thinkers on many issues that continue to fuel the desire for knowledge and the quest for truth.
Their words either meet or cross the path of truth. Articles What Makes A Philosopher? The key contention here is that trained philosophers have a distinctive type of expertise. What makes someone a philosopher is their drive to understand and mold the clay that makes up their mind. I had backed it up with logic and reasoning as well. Here is where I am coming from: What I was saying is that the different ways most people navigate the world are highly relevant to philosophy. In addition to having time, the philosopher is often legitimately at odds with the time in which they live. Montesquieu appears to be doing something similar here; practicing a kind of argumentative Ju-Jitsu.
The true philosopher must live in and for their philosophy. It just depends on what we mean by philosophy. They philosophise simply out of the Will to Philosophise. Times changed and so did philosophy, but not entirely. Nurtured in freedom and taking their time, there is something dreadfully uncanny about the philosopher, something either monstrous or god-like or indeed both at once. It doesn't make them right — and trust me, philosophers are generally the last people who would claim to be right in some 'absolute' sense — but it makes their opinions considered in a way that most people do not understand or aspire to.