What causes you to become a Philosopher?

[Dontaskme]

The answer is clear ....

Can questions ever be answered?

Can answers ever be questioned?

[Dontaskme]

Antisthenes Philosopher

Socrates Philosopher

Epicurus Philosopher

Plato Philosopher

Heraclitus Philosopher

Aristotle Philosopher

Democritus Philosopher

Epictetus Philosopher

Aristippus Philosopher

Anaxagoras Philosopher

Parmenides Philosopher

Philosopher Pythagoras

Thales Philosopher

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche

Philosopher Demosthenes

Zeno of Elea Philosopher

Seneca the Younger Philosopher

Plutarch Biographer

Demosthenes Greek Statesman

Alexander the Great Military Commander

[Dontaskme]

''One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings''
Diogenes

[alan1000]

Like Wittgenstein, I became a philosopher by accident (that is the only thing I dare claim in common, I hasten to add!). For me, the more pressing question would be, given the deluge of meaningless, non-rational verbiage which forms the bulk of the posts in the popular philosophy forums nowadays, why does any of us continue to be a philosopher?

[Flannel Jesus]

Like Wittgenstein, I became a philosopher by accident (that is the only thing I dare claim in common, I hasten to add!). For me, the more pressing question would be, given the deluge of meaningless, non-rational verbiage which forms the bulk of the posts in the popular philosophy forums nowadays, why does any of us continue to be a philosopher?

Fantastic question.

Addiction?

[alan1000]

Well, I did once suggest in another forum that philosophy is like malaria, and I suppose addiction would be a similar thing: you might think you're cured, but once infected, something of it always remains in your system, and you can relapse... The novelist Lawrence Durrell once said something about knowledge being buried under a mountain of folly. I often think of that, when I'm trying to plough through the philosophy forums these days

[Skepdick]

... why does any of us continue to be a philosopher?

Some of you started? My condolences.

[Iwannaplato]

What causes you to become a Philosopher?

I wouldn't call myself one, though I've been interested at different times in my life in Philosophy.
Why?
It's [as in everything's] all rather odd.
So, that makes me curious. Philosophy has been one direction my curiousity compelled me to head in.

[Impenitent]

most people take it as pre-law

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

Like Wittgenstein, I became a philosopher by accident (that is the only thing I dare claim in common, I hasten to add!). For me, the more pressing question would be, given the deluge of meaningless, non-rational verbiage which forms the bulk of the posts in the popular philosophy forums nowadays, why does any of us continue to be a philosopher?

Fantastic question.

Addiction?

It's like a flight simulator for the flying of real life where we meet the same people, I mean 'patterns'.

[Skepdick]

It's like a flight simulator for the flying of real life where we meet the same people, I mean 'patterns'.

Not true. Some "patterns" are over-represented, some are under-represented; and some are not represented at all.

There's a sampling bias at play which renders a philosophical setting to be a terrible representation of humanity as a whole. I think of philosophy as the intellectual latrine of society. The clashing of minds - completely devoid of external adjudication.

On the other hand - your analogy translates somewhat well. You can expect about the same results if you ever attempt to fly a real Boeing 777 having learned how to do it on Microsoft Flight Simulator.

[Iwannaplato]

It's like a flight simulator for the flying of real life where we meet the same people, I mean 'patterns'.

Not true. Some "patterns" are over-represented, some are under-represented; and some are not represented at all.

You're right again. I clearly asserted that the percentages of these patterns here are the same as IRL. This was insane of me. If only I had also been being partly wry in responding to Flannel Jesus' plopped down 'addiction'. Some people with a too acute awareness of what is partly tongue in cheek would have missed the error of my ways.

I appreciate you trying to find agreement - your trademark posting quality - with me here in this post. It's the only hope for we participants in this philosophy forum whose game you are playing but in your magical way NOT at the same time participating in.

On the other hand - your analogy translates somewhat well. You can expect about the same results if you ever attempt to fly a real Boeing 777 having learned how to do it on Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Again, spot on. I clearly meant Microsoft Flight Simulator and not the ones used for example in pilot review training

Every 6 months, pilots must go into the simulator where they practice emergency procedures whilst being assessed by an examiner over a couple of days.

iow overrepresenting certain troublesome patterns as part of a broader set of pilot trainings.

How you knew I meant the Microsoft Flight Simulator......? One shake's one's head in admiration.

The combination of your temperment and your psychic abilities is certainly adding to the mature discourse in this forum.

[Skepdick]

It's like a flight simulator for the flying of real life where we meet the same people, I mean 'patterns'.

Not true. Some "patterns" are over-represented, some are under-represented; and some are not represented at all.

You're right again.

Why, thank you for agreeing with me.

I clearly asserted that the percentages of these patterns here are the same as IRL. This was insane of me.

Don't be so harsh on yourself. You asserted that one situation is like another. Any reasonable person would infer that you think the two scenarios are representative of each other. Irrespective of the percentages.

If only I had also been being partly wry in responding to Flannel Jesus' plopped down 'addiction'. Some people with a too acute awareness of what is partly tongue in cheek would have missed the error of my ways.

Don't mind the part that was tongue-in-cheek - it's the part I ignored. It was the other part I was addressing.

I appreciate you trying to find agreement - your trademark posting quality - with me here in this post.

My pleasure. At least it's worth celebrating the fact that you've taken the first step towards agreement - admitting that you were wrong.

It's the only hope for we participants in this philosophy forum whose game you are playing but in your magical way NOT at the same time participating in.

We the participants? Were you elected as their official representative or something?

The participants on this forum seem to agree with me and disagree with you that if I am not playing by the same rules then I am not playing the same game.

Indeed - I don't follow rules. Rule-following is for computers, not humans.

None the less, you are the odd one out here in thinking I am playing "the same" game...

Again, spot on. I clearly meant Microsoft Flight Simulator and not the ones used for example in pilot review training

Indeed, it was very clear.

How you knew I meant the Microsoft Flight Simulator......? One shake's one's head in admiration.

There's nothing admirable about practicing the principle of charity.

Why would you possibly mean the one used for training pilots? Those are actually representative of actual flying. Philosophy isn't representative of human interaction.

Being a charitable person I figured you wouldn't make a false analogy so by process of elimination you must have meant Microsoft Flight Simulator (a simulation that's not representative of the actual scenario) over a real flight simulator (a simulation that is representative of the actual scenario)

The combination of your temperment and your psychic abilities is certainly adding to the mature discourse in this forum.

Why, thank you for the kind compliment. Although your attitude and sarcastic undertone isn't very encouraging to say the least.

You seem rather dishonest with your true feelings; and the sort of person who lashes out (with a fake smile on your face) at constructive/corrective feedback.