Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- 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?
What is the difference between a good locksmith and a person who understands locksmithing? A good locksmith fixes the crane, in five minutes and for centuries, and a knowledgeable one stands next to it and comments) �
Any real specialist is distinguished by the ability to be creative, to be creative, to be productive – he moves forward the area that he has chosen with his work. He doesn't just “Know how” – he does, and thereby finds ways to “Do even better”.�
So a good philosopher doesn't just spend his entire life deepening the furrow laid out by generations before him – he digs a new, interesting and effective one ) Actually, this is also the difference between a good psychologist and a good locksmith.�
I will not miss here the opportunity to throw a stone in the garden of the current higher education, which is now going not to move forward the direction of science that is interesting to you, but to get crusts that indicate the ability to deepen old furrows, or at least ride on them.
The question leads to shaky matters. The answer is that a philosopher must be creative and create his own view of the world. But in general, no, the philosopher is not obliged to have either his own or any other views. Rejection of conceptualizations can be quite a philosophical position. In addition, almost a non-philosopher can understand philosophy, especially well. Therefore, rather nothing. A historian of philosophy is also a philosopher, if it is a historian of philosophy, and not a biographer of philosophers, a sociologist or something like that. So if a person really understands philosophy, he is a real philosopher, even if he does not create philosophy, does not preach, does not answer people's questions, does not lead some exotic lifestyle in accordance with philosophical conclusions, and so on.
I'll try to come to the question a little from the other side. What is philosophy as an activity? Reflection, but not any, but on philosophical problems. In this sense, everyone is a bit of a philosopher, because everyone faces the main philosophical problem-life and what to do with it. But in a narrower sense, a philosopher is someone who has made thinking about these questions his life. And who is well-versed then? The one for whom this case has lost its relevance.
Two graduates of the physics department separated after the defense – one went to science, the other to business. Here the first one remained a physicist, and the second one became “well-versed in physics”. It's the same with philosophy. But do not be deceived – if the first in science became an administrator, and the second in his spare time from managing the mint writes a physical treatise-everything is exactly the opposite and the second is a physicist, and the first is just well versed in it.
Thank you for the interesting question.
The criterion of “authenticity” does not have a clear definition, it is situational.
I remembered the parable, ” Who is the real doctor? The one who passed by the wounded man helped him or the one who has a doctor's degree, but he was in a hurry and passed by?”
By analogy, in different cases, we can call different people a “real philosopher”.
At a scientific conference, this will be an expert with a report that is adequate to the discourse. But in another situation, the same person in the role of a teacher can be a dry pedant working on a hackneyed program.
In another situation ,a” real philosopher ” may be a person who does not understand many of the subtleties of the history of philosophy, but who thinks well and acts according to the situation, and not automatically or as is accepted by the majority.
The criteria of” realness ” can be considered: thinking and acting adequately to the situation; willingness to go out on a metaposition to see situations from different sides; use of logic, argumentation in defending one's position; appeal to reflection, rather than to rules, traditions and norms.
If you look historically, these are Socrates, the Stoics, Bakhtin's “philosophy of action”, Tolstoy's”Confession”.
In modern times, for me, “real philosophers” are those who develop the direction of practical philosophy: Oscar Brenifier, Sergey Borisov, Lou Marrinof “Plato instead of Prozac”, etc.
In the same way that a poet differs from a literary critic – the former can create works, the latter can analyze them well . “Zoilus was called the' Scourge of Homer 'because of his ridicule and mockery of Homer; he was also called the' dog of eloquence.'
Independent thinking and understanding that there is no independent thinking. That there is just thinking and that this thinking just happens, or rather, a real philosopher allows this thinking to happen, and even more precisely, discovers this thinking, and sometimes in unexpected situations.�
A real philosopher is usually ironic both to his colleagues and to himself. A real philosopher does not have to be a professor or a doctor of philosophy, but a real thinker can be found in your neighbor, whom you meet every day on the landing or in the shop assistant, who can express certain situations in such a way, with such insight into the essence of what is happening, with such aesthetics and ethics of presentation, that you will
It seems to me that a real thinker does not exist in a stationary mode. It is, how should I put it, end-to-end or something. Something like a passing pennant. It will flash in one person, then in another. You can't catch him somehow. After all, even in deep thinkers, you can often find the loss of living thinking in places. Here he is alive, and here he has already jumped off somewhere, well, maybe he went for a snack.�
Therefore, a living, real thinker, a real philosopher is rather a collective, mosaic image. A sort of slyly twinkling eyes Prometheus-Plato-Socrates-Buddha-Kant-Schopenhauer-Mamardashvili… One might say that this is a network of images, if not for the associations that necessarily lead to the side of either the rhizome, or postmodern or metamodern. But it's not about terms. The point is to demonstrate the essence of what is happening ,to expose the nerve of thinking, its pulsation… Sometimes thinking explodes, other times it becomes the quietest essence of the universe. Sometimes it just hides in the caves of emotional mines, like a fossil…
Here, something like that.
As for someone who is well versed in philosophy… So he may be a real thinker, a philosopher, or he may not be. It's just that it's already akin to a craft-to know your business, to study the works of philosophers, thinkers, to know the history of philosophy, its sections. This business is necessary, useful, even, let's say, utilitarian. While philosophy itself is completely and by no means utilitarian. Therefore, we can say, and this is not categorical, that a good philosopher is someone who is well versed in philosophy. And the real philosopher is the cross-cutting type that comes through here and there, sometimes appearing in good philosophers, but not always.
A real philosopher is able to see universal processes behind the manifestation of individual and special things,phenomena, and the existence of philosophical systems in space and time , he considers as a regular sequence of the search for a method of cognition of reality (i.e. ,the search for the so-called “truth” in the good sense of the word).
A real philosopher is a person who:
a) has a philosophical Method (Personal skill),
b) lives using the knowledge gained through the philosophical Method (Personal experience),
c) improves the Method and knowledge, using Personal experience (Personal truth).
I wonder who the “real philosopher” is?�
For example, a lawyer, a housewife, a philosopher, or a historian of philosophy can understand philosophy…That is, this is a broad concept, which of course includes the concept of” a real philosopher”, if by it we mean a person with philosophical thinking.
For some reason, I came to the conclusion that a philosopher is not a profession. It's not even a type of thinking, it's a mindset.
I will try to explain the words philosophy on the analysis.
If it were a science, it would be more correct to call it Logosophy or sophology)
Philo-refers more to feelings, to passion, to mood, to relationships, rather than to the rational, to the logos!!! That's what's important.�
Therefore. To be a philosopher is literally to have a taste for wisdom.
Here is an article by Alexander Kudryavtsev in this category just determines that this author only reads the books of philosophers for 17 years, but has not acquired the wisdom of a philosopher.
The author does not even understand that philosophy cannot, like a corrupt girl, be pleasing to someone.
Philosophy cannot be pinned to some temporary interval of time, invented by people for the convenience of calculation.
Because Philosophy does not study the concept of temporal relevance.
Philosophy is not a System of Theories and Practices, and even more so, Philosophers do not try to become Speakers calling for something, much less for the overthrow of someone or someone's system of power and order.
Philosophy is not a profession. There are teachers who teach the Basics of Knowledge to People who have been recognized by people as philosophers. But the philosophers themselves did not go to anyone's service, much less work out something.
The author confuses the Philosophical System with the Economic System of views.
Because only an Effective Economic Theory can Transform Social Society. After all, it is Economic Theory that creates financial levers of influence on the country's economic processes.
The government, through taxes, takes part of the income of people and businesses, and through Constitutional Laws and financial authorities, the Government should regulate cash flows, revitalizing the economy and supporting and developing the lives of businesses and people.
People don't feed philosophers. People feed Government officials, who are supposed to earn their bread.
As for Russia specifically, the Financial System at this time, after the Coup by Gorbachev and Yeltsin, is directly subordinate to the Global Financial System through the Central Bank and is not subordinate to the Russian Government.
The Central Bank is not interested and does not even have the right to lend money to the State of Russia and does not finance enterprises directly, but private banks. And it gives out a loan in rubles at a high percentage. Banks wind up their loan interest and the enterprise is already in debt and unprofitable. And banks can simply take businesses away from the owner and even put them in jail for non-payment of the loan. That in Russia and ruined the fate of directors, and ruined many enterprises, making them unprofitable.
By transforming Russia's Constitution to the extent permitted by the Global Financial System, Putin is trying to fight governors and clan groups. But the forces are very unequal. And what has been done is a feat for Russia in general.
A real Philosopher is a Wise person.And Wisdom is acquired not only by a segment of Life Experience.
Wisdom, of course, has absorbed Scientific Knowledge of facts, and most importantly, by comparing these scientific facts, a Wise Person Can Foresee The Consequences of the Actions of certain Systems or people.
A wise Person gives only Universal Keys to Knowledge, but what Doors a person wants to open for himself, it already depends on the quality of his Life Experience, the Desire of his Thoughts and the Activity of Actions. The quality of Thoughts and Activity of Actions determine the quality of Personal Will (Firmness of Character) of the Person himself.
Leave the Teacher, man, at some Point in Your Life, break away. and Mature in your Thoughts, Take Responsibility for the Quality of the Energy of Your Thoughts and Actions personally on Yourself, Man. This is what Philosophy calls for.
Philosophy is the Worldview of one Person, which can become the Worldview of other people, and maybe even a whole Community of people who have adopted This Worldview.
A wise person has the Energy of Intuitive Knowledge. Through long reflection, that is, concentration on some personal or universal problem, a person can enter into Resonance with the Energy of the Noosphere and then a Person directly receives Knowledge=Insight in reality or in a Dream (Prophetic or Prophetic dream).
A wise person can become when he not only masters Knowledge=He also understands the Extent of Responsibility for the Consequences that will occur if this Knowledge is included in Real Life.
You can know little, but realizing Responsibility for others, a person becomes wiser, because the Energy of his Thoughts and Images can coincide with the Energy of the Noosphere, and then a person will immediately know what to do in order to act in a humanly just way.
An old friend of mine, a professor and doctor of physical and mathematical sciences, strongly objects to being called a physicist: “I am not a physicist, but a physics teacher.” He explained to me that, in his opinion, a physicist (a scientist in general) can only be called one who has made a significant contribution to the field of knowledge in which he is engaged, in the form of a significant scientific discovery or the creation of a theory that did not exist before him. The rest should be content with a fairly honorary title of a researcher. (This is so as not to go into shaky matters). Therefore, if the subject has created a philosophical doctrine that differs in any way from those created before him, he is a philosopher, and if he repeats truths that were not revealed to him, however well he understands them, he is not a philosopher, but a connoisseur of philosophy, which in itself deserves all respect. But the right to the title of “real” scientist does not give. This scheme opened my eyes at the time. If you like it, I give it to you.
The fact that a real philosopher is more a state of mentality(he may even be without a philosophical education), and the person who fumbles is most likely with an education and did not pick his nose,but studied.
In general a philosopher is more of a state of mind😌
I have been studying philosophy and contemporary philosophers for more than 17 years. The result of the research is depressing. Modern philosophy is not viable and useless for the taxpayers who support them.
Philosophy is bound to be a FORWARD-LOOKING VIEW of DEVELOPING HUMANITY, and this has not happened and is unlikely to happen in the coming years.
In my opinion, philosophers should be divided into two main groups. Theoretical and Practical Philosophers.
Today, political parties are run from construction workers,lawyers to outspoken bandits in the recent past. Political parties should be led by specially trained practical philosophers. Have a deep knowledge of the history of rhetoric. The difference between practical philosophers can only take place in the ideas that will lead humanity to its improvement faster.
Philosophers! When will you start working off the funds invested in you?
Waiting for an answer.
A philosopher can also be called a peasant who gets drunk in the morning and rests, watching others work,while philosophizing about the essence of being. But I could also benefit the country if I helped working people.Just like philosophers, they don't do a damn thing and still philosophize.
When one of the “real philosophers” who is more than “well versed in philosophy” was asked are you a philosopher? He said no, I'm a philosophy teacher. Perhaps this question was asked to Marx, most likely. My memory is already failing me. There are no criteria for this question, but do you need them? Even Marx(?) I didn't dare answer.))
“A real philosopher”, “well versed in philosophy”, These value judgments are relative. It is desirable for everyone to know the basics of philosophy, as a science about the most general Laws of the development of nature, society and thinking. These Laws have long been open, well-established, and rarely challenged. They help us build our lives by first addressing general issues before moving on to specific ones. For example, before you go to the store for a purchase, you think about whether you have money.
A real philosopher differs from any other person primarily in that he receives money for his work as a philosopher. There are no other differences and cannot be. This work is poorly paid, because it is not in demand and no problems can be solved both within and between societies. All problems between societies are solved by the power of state economies and their weapons. Point.
The mark” philosopher ” on sapiens is not a sign of the quality of intelligence. Rather, on the contrary, it is a sign of superficial quality of judgments and even low intelligence. In the 20th and even more so in the 21st century, only those people who are not capable of practically useful work go to” philosophers”. They go to this profession on a residual basis (they did not manage to go anywhere to study) or from a specifically arranged structure of the brain, which really wants to think about everything, but does not want to learn anything deeply against the background of its own bully dominance. The “philosopher” really wants to be great, just talking about what he has to. This is his main quality as a sapiens. This is a degenerative sign.
Currently, the profession of “philosopher” has one useful application. This is the history of philosophy. Studying the history of philosophical rationalisms of the past is useful and necessary for everyone. This is the only way to easily recognize and filter them out as the intellectual garbage of evolution. Everything else is done independently and only in person. Sapiens doesn't believe anyone and shouldn't believe anyone by talking about “eternal themes”. Each sapiens has more than enough intelligence of its own to avoid resorting to the vulgar (mostly) judgments of brain-specific “philosophers”.
The careers of Aristotle, Pomponazzi, or Galileo can no longer be repeated today. Time is gone forever. Today everything is already clear…
Idleness is better than vain deeds – – – this is known from time immemorial; The soul of one who has comprehended the Tao cannot be compared with the soul of a person! You will reach a lot, striving for a little, reaching for a lot – – – alas, many minds are full of doubts, Submitting to deep delusions. The sage sees through the eyes of many people at once, So you can see clearly That the truth is truly beautiful! It does not elevate itself within strict limits. Therefore, he is the eldest among the others, Does not fight with anyone, but wins, Inaction accomplishes great things.The words of the oldest truths are mine again. Lao Tzu. A good understanding of philosophy is NOT POSSIBLE!!!
I think it's about the same as how a music critic differs from a musician.
A philosopher is someone who has brought his own, albeit very modest, idea to philosophy.
PS. I think 140 characters in the response is too much. The answer may be complete, but it is concise.
In fact, philosophy is a more or less systematic worldview. There is not a single person who does not have some kind of worldview. A person is his worldview. But when we begin to understand the extent to which it is systematized, deeply grounded, and clearly understood by others, we enter the field of classifying worldviews from “home use” to “world-class theory”. As in religion, where most believers have a very rough idea of faith at the level of “one grandmother said”, and “The Trinity is Jesus, the Mother of God and St. Nicholas the Saint”. And there are also theologians and even quite world-class. As in our education, which gives us all the ability to write, but some are limited to graffiti on fences, and others grow to the ability to create “War and Peace”. One should object only when philosophy is denied the right to exist, and not the right to consider itself a science. Here's how it turns out. After all, the theory of caloric can not be called a science.
The philosopher paves new ways of thinking. They can become the cultural basis for the formation of a new civilization, or they can be ridiculed and forgotten. But there must be these new ways of thinking. If not in the form of space trails, then at least in the form of a lonely path in the forest, trodden by one person. A specialist may be well versed in philosophy, but if he goes along a well-trodden road, without turning into an impassable thicket and windfall, and without making a new path in these wilds, then he is not a philosopher.
Thank you for asking me to answer this question. I like Mamardashvili's version, which is related to surprise (namely philosophical, related to global questions: what is the world, what is life, who am I and how do I know the world, etc.). If it happens sometimes in a person, then he asks the appropriate questions. It is only in this way that he finally comes to the answer that he knows, that he knows nothing, and this is the highest wisdom. Without surprise (not constant, of course, but periodically experienced), philosophical reasoning is akin to the calculations of an accountant on debit and credit. I am not disparaging the accountant in any way, but I am trying to convey the difference between the profession and the way of thinking. In addition, anyone can be a philosopher, just as anyone can be a believer or an atheist, a reader or not, a hunter or a fisherman, and so on. Philosophy is very democratic, so to say that only a person who works, writes, or teaches in this or a related field can be a philosopher is bullshit.
I wish you good health. If you try to answer very briefly and figuratively, it is the same way that a tractor driver differs from those who are well versed in tractors. You can see the tractor driver right away. It even smells like a tractor, sorry for the bad language. For example, many years ago I made a tractor(mini) from my former “kopeyka”, the remains of the Bulgarian “kara” of the 70s and other scrap metals. I did it with my father when he was still alive. And still the tractor serves properly. But I'm not a tractor driver. And I don't know much about tractors at all. I even have a tractor from Kopeyka. It can be the same with philosophers. A person thought all his life that he was a philosopher, and even collected his philosophy with his own hands, even with the help of many, starting from Pythagoras and ending with someone like Jiddu Krishnamurti. And then someone blurts out: “What a philosopher he is, Nafik, he's a former prosecutor, he graduated from the investigative and prosecutor's department at the Special University named after Iron Felix! Drive him out with a filthy broom from philosophy!” Can this be the case? Sure. Does the subject have the right to blurt this out? Of course! But only history will judge who really understands what. And here we come to a conclusion. A real philosopher doesn't care who says what about his philosophy. Because he has it, and those who say something have it – kuessen. But even this is not the main thing for him. He just lives it, and doesn't know how to live it. All the best.