Magical Sailor Fuku

What are the requirements for being a philosopher? I'm not exactly sure if I qualify or not. Do I need a degree or something, have to think like one, or what? I'm twenty-five, never worked, still dependent, and I'm looking for a possible profession to make me feel better. ;p

That sounds pretty philosophical to me. Then again, I go to a pathetic facility that passes for a school, 17, living with my folks and sister, and play video games and post on a forum all day, so what do I know?

I would honestly say having a degree in philosophy pretty much would disqualify one from being a philosopher since their opinions and ideas would be tainted from the supposed greats of the past. So far as I know there are no real requirements but also one isn't a real philosopher until others refer to you as such. To name yourself that is much like calling yourself wise, it invalidates the statment simply by making it. As for thinking like a philosopher, well I'm of the opinion that any human that happens to suddenly sit there and 'become' aware of the state of things as they are and ponder what can be done about it or come to terms with it is one. The big names in the history books were simply people who managed to grab the attention of lesser minds who took their ponderances on as their own philosophies rather than being brave enough to make their own.

Heh, I might sound a bit negative but I have a bad opinion about the current mindset of having to know what all the people before you thought on something before it somehow making you qualified to do it yourself. I don't think Plato or the others would agree that you need really know what the people thought before you thought of something for yourself. Do not assume I'm saying it is unhelpful to do so but I don't like the idea that unless you do you aren't qualified to make a statement as I've seen most colleges and schools seem to hold true to.

A Philosopher is simply a Lover of Wisdom.

I agree with (sweet sweet) Rowan
A philosopher is someone who likes to think and to learn and to discuss. When a phylosopher discusses he has the ability to be convinced - so not everyne with a degree is a phylosopher. If you don't know yourself weahter you are a phylosopher or not here comes the fool-proofed question:
Is it fun to sit around and just to think about problems which answer wont influence what we called "thereal world" at all?
For professionals:
Have you ever thought about the ethical consequences if you found aproof that the world as you know it wasn't real but an illusion?

All I ever do is think about things. Is it fun? Sometimes; it really depends on what I'm thinking about. You know, like when I decided to tackle the question about the tree making a sound or not if it fell in a forest when no one was around to hear it. I solved that with a pun. ;p

As for the other question, sure, I've been there, too. In fact, I've come up with two ideas that make reality an illusion. However, when I think about it, I don't think there will be ethical consequences because I reckon that the experts will disagree, and the populace, hearing it from them, will conclude that I'm crazy. But if people want to protect the value of their existence and leave everyone else blissfully ignorant, well, whatever floats their boat. But it certainly isn't water. ;p

Raleigh:

To this date I still haven't read anything by any past philosophers, although I do hear this and that about them or their works. It's kind of hard not to since I spend some of my time watching the History and Discovery channels. ;/

But, basically, I can't be a self-proclaimed philosopher; I have to be a recognized one? Okay, then... Anyone think I'm a philosopher in MSFLand, at least? It probably helps if you've been around for a while and have come across the multitudes of thoughts and ideas that I've posted over the years.

Rowan wrote:A Philosopher is simply a Lover of Wisdom.

Hooray for knowing etymology of Greek derived words.

But yes, so long as you love knowledge/wisdom, then sure, you're a philosopher.

Depends on the definition used for either word, doesn't it? I mean, is it just to know something, understand (perhaps in your own fashion), or both? People tend to have the weird habit of either not being able to distinguish the two words or going out of their way to distinguish them. I'm here to see what I'm dealing with before I respond to it. ;p

While one could say that in order to love wisdom that you ought to know it or at least possess some of it. Otherwise, I'd say that one is a 'student' of philosophy, but then, we're all students for one thing or another.

I'm a master student! Because I'm a student who has mastered their self.

Beautiful, isn't it? ;p

So, am I a philosopher or not? This I must know! Only then will I be! Come on, now! I have an oxymoron and some wordplay, so let me toss in the paradox, too! :O

I would be inclined to agree that you are a bit of a philosopher just from having read a few of your ponderances that I've seen around here. I was simply saying that calling yourself one is pretentious which kills the image of a philosopher for some.

As far as the tree falling in the forest I do happen to have that answer, its actually pretty easy. It makes a sound yes but not a noise. A sound recurs regardless of a presence but in order for it to be a noise a person would have to hear it. Not a philosophical answer I agree but one rooted in simple logic.

But sound and noise are synonymous, so you have to be more specific in their usage. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense because there's a lack of differentiation. Such as referring to noise as being synonymous with racket rather than sound in general. Either way there's a few ways of tackling the answer to the question, that I'm able to think of off the top of my head.

1: Being that sound is a vibration that transmits through mass in waves, one could scientifically calculate that there would have been a sound if someone had been there to observe it with their senses.

2: Because we perceive the world through our mind, and thus we experience things in relation to how it translates the information we receive, one could argue that just imagining a tree falling in a forest, along with the accompanying sound, means that, in reality, we heard the sound.

3: Then, of course, the reason there's a question about this at all: how the ideas of time and space dictate what we know. Which is to say that, if you weren't there, and at that time, then you didn't hear it. Instead you were hearing other things at the time and place you were at.

4: And then there's mine, where you can tell because of its bark. I find that one the best answer, of course. Not that there is a best answer, mind you, but you know what I mean. ;p

All of those are correct assessments. Part of what I find amusing about philosophy, and to a lesser extent theology, is that all answers are both wrong but correct at the same time. As for the bark answer, well I would think it would at least amuse any teacher on the subject assuming no one has tried that answer on him before.

I wouldn't know if my answer was something that has already been shared anywhere. I came up with it myself, because I'm awesome like that. ;p

And let's add a new word to the English language!

Corrong! Which is the state of something being correct and wrong at the same time. ^_^

Pretty much nearly everyone is a philosopher at one point in their life. Now wether or not this is something to lead to a big breakthrough in thinking in others is another question.

I've seen philisophical essays about the Daily Show, and how it deals with concepts as truth and lies.

I've seen some on, well lets just say it abrivates to B and S, finding out wether or not it's as bad as lying.

When you think of something, longer and deeper than most would. You're a philosopher. That's my opinion.