|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:49 am
What is a philosopher?
Literally, the root words of philosopher mean "lover of wisdom". But what does loving wisdom entail? Does it mean that we posses wisdom, or simply strive to acheive it?
Or, if we take the socratic point of veiw, we are simply more aware of the fact that we don't have much, if any, wisdom. Is a philosopher someone who won't accept that?
What's your definition of a philosopher, and why?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:51 pm
Technically, a philosopher would be someone that majors in philosophy (duh). But I disagree with that definition. When you are studying actual philosophy, you're just being told what other people thought before you. And told to accept it, one way or another.
To me, a philosopher is simply someone who questions his/her surroundings. Someone who doesn't necessarily agrees with the conventions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:01 am
MightyHikaru Technically, a philosopher would be someone that majors in philosophy (duh). But I disagree with that definition. When you are studying actual philosophy, you're just being told what other people thought before you. And told to accept it, one way or another. To me, a philosopher is simply someone who questions his/her surroundings. Someone who doesn't necessarily agrees with the conventions. But does the reasons for questioning your surroundings affect your statis as a philosopher? A certian level of this is merely needed for human survival. Most people question there surroundings beacuse they want to control their surroundings. I think a philosopher is anyone that questions thier surroundings for pure curiosity. In other words the love of wisdom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:30 pm
vorel_vargach But does the reasons for questioning your surroundings affect your statis as a philosopher? A certian level of this is merely needed for human survival. Most people question there surroundings beacuse they want to control their surroundings. I think a philosopher is anyone that questions thier surroundings for pure curiosity. In other words the love of wisdom. In a way. Because you see, we don't really have to question anything. Everything is dictated to us throughout our lives in the "that is so" manner. Our parents and society has chewed everything so all we have to do is swallow. To me, the philosopher is the person who doesn't necessary swallow everything without thinking it through. And, yeah, that might qualify as for loving wisdom, providing that each person can have a different definition for "wisdom". I could have a revelation that I find it to be the deepest truth in the universe, while you might think the same thing is a load of s**t. It's wisdom to me, but it's not to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:01 am
MightyHikaru vorel_vargach But does the reasons for questioning your surroundings affect your statis as a philosopher? A certian level of this is merely needed for human survival. Most people question there surroundings beacuse they want to control their surroundings. I think a philosopher is anyone that questions thier surroundings for pure curiosity. In other words the love of wisdom. In a way. Because you see, we don't really have to question anything. Everything is dictated to us throughout our lives in the "that is so" manner. Our parents and society has chewed everything so all we have to do is swallow. To me, the philosopher is the person who doesn't necessary swallow everything without thinking it through. And, yeah, that might qualify as for loving wisdom, providing that each person can have a different definition for "wisdom". I could have a revelation that I find it to be the deepest truth in the universe, while you might think the same thing is a load of s**t. It's wisdom to me, but it's not to you. It seems to me that human beings by nature question things. It is are greatest strength and what has allowed us to dominate the world. Do people some times fail to question things? Yes but that only means they are failing to use their most natural and powerful gift. In other words no person swallows everything without thinking it through. If they do they arn't humans they are automotons. That is why I think that to be a philosopher it has to be out of pure curiosity and not just for the advantage that it gives you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:06 am
vorel_vargach It seems to me that human beings by nature question things. It is are greatest strength and what has allowed us to dominate the world. Do people some times fail to question things? Yes but that only means they are failing to use their most natural and powerful gift. In other words no person swallows everything without thinking it through. If they do they arn't humans they are automotons. That is why I think that to be a philosopher it has to be out of pure curiosity and not just for the advantage that it gives you. Most people critisize the questioning of things though, and it seems to me that everyone expects each other to take something for granted. Not exactly the best example: If a teacher, in his class, states the world is flat, and expects you to think the same, at least in that class you must agree the world is, indeed, flat. I know that in anstronomy, I answered the question concerning the matter of "we are made from stardust" by starting out "According to astronomy". Because, according to astronomy, we are. Other trains of thought would conflict... Is it to be an automatron if you take all things "relevant" like science... without question? As pure fact? sweatdrop Or am I just an oddball?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:28 pm
aaarhus vorel_vargach It seems to me that human beings by nature questioning things. It is are greatest strength and what has allowed us to dominate the world. Do people some times fail to question things? Yes but that only means they are failing to use their most natural and powerful gift. In other words no person swallows everything without thinking it through. If they do they arn't humans they are automotons. That is why I think that to be a philosopher it has to be out of pure curiosity and not just for the advantage that it gives you. Most people critisize the questioning of things though, and it seems to me that everyone expects each other to take something for granted. Not exactly the best example: If a teacher, in his class, states the world is flat, and expects you to think the same, at least in that class you must agree the world is, indeed, flat. I know that in anstronomy, I answered the question concerning the matter of "we are made from stardust" by starting out "According to astronomy". Because, according to astronomy, we are. Other trains of thought would conflict... Is it to be an automatron if you take all things "relevant" like science... without question? As pure fact? sweatdrop Or am I just an oddball? People critizise those who question things for a verity of reasons. The formost of which is power. If they can do all of lthe thinking and prevent you from doing any they are in a far better possition to control you. Secondly for conformity. As Niechize said "Morality is the herd instinct in man". As for your story there is a big diffrence between giving some one the answer they want to here and taking that answer for granted. Also I'm not sure what you mean by relevent. If you mean conforming to the facts then I would say that you can take it as a temporary answer as long as you keep in mind that new "facts" will be discovered all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:59 pm
philosiphy is simply the study for Truth what you're ideas on Truth or wisdom are varies from person to person it realy doesn't matter.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:50 pm
Cradoc philosiphy is simply the study for Truth what you're ideas on Truth or wisdom are varies from person to person it realy doesn't matter..... As I said there are many people that "study for truth" that I don't think most people would call philosophers. jurnalists, spys, many scientists, detectives, and others. I think the reason is more important than the action itself. Unless you are holding that the act of spying is in fact an act of philosophy I do not understand how you can make the statment that pholosophy is simply the study for truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:24 am
I guess you could say philosophy is an art of questioning. Philosopher's have no perfect answers but they have infinite questions. Like Douglas Adams wrote, before you can understand the answer you must first know what the question is. Do you know the question?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socrates in Disguise Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:29 pm
Socrates in Disguise I guess you could say philosophy is an art of questioning. Philosopher's have no perfect answers but they have infinite questions. Like Douglas Adams wrote, before you can understand the answer you must first know what the question is. Do you know the question? Wasn't the question what does it mean to be a philosopher? As for philosophy being an art of questioning, if that is the case then which art of questioning is it? Aw, perhaps you mean that where as spying is the art of gatheing information philosophy questions sololy for the purpose of askling the question. But this is what I have been trying to say all along. Philosopher asks not to gain power but beacuse answers or not we need the questions to be asked. On second though I geuss there is a diffrence between asking a question for the sake of asking a question and asking a question in hopes of gaining a greater(if useless) understanding. Which is more of what I was suggestion earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:01 pm
Quote: "Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher; and philosophy begins in wonder." -Plato I think that this convees the genral idea of what a philosopher is that I would like to express.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:12 pm
The other day I was told that philosophers are people with philosophy P.H.D.s who have written one or more professionaly recognized books on the subject. How many people do you think think this way? How many philosophers do you think think this way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:10 am
Corrupt Harmony What is a philosopher? Literally, the root words of philosopher mean "lover of wisdom". But what does loving wisdom entail? Does it mean that we posses wisdom, or simply strive to acheive it? Or, if we take the socratic point of veiw, we are simply more aware of the fact that we don't have much, if any, wisdom. Is a philosopher someone who won't accept that? What's your definition of a philosopher, and why?
However, to be a philosopher requires the good sense and insight to value wisdom(knowledge of truth) as important enough to be worthy of love and strife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
