Philosophers are born, not made ?

[Gees]

Tar;

 

Please consider my responses to three of your posts, as follows:

 

Gees,

 

Not quite sure how you are using the term instinct. Normally I think of the term instinct as referring to a species wide, complex behaviour. Like nest building. Other inate type behavior like suckling a breast, is more of a reflexive behaviour. When it comes to philosophy, which is very complex behaviour, I am thinking instinct does not apply. If it was instinctual, then it would be species wide, and not something one individual in the species would have, that others of the species did not.

 

In this light, being a born philosopher does not make any sense.

 

Well I can see why it wouldn't, as you have missed the point of my argument. The point was that innate knowledge does exist. I offered instincts as a "proof" that innate knowledge exists. Now I do not want to get into a debate about instincts as that would take us off topic, and as we discussed before, the subject of instincts is being revised on an almost daily basis because of new discoveries. Instincts are generally agreed to be innate.

We do not need to be in full agreement on the subject of instincts to prove it's relevance to innate knowledge. Let us take the example of the "fight or flight" instinct, as this is well agreed upon, to consider instincts in relation to innate knowledge. A rabbit will generally flee in the face of danger, but how does it know what is dangerous? And it does know, because if it did not, then it would sit placidly while becoming a tasty snack, or it would run itself frantic at every movement or sound, such as an ant crawling by. Either of these reactions would cause rabbits to become extinct, so rabbits do know what to run from and what to run to -- this is knowledge.

So where does this knowledge come from? Either it is innate, or it is taught through language (some kind of communication), or it is learned from experience. Not many people believe that it is taught through language, so we are talking either innate or learned. Some people believe that this is learned knowledge, and they state that the rabbit sees other rabbits being attacked and learns to avoid certain predators. Here is the problem with this theory; in order to learn, the rabbit has to observe another rabbit being attacked, identify with that other rabbit, have an understanding of time that will allow it to see the possibility of this happening in the future to itself, then strategize and plan for an escape from that danger and plot it's survival. We are talking serious thinking here for an animal that is not supposed to have a mind or any knowledge.

Consider a fly; a fly will flee just like a rabbit if it tries to get your food and you swat it away, but unlike a rabbit, the fly will return over and over until you finally kill it. The fly does not have the ability to understand that you will kill it, so it repeats the action. If it were as smart as a rabbit, it would simply wait for you to put the left-overs in the garbage and then have it's feast. A fly does not have the ability to learn that we are dangerous. It does not have the ability to use time to it's advantage. It does not have enough innate knowledge to learn these things. imo

Regardless of whether one chooses instinct, language, or learning, all require a base of knowledge for that learning/reacting to happen. This means that there is some innate knowledge; innate knowledge does exist.

I also doubt that one should refer to philosophy as a "behavior".

To be born a philosopher would then become more a distinction placed upon an individual by their peers, or family, and the greater society around them, based upon other's determination or recognition of skills and abilities, rather than a determination that a particular person could make concerning themselves.

Although I can see your point, consider: Do you think that a person loved wisdom and became known as a "lover of wisdom", a philosopher? Or do you think a committee got together and decided that we needed a person who loved wisdom, so they searched far and wide to gather all of the wisdom that they could find, then tried to train a person to love it? This is not a "chicken or the egg" question. The philosopher came first.

Could someone be considered a born computer programmer?

 

I don't know. What skills would a very good computer programmer need to possess? Because that is what we are talking about here, skills, not memories.

 

Nature-nurture, is not an either or, consideration. The two are rather quite interdependent.

Agreed.

The OP was not the first to think.

 

Why do you say things like this? No one claimed that the OP was the first to think.

 

Gees,

 

Well a great Philosopher by the name of Kant, thought that one could not know the thing as it is. One could make a great deal of judgments about a thing, and say a great deal about a thing, but this was not knowing the thing as it is.

 

Kant was a prominent and well regarded philosopher, but you have taken his statements out of context, so I can not be sure of his meaning. Aristotle was also a prominent philosopher, and has been referred to as the Father of Science, and he thought that we could learn the thing in itself.

If you take a log and throw it on a fire, it will burn to ash; if you take plastic and put it on a fire, it will melt and probably poison you; if you take metal or rock and put it on a fire, it will retain heat and maybe crack. These are properties of these different things -- what they are in and of themselves. This is what science studies, what things are in and of themselves -- their properties.

To assume that a thing must be physical in order to have properties is naive.

You say that pure philosophy is a love of wisdom and truth, and the search for or the attainment of such.

I agree, but don't think this is a quest that you are on, that I am not. You figure that you are a philosopher of the only correct kind, because everything appears to be true that you believe, and because I disagree with your take, I can't be a philosopher.

 

If you were trying to convince me that you are not a philosopher, the above statements would do it.

1. I never stated that my kind of philosophy is the "only correct kind". It isn't.
2. I have made it clear many times that I have had to change my beliefs in lieu of new information.
3. I never said that you "can't be a philosopher", just that you are not a philosopher like me, as it is clear that you need to work on your powers of observation and accuracy.

Accuracy is even more important in philosophy than it is in science -- and it is very important in science.

As to truth, I would guess that there are two types. Common truth, which is true to you and to me, and to any and all third parties, which we can call objective truth, and then subjective truth, which is true to you in the face of general disagreement.

If you want to talk about truth, then start a thread. I broke down truth into six different levels and catagories for my own use, and it would be interesting to get some one else's take on it.

 

Gees,

 

Now consider the OP's contention that he "remembered" being a philosopher at birth.

 

I deleted almost all of your third post as it was mute. The only relevant statement is in the above quote. Your entire post was written as a rebuttal to Turionx2's claim that "he 'remembered' being a philosopher at birth", but this is not true. Turionx2 made no such claim.

 

I know this because if that is what the original post claimed, then I would not have asked for this thread to be reopened. I would have read it, decided that it was kind of stupid, and moved on. In the OP, Turionx2 was talking about knowledge, skills, a way of thinking, and the possibility that these things can be innate. He was not talking about memories and did not even mention memories. Memories, false or otherwise, are the nonsense that you and iNow interpreted. This is also why I had to write a rebuttal to that nonsense.

 

Since your entire argument is based on a false premise, your argument is moot.

 

The most important rule in philosophy is that one make ACCURATE observations. If one can not do this, then all philosophy would be based on false premesis, and we would just be a bunch of Chatty Cathy's spewing nonsense.

 

If anyone wished to discuss innate knowledge, types of thinking, what reasoning really is, or even different types of logic, it would be wonderful and on topic.

 

G

 

 

[cladking]

If anyone wished to discuss innate knowledge,...

 

 

It's just the way the brain is wired. This wiring is far more complex and conntains much more knpowledge than people realize. Young have to unlearn what they know before they can be taught. This is mostly complete by the time they say their first word but goes on for years. We misapprehend the nature of "knowledge" because we overestimate the amount of knowledge we have. All real knowledge is visceral and even it is subject to being rewritten.

 

I'd guess the rabbit has far more real intelligence than we give it credit for and we have far less. I'd guess that the rabbit's brain is simply programmed to run at the approach of any animal with eyes and to allow less closeness for anything with eyes in the front of its face. Of course there is a lot more to know to be a rabbit than just when to run and the brain has other necessary programming as well; just like the human brain that is retaught in babies.

 

...types of thinking,...

 

 

I can't discuss types of thinking without discussing language and my beliefs about language are wildly unpopular and usually considered off topic. Suffice to say all animals are born with a language specific to that animal. Human language has been lost except with each new human.

 

...what reasoning really is,...

 

 

Reasoning is the ordered means to view fact, information, and observation. Reasoning leads to new knowledge when done correctly. At worst it will lead to the knowledge that all hypotheses are not created equal.

 

...or even different types of logic, it would be wonderful and on topic.

 

 

 

There's only one logic but there can be different ways to apply it by using various terms and definitions.

Of course, due to the nature of language, I'm really saying far more about myself and my perceptions than about reality itself.

 

I attempt to distill my definitions down to their simplest meaning so that these words do apply to nature itself to as great a degree as is possible with our language. Of course each person reading these thoughts will have his own take on my meaning and walk away with his own understanding. This is impossible to avoid but it should be understood I mean all this literally and exactly as stated in the simplest definitions of the terms used.

[tar]

Gees,

 

Plato and the cave, with the shadows on the wall, is the way I take Kant's statement that we can not know the thing as it is.

 

Sure you listed properties, but they are all considered by Kant, as things we can say about something, based on judjements we make and ways we apply those judgments over time. The only "inate" understandings Kant figures we have, the only a priori intuitions, are that of time, and that of space.

 

Consider the human brain, already structured with a way to sense the world, a way to remember what was sensed, and a way to compare the two, and furthermore to compare and make analogies, shift grain size and manipulate or "test" the world, in a predictive fashion, seeing what might work by "practicing" it in ones head, before expending the energy or taking the risk to actually cause reality to change. These are inate abilities but not instinct, not prior knowledge. We just learn quickly to match up what is on the outside with what is on the inside.

 

My contention is that the world does a lot of "thinking" for us, and shows us what will work and what will not, when it comes to space and time, geometry and cause and effect. We don't even know the way around our own house, until we see all the rooms. We learn about the world and build a model of it, internally, so that we can get to work, or know where the mushrooms grow, or where the blueberry patches are, or where the deer trail is and where the water hole is.

 

Ways of thinking, truth and logic have a lot to do with following the model of the world you have, and matching up the model with what is apparently the case, instantly. In this regart I would say that the world is already fitting itself in an error free manner, and it is up to the human mind to follow suit as closely and precisely as it can manage.

 

The world exhibits truth and the mind absorbs it. So its not likely to start out "already knowing" what truth and logic is.

 

Now I do think there are certain forms and structures, images and such that might be "built in" to a human. As I find a womanly shape attractive on a very base level, I am not convinced that I did not "know" this was a pleasing shape, from the very beginning. And as you have mentioned, hormones seem to guide a person toward certain "judgements" that might be "built in" , where nobody needs to teach 12 year old Judy and 13 year old Brad, how to play "Doctor", and they each already have a desire to "learn" about how the other is put together.

 

But senses and memory, an a priori understanding of time and space, hormones and reflexes, do not an instinct make. We, species wide can do these things, "instictively". but as humans we have lost any trace of a species wide, complex, unlearned behavior, that you can call an instinct like nest building....or all our houses would look exactly the same, or there would be some thing that you could point to where people all over the world alway walk together in V formations, or something. Philosophy is certainly not something done exactly the same, everywhere in all cases, in an unlearned fashion. If you were right, and it IS inate and unlearned then we all have it, and being born a philosopher would not be a distinction. On the other hand, if being a philosopher is a distinction then some people can do it, and others can not. Which leaves only things like intelligence and upbringing and schooling, and astute observation and musing, to develop a philosopher.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Jwolffe]

I beleive that philosophers are made.The environment an individual is subjected to influences his\her reasoning.Most philosophers have either observed a lot in life or suffered it.

[cladking]

 

But senses and memory, an a priori understanding of time and space, hormones and reflexes, do not an instinct make. We, species wide can do these things, "instictively". but as humans we have lost any trace of a species wide, complex, unlearned behavior, that you can call an instinct like nest building....or all our houses would look exactly the same, or there would be some thing that you could point to where people all over the world alway walk together in V formations, or something. Philosophy is certainly not something done exactly the same, everywhere in all cases, in an unlearned fashion. If you were right, and it IS inate and unlearned then we all have it, and being born a philosopher would not be a distinction. On the other hand, if being a philosopher is a distinction then some people can do it, and others can not. Which leaves only things like intelligence and upbringing and schooling, and astute observation and musing, to develop a philosopher.

 

 

 

Why would humans have lost their instincts. Certainly individuals can lose almost all of their instincts by having them overwritten by knowledge but the species would be unaffected. Even if every individual lost these instincts there are still babies which would possess them. Each of us is very different based on our experiences and learning but people are almost infinitely adaptable. Virtually anything at all can come to seem normal and almost any type of thinking can arise.

 

We have a perspective instilled by education, or western thought, or human progress but every individual grows up with a language and this language defines his nature even more than his instincts. We act on beliefs and in a very real way instincts themselves are a sort of belief that one doesn't even think about. Anytime you do something without thinking it is habit (typical) or instinct or a combination.

 

It seems you are ascribing your beliefs as they apply to yourself to everyone. I'm not even convinced that you have no instincts and you just need to get into a situation that you are unfamiliar with to experience one. Some people can be highly cerebral and consider just about everything before reacting.

 

I know this is rambling but wanted to make several of these points.

[tar]

Cladking,

 

But, if there are things we all do the same way, like suckle a nipple, or express pain or want or surprise through certain expirations of air through our vocal chords in certain rythms and strengths, they are SO natural and instinctual, that we do not find them interesting or surprising or in anyway unusual. Wow, that baby was born knowing how to wake up mom and get fed. Complex behavior, species wide, inborn and natural. So much so, we all understand it, all know it, and "think" nothing of it. We all did it, and "get" it, when a baby does it.

 

There are probably other, many other things of this nature that we do, but they are obvious and plain, and already "understood" by everyone. Plus there are many subconscious or "natural" ways we have of communicating, through hormones and subtle facial expressions and body language, where we have not "lost" these "instinctual" complex behaviors. But like metabolizing food, or sending blood to our muscles and nerves and cells, through our lungs by beating our heart just so, and expanding and contracting our lung cavities to intake and expel oxygen and carbon dioxide, there are just things we are born, knowing how to do. All of us.

 

Philosophy is not one of them. Computer programming is not one of them. Sending a probe to Mars, is not one of them. These are complex behaviors that we learn how to do.

 

It is difficult to imagine being born to fly an airplane. Especially difficult to imagine this inborn skill before the Wright Brothers.

 

Regards, TAR

We learn skills. We practice skills. We put our natural, inborn abilities together in such a way as to make them useful to ourselves or others.

 

The OP was not the first to think or use logic, or seach for sharable, useable, truth and wisdom.

And although the OP might have been born with greater capacity to excercise these behaviors than I was, perhaps quicker and more sure at pattern matching and predicting outcomes of complex combinations of materials and energies or whatever, my admonition to him and to Gees is to consider the usefulness of such skill, and the importance of "learning" how to apply them in a social setting.

 

"Truth" and "Wisdom" are of little value, if you are the only one to have them, in some impossible to share configuration.

If your "philosophy" is a secret, then it isn't "true" to the rest of us.

We all laugh, we all cry. We all wonder why.

And Socrates was put to death.

[Ahhhr]

Room for nature and nurture both. Each side in a war feels logic is on their side.

[petrushka.googol]

Philosophers are often regarded as iconoclastic.

My own concept is that what distinguishes philosophers from their antagonists is their abhorrence to socially accepted norms and conventions.

They are like a super exclusive clique with their neural networks more "fuzzy" then the average person...which causes them to think tangentially (if i could put it that way).

 

[cladking]

Philosophers are often regarded as iconoclastic.

My own concept is that what distinguishes philosophers from their antagonists is their abhorrence to socially accepted norms and conventions.

They are like a super exclusive clique with their neural networks more "fuzzy" then the average person...which causes them to think tangentially (if i could put it that way).

 

 

 

Mebbe, "living outside the box".

[Gees]

Hi Guys/Gals;

 

After reviewing this thread, it appears to me that we are becoming more confused about what a philosopher is, rather than becoming more clear on this subject. So please consider my responses to the following:

 

Philosophers are not often understood by normal people since normal people do not have the correct mind set to understand them. We have had people like this in all generations. In the past we have had people who thought outside the box and tried to figure out the ways of the world.

 

Marshalscienceguy;

 

It almost appears that you are saying that philosophers are not "normal". You also reference "outside the box".

 

 

Philosophers are often regarded as iconoclastic.

My own concept is that what distinguishes philosophers from their antagonists is their abhorrence to socially accepted norms and conventions.

They are like a super exclusive clique with their neural networks more "fuzzy" then the average person...which causes them to think tangentially (if i could put it that way).

 

 

Petrushka.googol;

 

You also imply that philosophers are not normal when you talk about their "abhorrance to socially accepted norms", so you also see them as "outside the box".

 

I am not sure if I should feel complimented or insulted by your description of my "fuzzy" neural networks, but I know that reading that sentence made me smile. (chuckle)

 

 

Mebbe, "living outside the box".

 

Cladking;

 

Another reference to "outside the box".

 

So there seems to be a lot of support for the idea that philosophers think outside the box. But how did the thinking get outside? And are you sure that it did "get outside"? Maybe it was always there. Many people who are told that they think outside the box have mentioned that they were not aware that there is a "box" -- I have stated this myself.

 

Which seems more feasible? That some people have a magical ability to take their thinking and relocate it? Or that most people limit their thinking by acceptiing other people's ideas? It seems to me that it would be a lot easier to put thinking into a box, than it woud be to extract it from an unknown box. So I don't think that it is some special thinking ability that causes a philosopher to think outside the box, but rather a very strong sense of wonder and curiosity that causes a philosopher to refuse to limit his/her thinking.

 

Cladking; a few posts back, you mentioned that maybe everyone is a philosopher. I think that you were right. I think that we were all born philosophers, or at least all of use who were born with a proper functioning body. Philosophers are people who observe their world and try to define what is real. Isn't that what babies do? We spend our first years studying our world, the people in our world, and ourselves, trying to determine what is real and how it works. We are full of wonder and curiosity, but eventually this is replaced with acceptance, ambitions, desires and pleasures, and a host of other feelings and ideas. People start to gravitate to other things and build on their unique identity.

 

One of the things that I have noted in people that I identified as philosophers, is their sense of wonder and curiosity -- it is sometimes almost childlike. So I think that one of the things required of a philosopher is the retention of curiosity and wonder. The ability to see things with a fresh eye, or the ability to see things with an unfettered perspective -- without the limits that come from being inside the box, and that we place on our ideas.

 

1. tar says in #48 "the universe can't even get two snowflakes to match exactly". Can anyone know that's actually true? Have all the snowflakes ever generated, throughout history, been checked against each other, for a possible match?

 

Dekan;

 

I can see by your rep that you are almost as good at irritating people as I am, , but I had to give you an up vote for the above quote. It is a perfect example of questions that a philosopher would ask.

 

Philosophers have a very sincere and intimate relationship with truth, so when someone makes a statement like, "the universe can't even get two snowflakes to match exactly", I also wonder how they could possibly know. I will grant that there could be a hypothesis regarding this, or even a theory, but how would it be tested? Even if it were possible to prove that the theory was correct, how could we know that it would be valid on other planets? This does not look like truth.

 

Truth is a primary concern of a philosopher, so I suppose that is why philosophers recognize truth and lies more easily, because we are looking for them. I have also noted in forums that some people will more readily recognize truth -- even when they don't agree with it or understand how it could possibly be -- they still recognize the reasoning and logic that explains it.

 

I have met other people in forums who simply can not recognize truth. I once stated that if I tatooed a simple truth on an arrowhead, attached it to the arrow, and shot it into them, they still would not be able to find and recognize a simple truth. But that was a bad temper day.

 

So besides being able to accurately observe, a philosopher needs to have a strong sense of wonder and curiosity, and must have an intimate relationship with truth.

 

G

[petrushka.googol]

 

Petrushka.googol;

 

You also imply that philosophers are not normal when you talk about their "abhorrence to socially accepted norms", so you also see them as "outside the box".

 

I am not sure if I should feel complimented or insulted by your description of my "fuzzy" neural networks, but I know that reading that sentence made me smile. (chuckle)

 

My opinion :

1) I am an aspiring philosopher.

2) Imitation is the best form of flattery.

From 1 and 2 : In response to I am not sure if I should feel complimented or insulted

Conclusion -- I think I see being a philosopher as an evolved state of consciousness like Kafka and Chekhov.

Having such an orientation energizes the psyche and makes one look away from an "only material" reality.

Edited February 4, 2014 by petrushka.googol

[cladking]

 

 

So there seems to be a lot of support for the idea that philosophers think outside the box. But how did the thinking get outside? And are you sure that it did "get outside"? Maybe it was always there. Many people who are told that they think outside the box have mentioned that they were not aware that there is a "box" -- I have stated this myself.

 

Which seems more feasible? That some people have a magical ability to take their thinking and relocate it? Or that most people limit their thinking by acceptiing other people's ideas? It seems to me that it would be a lot easier to put thinking into a box, than it woud be to extract it from an unknown box. So I don't think that it is some special thinking ability that causes a philosopher to think outside the box, but rather a very strong sense of wonder and curiosity that causes a philosopher to refuse to limit his/her thinking.

 

Cladking; a few posts back, you mentioned that maybe everyone is a philosopher. I think that you were right. I think that we were all born philosophers, or at least all of use who were born with a proper functioning body. Philosophers are people who observe their world and try to define what is real. Isn't that what babies do? We spend our first years studying our world, the people in our world, and ourselves, trying to determine what is real and how it works. We are full of wonder and curiosity, but eventually this is replaced with acceptance, ambitions, desires and pleasures, and a host of other feelings and ideas. People start to gravitate to other things and build on their unique identity.

 

One of the things that I have noted in people that I identified as philosophers, is their sense of wonder and curiosity -- it is sometimes almost childlike. So I think that one of the things required of a philosopher is the retention of curiosity and wonder. The ability to see things with a fresh eye, or the ability to see things with an unfettered perspective -- without the limits that come from being inside the box, and that we place on our ideas.

 

 

 

 

All well said. I'm in close agreement with your thinking here.

 

At the risk of perpetuating what is primarily a semantical disagreement, I do thing most philosophical types have much broader and more expansive thought patterns. Don't take me wrong here, lots of people who never gave philosophy a second thought can have very deep and very clear understandings but their thought tends to be more "focused" and often more pragmatic. If they plan a chess move six moves in advance then they project any reaction their opponent might take rather than just those that are most probable.

 

I've been looking up at the airplanes since the days they were "all" DC-3's.

 

Maybe it would also be appropriate to describe what philosophers do is getting caught up in things that don't matter. We all know they do but those who accept all the constructs and all the current thinking see philosophers as day dreamers.

 

To each his own and there are seven billion perspectives. Most of the perspectives seem to be eerily similar from my vantage point.

[pioneer07]

Yes its right you adopt Philosophy in your childhood and the other words its delivers from your parents not to learn from anyone and anywhere … I also think Philosophy are inborn abilities…

Edited February 4, 2014 by pioneer07

[tar]

Gees,

 

Part of my objection to your earlier lines of thinking was your suggestion that you and Cladking thought along the same lines, and were therefore Philosophers, and in the context in which you stated this, there was the implication that I, because I disagreed, with some of your "truths" and wisdom, was NOT a philosopher. I found this hard to jive with my life, and the opinions that others have had of me through it, which indicated to me that I indeed did have a philosophical "leaning", was a "thinker" (often of the "over" kind), thought outside the box, and searched for the truth, regardless of the conventional opinions on subjects. Some have even noted that they liked the way I thought, liked the way I look at things, and have sought me out, for my opinions.

 

Thus I think I am qualified to be in the philosopher's club, think I have paid my dues, and do not wish to be thrown out, on your say so.

 

It may be a somewhat exclusive club, but it is not that exclusive, that you can be in it, and I can not.

 

That being said, there must be something about being a philosopher, that is dependent on other people's opinions. If this is indeed the case, then one cannot be a philosopher by herself/himself, and must, at some point, in some way, consider other minds, and their relationship to these other minds...without other minds, philosophy would be as hard to find, as a matching snowflake.

 

Thus being born a philosopher makes no sense. And philosophers are made, in their own eyes, and in the eyes of others.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Besides, if there were certain rules and criteria that one needed to follow inorder to be a philosopher, that would be sort of a box in which one would have to think, and that would disallow anybody that thought they thought outside the box, from actually being able to say that they did.

 

There cannot be a philosopher box that we can put people in or out of, and at the same time consider philosophers unconstrained in their thinking.

My favorite joke, whilst a philosophy major at Upsala College, was that I wanted to start a sophists club.

I had as a philosophy professor a very bright man who is now the scholar in resisidence at a major U.S. university. That does not make me nescessarily a very good philosopher, nor am I an accomplished philosopher, but he did note on a certain recent occasion that I "thought outside the box". This statement, on his part "makes" me a philosopher, staying consistent with the current definition you are cobbling.

And any definition you come up with, can not include you, and exclude me, or you are not defining a philosopher.

Edited February 5, 2014 by tar

[Villain]

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that there is an objective thing such as a philosopher, by which people can class you or anyone else as. Euthyphro springs to mind .

[tar]

Villian,

 

Well perhaps, but if there is such a thing as philosophy, then there may be those who dabble in it, or do it full force, and these people could be objectively called philosophers, being the people who do this philosophy thing.

 

Then it comes to the definition we are using to describe a philosopher. I would suggest that something is objective if it can be agreed upon to be an object of discussion. Discussion between two or more subjective persons, who by virtue of other discussions have agreed that they each are part of the other's objective reality. Thus each person is both subject and object in the discussion, and in completely based territory, by being in possesion of the other person's objective judgement of the situation.

 

Gees has accused me of impiety and I have asked her to define piousness, in and of itself. This I have done with the probability that the definition is up to us, and what we decide is objectively true, among us, is true, among us, and can be an object of discussion.

 

Socrates evidently was on trial for impiety. I believe he lost that case and had to drink some poison.

 

Whether I am like Socrates, or like Euthyphro in this discussion, is not as important as taking a dualist approach that assumes that objectivity is a based assumption that gives any subjective judgment a wheight of truth, by virtue of it being available to the objective judgement of a second and third party.

 

All that being said, it is unlikely that one can be born with truth and logic, as it requires to such a large degree the involvement of second and third parties, to arrive at any objective conclusions beyound the apparent truths that our senses deliver to us.

 

Which still leads me to consider that one is not born a philosopher but developes into one, in the context of the environment of a society of judges.

 

Regards, TAR

In that, the gods are indeed not on Mt. Olympus, but among us, and objective judgement is available at any time, by asking anybody, other than yourself, for their judgement of the situation. And piousness, or the proper philosophical approach is a thing not obtainable in isolation from the reality or environment that would provide such things, in the first place.

[imatfaal]

Villian,

 

Well perhaps, but if there is such a thing as philosophy, then there may be those who dabble in it, or do it full force, and these people could be objectively called philosophers, being the people who do this philosophy thing.

 

Then it comes to the definition we are using to describe a philosopher. I would suggest that something is objective if it can be agreed upon to be an object of discussion. Discussion between two or more subjective persons, who by virtue of other discussions have agreed that they each are part of the other's objective reality. Thus each person is both subject and object in the discussion, and in completely based territory, by being in possesion of the other person's objective judgement of the situation.

 

Gees has accused me of impiety and I have asked her to define piousness, in and of itself. This I have done with the probability that the definition is up to us, and what we decide is objectively true, among us, is true, among us, and can be an object of discussion.

 

Socrates evidently was on trial for impiety. I believe he lost that case and had to drink some poison.

 

Whether I am like Socrates, or like Euthyphro in this discussion, is not as important as taking a dualist approach that assumes that objectivity is a based assumption that gives any subjective judgment a wheight of truth, by virtue of it being available to the objective judgement of a second and third party.

 

All that being said, it is unlikely that one can be born with truth and logic, as it requires to such a large degree the involvement of second and third parties, to arrive at any objective conclusions beyound the apparent truths that our senses deliver to us.

 

Which still leads me to consider that one is not born a philosopher but developes into one, in the context of the environment of a society of judges.

 

Regards, TAR

In that, the gods are indeed not on Mt. Olympus, but among us, and objective judgement is available at any time, by asking anybody, other than yourself, for their judgement of the situation. And piousness, or the proper philosophical approach is a thing not obtainable in isolation from the reality or environment that would provide such things, in the first place.

 

Rather than objectivity - I would call it intersubjectivity . True objectivity is very hard to find

[Villain]

If there is no such thing as an objective definition of a philosopher, then it leaves us only with our subjective definition, which may or may not be a combination of others subjective definitions. What we should not do is deny our responsibility to choose by pretending that there is no choice.

[tar]

Imatfaal and Villian,

 

There is, in my estimation, and in the estimation of the most of the scientific community, the thought that an objective view can be obtained by testing a theory against reality, and recording your approach in such a way as to allow a peer to experience the same thing. I personally am not concerned about the "hard to find" truely objective view, because a human being can not ever make any sort of judgement that is not being made by a human being. One can take a godlike perspective on a thing, but then so can everybody else. Such a perspective remains an imaginary one, no matter how informed such an imaginary stance might be. That being the case, I would submit that one can ask Socratic questions about the thing as it is, but one is dabbling in an imaginary space, when such questions are asked. In the context of Villian's dialog referenced above, Mt. Olympus was within the pervue of objective reality for the debaters, and those like Socrates were slightly out of bounds, by asking such questions as "what if two Gods do not agree on what is pious?".

 

A similar break in assumption protocol was entertained by Socrates in the "why do the gods do cruel and stupid things"...which is repeated by atheists of today, who disbelieve in God because a just God would not allow suffering to exist. You cannot debate on imaginary things, without first agreeing on the image.

 

Now there IS imaginary things upon which there is common agreement on the image. States and borders, laws and promises, morals and values of all sorts. It is interesting to me when someone states that one can have morals, without religion...as if one is an objective fact, and the other is akin to belief in unicorns.

 

Philosophy is no different. Being a humanist is not a possible thing to be, without an image of "all humans" to go by. An "unseen other" is required to hold your own judgements responsible to, in any moral consideration. One's "SuperEgo" or conscience, or rules of behavior are somewhat non-material in nature. Imaginary, if you will...except it is not without basis in the objective world, if there is but one other, holding the same image.

 

Is the border between Canada and the U.S. an objectively true thing? Why to any human I know it certainly is. To an ant or a bird or a lake or a goose the thing isn't even visible. It is not an objectively real, material thing in a lot of places where the line is drawn.

 

Can I pull a Socrates and ask how thick the line is? Can I ask which country a quark is in if it sits exactly on the center of the line? No, I think if I would push the questions to that level, you would have to administer some poison.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited February 7, 2014 by tar

[cladking]

Not all people are going to agree on anything. But I believe that for philosophy to have meaning or to be able to be applied to knowledge or metaphysics it must be objective on some levels. A philosopher tends to be concerned with things like the definitions of words and logic which defines them and makes them meaningful. We can't express complex ideas in sign language and gestures and have to use words whose meanings can be subjective.

 

There are no doubt many sorts and types of philosophers and some are more intent on discovering things meaningful; to themselves than communicating their discoveries. Ultimately we are all this alone but one of the things that make life meaningful to most humans is communication and sharing ideas (etc).

 

To me personally, objectivity is based on a few simple axioms that we all experience (probably). Such as that it is axiomatic that the world exists as it appears to exist but our observation and knowledge might not apply in any given instance. ie There are optical illusions and observer error. We see only what we expect and are blind to what we don't expect. Time flows in a single direction at a given rate. Logic and reason are the only tools to unlock natures secrets; our current logic involves experiment for proof and a test of theory. Nature is infinitely complex and not understood. Humans are animals and knowledge (and the "unconscious") is created through language. People act on their beliefs and in time become those beliefs.

 

Of course what all philosophers share is a trust in logic or common sense and a willingness to expend effort to understand themselves or their place in the big picture.

 

I believe a great deal of this effort is wasted on definitions and semantics. A great deal of all human problems stem from a misunderstanding and confusion in language. Our primary problems are a lack of communication caused by myriad problems in language. Perhaps one of the greatest problems with language is our inability to know when we don't understand our fellow man.

[Gees]

Tar;

 

Please consider and respond;

 

Gees,

 

Part of my objection to your earlier lines of thinking was your suggestion that you and Cladking thought along the same lines, and were therefore Philosophers, and in the context in which you stated this, there was the implication that I, because I disagreed, with some of your "truths" and wisdom, was NOT a philosopher.

 

Since Cladking and I study different things and often disagree, I don't understand where you got this idea. I respect Cladking, but our thinking is very different. Are you interpretting me again, instead of reading what I state?

 

Thus I think I am qualified to be in the philosopher's club, think I have paid my dues, and do not wish to be thrown out, on your say so.

 

It may be a somewhat exclusive club, but it is not that exclusive, that you can be in it, and I can not.

 

Please show me where I threw you out of the "club". I will require a quote here -- not an interpretation.

Besides, if there were certain rules and criteria that one needed to follow inorder to be a philosopher, that would be sort of a box in which one would have to think, and that would disallow anybody that thought they thought outside the box, from actually being able to say that they did.

 

There cannot be a philosopher box that we can put people in or out of, and at the same time consider philosophers unconstrained in their thinking.

 

I don't understand your position here. It looks like you are saying that there can not be a definition for a philosopher.

 

Gees has accused me of impiety and I have asked her to define piousness, in and of itself.

 

Please show me where I made this accusation. I will require a direct quote -- not your interpretation.

 

All that being said, it is unlikely that one can be born with truth and logic, as it requires to such a large degree the involvement of second and third parties, to arrive at any objective conclusions beyound the apparent truths that our senses deliver to us.

 

So if a man was walking in the woods and came upon a mother bear and her baby, she could not possibly know the "truth" that he could be dangerous to her young, and she could not possibly see the "logic" in chasing him out of the woods. So he would be safe. Good thing that truth and logic are not innate; otherwise, he would be getting a direct message delivered to his "senses".

 

Which still leads me to consider that one is not born a philosopher but developes into one, in the context of the environment of a society of judges.

 

The "society of judges" would be the "good old boys" sitting on their front porch laughing their asses off at him, while he runs from the bear? You may be right. I am sure that he would soon develop a philosophy about walking in the woods around bears.

 

If there is no such thing as an objective definition of a philosopher, then it leaves us only with our subjective definition, which may or may not be a combination of others subjective definitions. What we should not do is deny our responsibility to choose by pretending that there is no choice.

 

Villain;

 

Of course, you are correct. This is not the first thread that tried to define what a philosopher is, and the other threads I've seen led nowhere offering little insight into this question.

 

If you go to Wiki and look up philosopher, one example will tell you that a philosopher is a person who holds a PhD in Philosophy, or teaches Philosophy. But this definition is not accurate or complete. One of the most well-known American Philosophers was Benjamin Franklin, who quit school at the age of ten. He was a self-made man, who never even attended college. Another example of an American Philosopher of world reknown was Will Rogers. He made it all the way to the tenth grade, but was also a cowboy, vaudville actor, and an American Indian -- another self-made man. I am not even sure that he is listed in the on-line SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) although I am pretty sure that Ben Franklin is listed there. Eleanor Roosevelt was best known as The First Lady, but she was also brilliant and a philosopher. I don't know if any of these people ever even attended a philosophy class.

 

The other way that Wiki defines a philosopher is if other philosophers state that s/he is a philosopher. There is a problem with this definition; if any group of people decided that they are philosophers and call each other philosophers, then everyone is a philosopher. (chuckle chuckle)

 

Not being satisfied with these definitions, I decided to study this question and break it down to it's root, as that is how I work to determine truth. Philosophy is the love of wisdom/truth, so a philosopher is a lover of wisdom/truth. This tells me that a philosopher will hold wisdom/truth as a very high priority, because it is "love" of wisdom/truth, not like, or respect, or admire, or enjoy, but "love". When we love something, it is very important, the most important. The other thing to consider is that "love" in this sense is used as a verb, so this love of wisdom/truth is an act -- a thing being done. So I decided that a philosopher is a person who actively seeks and finds wisdoms/truths and holds them in esteem over other motivations and opportunities.

 

This is just my opinion, but it is what I will go by until I can find something better. So I think that:

 

1. A person who loves truth/wisdom, loves philosophy.

2. A person who studies philosophy is a student of philosophy.

3. A person who finds truth/wisdom is a philosopher.

4. A person who finds truth/wisdom and explains it so others can also know this truth/wisdom is a notable philosopher.

5. A person who finds truth/wisdom and develops a methodology, that can be taught to others so that we can find our own truths/wisdoms, is a teacher of philosophy -- and a Master Philosopher.

 

There are many Masters. Of course, now one has to decided what relationship truth and wisdom have, and then needs to define truth and wisdom. (chuckle chuckle)

 

G

 

 

 

 

[Gees]

continued. . .

 

Defining truth and wisdom will allow one to consider all of the different types of philosophers that exist as they study many different kinds of truths, different kinds of wisdoms.

 

So I think that being a philosopher is a subjective thing, as one can not be trained to "love" something, or forced to "love" something -- love is subjective. This is why it is so difficult to come up with a definition that is objective. We can identify many of the accomplishments of a philosopher, but we can not define what makes those accomplishments happen. Why does someone become a philosopher? What are the drives and tools that must exist in the making of a philosopher? We don't know. I think that the drives and tools are innate, that we are born with natural talents and desires regarding truth and wisdom, but also with a certain ability to recognize truths/wisdoms.

 

This inability to define is not just a problem with philosophy; it is the same with musicians and artists, or any group that has natural innate abilities. We say that someone is an artist if their art has been sold and acknowledged to be art by the "experts", but in reality many people are artists, but do not work in that field. The same can be said of musicians.

 

I knew a young woman who had a voice like an angel. I could listen to her sing all day long. In Junior High School, her chorus instructor measured her singing ability and stated that she could clearly and accurately sing all of the notes through two octaves -- she had an amazing range. When she entered High School, they sponsored a talent competition and she sang the Beatles song, Hey Jude, for this event. Now most singers will not even attempt the song, Hey Jude, because it is just too difficult -- but she got a standing ovation for her rendition. She had a tremendous range, unbelievable power coming out of such a little girl, and a beautiful voice. So you might ask, "Where can I see her, or buy her CDs?" You can't because she is not a singer. She is a manager in a small town store, as that is what she defines herself as -- a manager. But anyone hearing her voice would objectively define her as a singer, and a very good one.

 

So I think that philosophers, like musicians and artists, must first possess a natural talent, but also have the desire and drive that matches that talent in order to become philosophers, musicians, and artists. Without the talent, desire, and drive, it won't happen. It is subjective and can not really be taught, but is objectively recognized. imo

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

Well OK. No interpretations.

 

I am, after your 5 definitions, which I agree with, thinking about an angle here, which corresponds well with a definition of love I came up with about a decade ago.

 

"Love is when you include another entity in your feeling of self."

 

If we were to apply that definition to the current engagement, that of trying to get to the bottom of what a philosopher is, the love of wisdom or truth would have something to do with including that wisdom or truth in your feeling of self. This would explain somewhat, why people like myself get so defensive when my loved ones (truths that I have incorporated into my feeling of self) are attacked. And why people like myself get jealous when someone else says they have my loved one, and I can't have it too.

 

Actually, not a completely different consideration than some religious and political and scientific arguments, in that people often covet their loved one, and can't readily imagine it "sleeping around".

 

Then again, there is a certain release, and good feeling and connection one gets when they realize and except that there are others who share the same thing, who love the same thing, who have incorporated the same thing into their feeling of self, as the other has. Such might be the basis of family and societies, religions and clubs of all sorts. From the scientific community, to the musician's guild, to the philosopher's club I resisted being thrown out of.

 

Let's say, for instance that I love this universe, find it complex and complete, fitting and wonderful, and know that I am in and of it, in a friendly, inclusive kind of way. What ever it does, what ever it is, has something to do with me. I include the whole shooting match in my feeling of self, in a general, imaginary type way. Let's say someone else feels the same way.

 

Regards, TAR2

Or let's say I love the United States of America. I evidently am not the first and only to include this particular entity in my feeling of self. Wars have been fought, people have sacrificed their lives for the sake of it. People have pledged their honor and fortunes to it.

[cladking]

All belief becomes a part of the self and belief is the sole motivator of action.

 

It's more the commonality of action which draws together a club.

[tar]

Cladking,

 

So is philosophy a lone event or a group participation event?

 

Regards, TAR2

I am thinking of a time in Germany, while I was stationed there in the Army, where I took leave, rented a car and drove around northern West Germany in a big loop, visiting and passing by a large number of towns and cities. My rememberences of the trip are just mine. I have also thought back on the trip and considered it would have been more of a "something" if I had taken it with another human being. The things I saw, the people I chatted with, the events and places, the "truths" I learned on the trip are part of my model of the world, they are things I have in my memory. But so what. Nobody in America knows what I saw and smelled and tasted and heard and felt, and the people that were in those parts of Germany at the time, experienced those things every day and held them and hold them as evident truths...which have changed in whatever manner they have changed over the 33 years since.

 

A single philosopher's worldview is of limited value or usefulness, if the stories of the insights are not related to other people...to test them against other's insights so that one may guide another to an insight they have yet to have, or to be guided to an insight not yet obtained, or to revel in and be content in holding a shared insight.

 

Not everyone needs to visit Tokyo to know Mt. Fuji stands within view (on a haze free day). But nobody knows this at birth. NOBODY. They have to see it for themselves, or see a picture painted or taken by another, to know. They have to learn about the world, they have to have insights about the world, to become a philosopher.

 

The ability to know the world and build a model of it is obviously inate in a human. But the actual living and learning has to be done, after birth. The only sense/memories of the world and of himself, that the OP could have been born with, are those of the 9 months between conception and birth. And any inate abilities he had where encoded in his genes.

 

Regards, TAR