Topics Philosophers

Question What qualifies one as a philosopher? I use a number of tools (reason, ethics, etc) to philosophize, and I can even use a smattering of philosophical terminology, but I would hardly consider myself a philosopher, though I suppose one could call me philosophical... in short, even if we can't all be Nietzsche (mercifully, most would say), are we all not philosophers (some admittedly better or worse than others, of course)? Or must one have gone through a certain process to be deemed so?

Accepted:
October 8, 2009

Comments

You likely already know the root of the word philosopher: lover of wisdom. We could stick with just a simple, stripped down understanding of who philosophers are as lovers of wisdom. Anybody who loves wisdom would then qualify. 'Ah ha!,' you say, 'but what is wisdom?' Uncle, uncle - I give up! So I grant you the old school definition doesn't get us very far.

Philosophical questions are basically questions for which there are no ultimate, permanent answers. I would say 'philosopher' should include anyone who wants to give such questions serious study, be it formally (at university) or informally (philosophy cafe groups, book clubs, or leisure reading).

By the way, there is a certain snob-appeal to the title 'philosopher.' The qualifications of academic philosophy have given philosophy an especially rarified air, and perhaps that is another reason why people shy away from (or seem pretentious in) claiming the title. Some of Europe's most famous philosophers wouldn't be 'qualified' as philosophers at all today. John Locke was a country doctor. J.S. Mill was a business-man who worked for the British East India Company. I am quite sure that neither of them could get a job as a professional philosopher - unless they went to graduate school for it first!