- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Dostoevsky and Camus are considered philosophers – that is, they are included in the canon of authors studied at philosophical faculties.
I myself, along with a dozen well-known philosophers, belong to the circle that Camus spent the last year studying (I only got to one meeting, and I didn't have time to prepare for that, so I'm not qualified to be an expert).
Hubert Dreyfus, one of the most famous American philosophers of the XX century, in the last years of his life taught a special course not even on Dostoevsky, but on the Brothers Karamazov separately.
I have never followed Hesse's reception, simply because I am indifferent.
Here the question is not about knowledge, but whether the author is included in the discussion on some philosophical issues and whether he makes some original contribution to this discussion.
Martin Heidegger greatly admired poets: he believed that poets are the first to anticipate changes in what is happening to people and express it in their own unique way, and then philosophers comprehend the same in a more rational form.
In this sense, Dostoevsky is much better than any other philosopher – he is so brilliant in describing deep emotional experiences that it simply does not fit into your head. No philosopher was as good at this as Dostoevsky, so in a sense he had access to knowledge that surpassed that of, say, Nietzsche. Although Nietzsche called himself a “psychologist,” and he is indeed a psychologist in many ways, this is not at all the same as Dostoevsky's depth.
Camus is certainly considered a philosopher, and in many of his works philosophical works are discussed explicitly. Although, apparently, in forms that are far from academic philosophizing. In Dostoevsky, acute philosophical and theological questions are raised, but rather at the level of formulations without attempts at serious argumentation. Perhaps this can also be considered philosophizing. Hesse is farthest from philosophy. The Bead Game contains interesting observations on the social processes of the 20th century and some speculations about possible types of artistic creation. Some of his books contain references to Jung's writings. It's probably not a philosophy after all. I didn't understand the question about knowledge. What makes a person a philosopher is not the amount of available knowledge. Hesse was a very educated and cultured man, but that hardly made him a philosopher.
The answer is about the same as if you ask: Can Vysotsky or Lennon be considered poets?
They were not members of the Writers ' Union, as many full members of this Union are.
A good answer to this question was given by one of the Harvard professors:
“Lennon doesn't care if he's considered a poet? and exactly how many people think so”
In general, this question is a philosophical one.
Are there general criteria by which “a few peas” (as individuals) become “a bunch of peas” (as a community of philosophers) ???
Moreover, if you do find a specific threshold “before and after”, then you are no longer a philosopher, but rather an accountant. ))
“To be considered”, that is: to be ranked by oneself or someone among the” philosophers ” -anyone can, but to be a philosopher – after Socrates, there seems to be no one, and this is why:
“Idea” – a certain person's idea of something that is not here and now, ” … and it would be nice – if it still was…”
In my opinion, philosophy could be an institution – a social phenomenon of giving the opinions of some people a “philosophical” status. That is: at any time, any person can call himself a ” philosopher “and invite society to discuss certain considerations about current problems of society's life, while the first to express their opinions about the essence and significance of the proposed” philosophers ” are already recognized by society – people whose discussion of opinions has already benefited society.
I often give this example:
“…now, if the German newspapers of the beginning of the last century had published advertisements like 'A man who calls himself Adolf Hitler is isolated from society for life after Government consultations with philosophers who provided irrefutable justifications that the activities of the said gentleman are not consistent with the meaning of human life', then such a fact would be evidence of the existence of philosophy, and since nothing – there is no need to speak, stating the groundlessness and uselessness of all philodoxies, which seem to laymen to be “philosophy” for two and a half thousand years, and philosophy itself, as I understand it, in the most general expression is the ability to distinguish the real from the apparent and imagined, that is, to separate reality from ideas…
People who do not possess the basic principles of Being, knowledge about the monadic property of Reality, cannot be called philosophers. At best, they can be called thinkers, because now philosophy is in such a poor state, because it is stuffed with profane people in it.
Anyone who feels like it can consider themselves a philosopher, like me. But the point is in social conventions, in clannishness. It's like you can consider yourself an elite, but Ksenia Sobchak will not consider you such, and the whole beau monde, after her, will ridicule you. Of course, Hesse, Dostoevsky, and Camus are philosophers. In their writings, they posed questions that no Swedenborg or Foucault could answer. so what? Mr. Pupkin comes up and says, ” What kind of philosophers are they if our Professor Tyatkin didn't include them in the canon?” Philosopher, this is not a front row seat. If they force you to look at a problem in a new way, they are philosophers. And even if his name is Pyotr Ivanovich from the next front door, he can put that Voltaire in his belt.