Is this a philosopher

[rantal]

No

Sounds like it.

And how would you answer if I asked of you, "Are you a Nazi?" and when you answered no, I retorted that you sound like one?

Are you suggesting that vegetarians are in some way shielded from the harshness and challenges of life? That seems a bizarre claim to me

No more bizarre than the claim that the academic philosopher is in such a condition with respect to ethics and morals.

No, I think many organisations shield individuals from the consequences of and responsibility for their actions/i]

Lets use one of your favs, can you give a concrete example of this with respect to the academic philosopher?

Yes, Kant, more on that later just on my way out the door

all the best, rantal

[Arising_uk]

And how would you answer if I asked of you, "Are you a Nazi?" and when you answered no, I retorted that you sound like one?

I'd ask you why and where?

Yes, Kant, more on that later just on my way out the door

Look forward to it.

[richardtod]

My problem with the high profile philosopher in the example is that the status they have achieved can affect their freedom of thought. i.e. Someone who has reached the dizzy heights in their profession is going to find difficulty in proposing ideas wildly at odds with "common sense" but nevertheless valid in fear of ridicule and loss of status.

By "common sense" I presume you mean something like 'accepted wisdom' within the profession concerned richard. As such I can see that in some subjects, e.g. Physics say, that if a physicist believed it was all pixies and fairy dust that makes things go around she/he may be open to ridicule and as such not promote their idea. The thing is that in most subjects you can have all the wild ideas you like, you've just got to prove them and this holds doubly so for Philosophy as going against 'accepted wisdom' is pretty much the grail for philosophers and its easier for them as all they have to do is make it logically watertight. It still may not be accepted but it'll be respected. Take an example from our very own Philosophy Now magazine, Professor Joel Marks, a full blown academic Kantian moral philosopher has recently recanted his position and taken an amoralist stance. He didn't seem in fear of ridicule and loss of status, because, I think, he knows that Philosophy is about being able to logically defend ones beliefs.

In my limited time studying I have perceived philosophy as the ability to see beyond what is accepted, to ask the unthinkable, to challenge the acceptable and to separate ego from the process of developing ideas. A true philosopher holds nothing sacred but searches for the cracks and distortions in all, even their own ideas or they create new ideas and new questions which can be uncomfortable to existing thought. People like this may become popular and even create a following but will not be readily accepted by the establishment.

So whilst i agree with much of your perception I think you miss that if this is the case then the establishment, if by this you mean the academic institution that they work in, will readily accept them warts an' all.

So my answer is No.

Hopefully you may think more of the academic philosopher now.

Thank you for that critique. You may be correct in that high profile Philosophers, due to the nature of their profession, are more prepared to ignore the benefits offered by society as a reward for that status. However, the "establishment" i.e. the institutions that employ them may not be so willing to accept external criticism. The pressures on the high profile philosopher must therefore become quite strong and must have at least some impact on their freedom of thought.

By the way, I hope I am wrong here as I would love to think of Philosophers being in total control of their ego. However, reading some of the posts in this Forum, not all have achieved that ability.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.







.............................................................................






By the way, I hope I am right here as I would love to think of Philosophers being in total control of their ego.











............................................................








.

[Arising_uk]

Projecting again.

[Arising_uk]

Thank you for that critique. You may be correct in that high profile Philosophers, due to the nature of their profession, are more prepared to ignore the benefits offered by society as a reward for that status. However, the "establishment" i.e. the institutions that employ them may not be so willing to accept external criticism. The pressures on the high profile philosopher must therefore become quite strong and must have at least some impact on their freedom of thought.

Well, I agree that philosophers like us all are only human.

By the way, I hope I am wrong here as I would love to think of Philosophers being in total control of their ego. However, reading some of the posts in this Forum, not all have achieved that ability.

I'd question how many here have actually studied any philosophy or read those that have been called philosophers.

I'd also have to understand what you mean by 'ego' and what being in total control of it would entail? Before I could agree.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






...................................................................................................


...........................................................................If I read more I'll look smart - Right?









.

[richardtod]

Thank you for that critique. You may be correct in that high profile Philosophers, due to the nature of their profession, are more prepared to ignore the benefits offered by society as a reward for that status. However, the "establishment" i.e. the institutions that employ them may not be so willing to accept external criticism. The pressures on the high profile philosopher must therefore become quite strong and must have at least some impact on their freedom of thought.

Well, I agree that philosophers like us all are only human.

By the way, I hope I am wrong here as I would love to think of Philosophers being in total control of their ego. However, reading some of the posts in this Forum, not all have achieved that ability.

I'd question how many here have actually studied any philosophy or read those that have been called philosophers.

I'd also have to understand what you mean by 'ego' and what being in total control of it would entail? Before I could agree.

By ego I mean:
"The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves" I see this as an individual's interpretation of who they are and how they see themselves interacting with the world.

Being in control of ego would mean ensuring that external influences did not affect self image or interactions. In the case in point it would mean that the higher status with all the attention and privilege it brings could start to affect the individual’s perception of self. The need to preserve this status then becomes important to the point where it could not be put at risk it by proposing something contentious.

(I have plenty of personal experience in politics where this has been the case.)

[Arising_uk]

If I read more I'll look smart - Right?

Not if you read like that you won't.

But no, if you read more you'll know more.

In the context of this forum it'd mean that you'd actually have an idea of what the "Philosophy" in the title meant.

[Arising_uk]

By ego I mean:
"The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves" I see this as an individual's interpretation of who they are and how they see themselves interacting with the world.

I can go with your seeing. However, the way I think about the former is that I think it can't be distinct, other than by the fact that its this one, as I understand the self as being a construction due to us making of ourselves an other from the recognition that there are others. Or some such.

Being in control of ego would mean ensuring that external influences did not affect self image or interactions. ...

Because of the above, above, I think this not being in control of ones ego but being an egomaniac.

In the case in point it would mean that the higher status with all the attention and privilege it brings could start to affect the individual’s perception of self. The need to preserve this status then becomes important to the point where it could not be put at risk it by proposing something contentious.

(I have plenty of personal experience in politics where this has been the case.)

I get the idea and think there is much truth in it but as I've said, I think this antithetical to the subject of philosophy and can only point once again to Joel Marks as an example of how it'd be hard to apply this to the academic philosopher.

This conversation has raised a thought I've often had. What is it that makes people think that the academic philosopher is not one? Its been a theme that I've seen commonly raised over the years by those who visit this site and I'm puzzled by what they want from a philosopher. Would we say that the historian is not one, the psychologist, the sociologist, etc? All study their subject and write and think about it. Is it that people want something more from the philosophers? If so I wish they'd say what it is as the last time one of the philosophers decided to change the world people appeared to get mighty upset about it.

[Tesla]

Let us imagine a man, a philosopher or I should say a philosopher in name, in qualification, recognised as such, admired as such, lauded even, awarded with every academic honour, published many books, articles in many respected journals who perhaps even attracts a following amongst his students, who starts a new paradigm in philosophy.

Still the question remains, is this man a philosopher?

all the best, urban

That is a good question, because philosophy is a love of wisdom, but do those professing to be philosophers actually love wisdom? Or is there some other purpose that they have found themselves in the realm of philosophical discussion?

I believe perhaps a philosopher is a man with a well-defined philosophy, since all have philosophies, even if they are not even aware of the term philosophy. a well-defined philosophy is only possible through examination. To judge if a philosophy is 'well defined' can only be accomplished by review of peers that people would term as 'experts' or 'wiser' in being able to come to that conclusion of an individual, as our own assessments will be lacking, because a witness of ourselves only is not adequate for a general public, even if it is of ourselves.

It is my opinion that if a person is genuine in their pursuits to come to an understanding of how to live and judge 'with wisdom', and it is shown in their actions, and their words, that they 'attempt' to honestly do so, and seek improvements, recognizing they are forever ignorant--as no one can know everything--Then they are philosophers. This means even an uneducated farm boy, without ever knowing a single philosophical term, can be a philosopher, albeit, perhaps not a very informed one, but a true one, in which given information, he will grow in wisdom.