They do a lot of thinking, writing, and debating with others on why they are right and everyone else is wrong
where does that come from? totally out of left field. you sound bitter.
Topic: What Do Philosophers Do? - page 2. (Read 3384 times)
where does that come from? totally out of left field. you sound bitter.
They do a lot of thinking, writing, and debating with others on why they are right and everyone else is wrong
Over all of the silly "nothing, they're useless", I feel like this is the best answer. I would think they have a lot of thoughts and ideas and writing and debating would be the best way for them to spent time.
i find that, by and large, the anti-philosophy camp is comprised of people who are concerned only with money.
Anyone can call themselves a philosopher. But I think it's important to draw the distinction between a random person who likes to think about life and professional philosophers(or people who have actually studied modern philosophy).
From reading this thread I can tell people in general have a fairly bad impression of what it means to be a philosopher.
From reading this thread I can tell people in general have a fairly bad impression of what it means to be a philosopher.
IMO, that distinction is not always clear. Certainly, one does not need to be an academic to be a prolific thinker/philosopher.
No, but it helps to use the same set of tools. Mainly logic and avoiding common fallacies.
Sure, I would think anyone bothering to make analyses in metaphysics or epistemology should be trained in logic. But one does not need to be an academic for that.
Definitely. I didn't mean to imply that someone had to be an academic exclusively. When I wrote "(or people who have actually studied modern philosophy)" I didn't mean only formal study. All the knowledge is out there already. My main point was that if someone was interested in philosophy that they should look to be using the same set of skills that professional philosophers use. Else we end up with philosophy being considered a waste of time and effort like many people in this thread seem to think.
I don't think anyone who's truly studied philosophy can say that it has little benefit. Philosophy teaches you how to think. And thinking is required in anything and everything we do.
i had a friend who majored in philosophy. he works at dunkin donuts. 
Anyone can call themselves a philosopher. But I think it's important to draw the distinction between a random person who likes to think about life and professional philosophers(or people who have actually studied modern philosophy).
From reading this thread I can tell people in general have a fairly bad impression of what it means to be a philosopher.
From reading this thread I can tell people in general have a fairly bad impression of what it means to be a philosopher.
IMO, that distinction is not always clear. Certainly, one does not need to be an academic to be a prolific thinker/philosopher.
No, but it helps to use the same set of tools. Mainly logic and avoiding common fallacies.
Sure, I would think anyone bothering to make analyses in metaphysics or epistemology should be trained in logic. But one does not need to be an academic for that.
Anyone can call themselves a philosopher. But I think it's important to draw the distinction between a random person who likes to think about life and professional philosophers(or people who have actually studied modern philosophy).
From reading this thread I can tell people in general have a fairly bad impression of what it means to be a philosopher.
From reading this thread I can tell people in general have a fairly bad impression of what it means to be a philosopher.
IMO, that distinction is not always clear. Certainly, one does not need to be an academic to be a prolific thinker/philosopher.
No, but it helps to use the same set of tools. Mainly logic and avoiding common fallacies.
Anyone can call themselves a philosopher. But I think it's important to draw the distinction between a random person who likes to think about life and professional philosophers(or people who have actually studied modern philosophy).
From reading this thread I can tell people in general have a fairly bad impression of what it means to be a philosopher.
From reading this thread I can tell people in general have a fairly bad impression of what it means to be a philosopher.
IMO, that distinction is not always clear. Certainly, one does not need to be an academic to be a prolific thinker/philosopher.
Plenty of ignorant posts, but every philosopher is different based on their personality. I'd say its an extreme version of an analyst who analyzes every fine detail about a topic typically regarding world/life/spiritual understanding.
"thinker" might be the easiest way to understand a philosopher but its not the art of blindly thinking about random stuff, not really sure its an art at all, although I am sure there are plenty of people out there that do this..... which I think is a good thing. Although, I think most true philosophers come naturally.
And for the weed comments, smoking may be a method of stepping outside of the box to "think", but those who choose this path should not over-do it and should re-analyze their thoughts after they come down from their cloud to have a 2nd perspective on the thoughts
EDIT: and to answer the topic of the thread; they employ you.
"thinker" might be the easiest way to understand a philosopher but its not the art of blindly thinking about random stuff, not really sure its an art at all, although I am sure there are plenty of people out there that do this..... which I think is a good thing. Although, I think most true philosophers come naturally.
And for the weed comments, smoking may be a method of stepping outside of the box to "think", but those who choose this path should not over-do it and should re-analyze their thoughts after they come down from their cloud to have a 2nd perspective on the thoughts
EDIT: and to answer the topic of the thread; they employ you.
Anyone can call themselves a philosopher. But I think it's important to draw the distinction between a random person who likes to think about life and professional philosophers(or people who have actually studied modern philosophy).
From reading this thread I can tell people in general have a fairly bad impression of what it means to be a philosopher.
From reading this thread I can tell people in general have a fairly bad impression of what it means to be a philosopher.
Look at Dank. His posts are written in a 'philosopher' way. Although, some of us may find it frustrating, some might absorb their knowledge, information or bullshit. I believe philosophers are presenting you with a point, a view or opinion on something or someone. Or maybe they are sharing their knowledge and/or opinion or maybe their way of life. Basically, they speak and write about their perspective about objects, life and other shit.
They try to enlighten, Persuade, or guide.
They try to enlighten, Persuade, or guide.
no that's bullshit, dank is not a philosopher.. it's more like new age spirituality tinged with psychosis.
Drug fueled rants.
those are the very best kind.
Look at Dank. His posts are written in a 'philosopher' way. Although, some of us may find it frustrating, some might absorb their knowledge, information or bullshit. I believe philosophers are presenting you with a point, a view or opinion on something or someone. Or maybe they are sharing their knowledge and/or opinion or maybe their way of life. Basically, they speak and write about their perspective about objects, life and other shit.
They try to enlighten, Persuade, or guide.
They try to enlighten, Persuade, or guide.
no that's bullshit, dank is not a philosopher.. it's more like new age spirituality tinged with psychosis.
Granted most of it is shit. He's talked about his life and how he likes to live it a few times. He's provided what he thinks about the governent and many other things. So, yes. He has gave his view. Even, if we disagree he has shared us how he likes to live his life and he has also hinted that many others should try his way too. I'm talking a bit back now and not the most recent posts that he has made.
Look at Dank. His posts are written in a 'philosopher' way. Although, some of us may find it frustrating, some might absorb their knowledge, information or bullshit. I believe philosophers are presenting you with a point, a view or opinion on something or someone. Or maybe they are sharing their knowledge and/or opinion or maybe their way of life. Basically, they speak and write about their perspective about objects, life and other shit.
They try to enlighten, Persuade, or guide.
They try to enlighten, Persuade, or guide.
no that's bullshit, dank is not a philosopher.. it's more like new age spirituality tinged with psychosis.
Drug fueled rants.
Look at Dank. His posts are written in a 'philosopher' way. Although, some of us may find it frustrating, some might absorb their knowledge, information or bullshit. I believe philosophers are presenting you with a point, a view or opinion on something or someone. Or maybe they are sharing their knowledge and/or opinion or maybe their way of life. Basically, they speak and write about their perspective about objects, life and other shit.
They try to enlighten, Persuade, or guide.
They try to enlighten, Persuade, or guide.
no that's bullshit, dank is not a philosopher.. it's more like new age spirituality tinged with psychosis.
Look at Dank. His posts are written in a 'philosopher' way. Although, some of us may find it frustrating, some might absorb their knowledge, information or bullshit. I believe philosophers are presenting you with a point, a view or opinion on something or someone. Or maybe they are sharing their knowledge and/or opinion or maybe their way of life. Basically, they speak and write about their perspective about objects, life and other shit.
They try to enlighten, Persuade, or guide.
They try to enlighten, Persuade, or guide.
i'm not even sure.. i hated my philosophy teacher in college, since he was kind of avant garde and just ranted about nonsense that no one else understood. it's probably just convoluted logical thinking about the ethos of man.
meh, i hated my intro to philosophy prof. he was a real douche, very rigid. that class scared me off from pursuing philosophy academically, which is a shame because it is a favorite pursuit of mine.
my teacher wasn't rigid, it's just that he didn't teach shit. i never learned about plato, socrates, or any other of the revolutionaries. all he talked about was the nature of man to play many characters.. most of that shit was incoherent. it was an easy A though.
Science offers little in the way of answers -- remember when scientists thought the Earth was flat? And when Newtonian physics was gospel? -- so the questions are worth asking.
you totally just blew my mind
I AM GOING TO MAJOR IN PHILOSOPHY NOW
i'm not even sure.. i hated my philosophy teacher in college, since he was kind of avant garde and just ranted about nonsense that no one else understood. it's probably just convoluted logical thinking about the ethos of man.
meh, i hated my intro to philosophy prof. he was a real douche, very rigid. that class scared me off from pursuing philosophy academically, which is a shame because it is a favorite pursuit of mine.
Science and religion are not versatile enough to provide a credible picture of the universe we exist in.
Philosophy was created to provide additional padding in an attempt to rein in the inquisitive mind.
Basically philosophers are dreamers and they are important assets. They are sometimes used to provide possible explanations and connections in situations where the hard limits of science and religion make it difficult to have a satisfying answer through established ways
Philosophy was created to provide additional padding in an attempt to rein in the inquisitive mind.
Basically philosophers are dreamers and they are important assets. They are sometimes used to provide possible explanations and connections in situations where the hard limits of science and religion make it difficult to have a satisfying answer through established ways
i'm not even sure.. i hated my philosophy teacher in college, since he was kind of avant garde and just ranted about nonsense that no one else understood. it's probably just convoluted logical thinking about the ethos of man.
Your school probably had a continental philosophy department. That's the outdated style. Modern analytical philosophy based on hard logic and attempting to understand what knowledge is(epistemology) is where most schools are at now.
Jump to: