1

So, the other day i was wondering, what does it take to become a recognized philosopher? Perhaps wisdom? Perhaps the ability to think? Perhaps I need academic education? I couldn't quite find an answer to that question, What does it take for someone to become a recognized philosopher?

I wouldn't consider myself a philosopher, yet i'm intrigued by philosophy, and planning to study it in college...

closed as primarily opinion-based by Gordon, Frank Hubeny, Swami Vishwananda, virmaior, Keelan Jul 1 '18 at 6:20

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    This seems to me to be a very broad question. It also depends too much on personal opinion. If your question does get closed for some reason I hope you continue to participate here. That would be a sign that your interest is strong enough to pursue philosophy. – Frank Hubeny Jun 30 '18 at 14:41
  • Perhaps, i need to work on the question more. Thanks for the feedback – captindfru Jun 30 '18 at 14:43
  • Publishing philosophical works perhaps? – Yechiam Weiss Jun 30 '18 at 16:09
  • Could you give a more detailed explanation as an answer? Since your answer is reasonably true and a good one – captindfru Jun 30 '18 at 16:15
  • As far as being recognized, it is possible to write a silly book of "philosophy" and make a little money and become famous for 15 minutes, sure. So we don't know your motivation. It is very hard to answer a question like this here. For me, I ask myself if I am genuinely interested in a subject and let that guide me. – Gordon Jun 30 '18 at 17:33
-3

Generally speaking, in the Western world, someone is recognised as a philosopher if they have satisfied whatever criteria were in place for them to receive the academic qualification of Ph.D in one of the "humanistic sciences". Typically this takes ten years of full-time study at a tertiary educational institution. Having satisfied the criteria, you attend a ceremony where you get to wear a silly hat, and receive a piece of paper. Then, in order to continue to be worthy of the honorific, you need to publish articles that are approved by your fellow Ph.Ds.

  • Typically this takes six years of full-time study at a tertiary educational institution. That's after completing a four year degree at a tertiary educational institution. So you need roughly 10 years of tertiary education which culminates with a defense of a document the length of a book. – virmaior Jul 1 '18 at 6:43
  • Ahh, Babette Babich strikes again.....Did the Pre-Socratics wash their underwear? Now there's some serious philosophy. – Baby Boy Jul 1 '18 at 6:59
  • Never talked to her once... is that what she writes about? – virmaior Jul 1 '18 at 8:09
  • "where you get to wear a silly hat, and receive a piece of paper." - probably, you got downvoted for this, while this is true (it is not complete, though). Just it is insulting (and that's not your intention to insult) and people fail to be rational when they vote. Indeed, people would be very offended if they spent 10+ years not for being a philosopher, but only being recognized as a philosopher. – rus9384 Jul 3 '18 at 8:22
  • @rus9384 I spend every working day among academic philosophers. It is not very pleasant. It tends to be about ego. Devoting ten years of your life to one pursuit is about ego, not about the pursuit of excellence. Ask anyone training for the Olympics. – Baby Boy Jul 3 '18 at 9:14
-4

"Philosopher" is an honorific term. Especially when "philosophy" is used in the sense of "a way of looking at things" even the likes of Ayn Rand, Jacques Derrida, Slavoj Žižek, or fictional characters like Socrates, Morpheus, Gandalf et cetera can be considered "philosopher".

When philosophy is used in the sense of the translation from the Greek, all one need do is reject false argument, rationally assess the truth value of claim(s), or advance knowledge claim(s) for minimally adequate use of philosopher as descriptor. Philosophy is, after all, respect for obtaining knowledge.

In short, all it takes is at minimum two agents with intentionality (i.e. with the capacity for speech acts) and one to recognize such and utter as much about the other.

  • "fictional characters like Socrates" - how can you be sure Socrates is fictional character? "reject false argument, rationally assess the truth value of claim(s), or advance knowledge claim(s) for minimally adequate use of philosopher as descriptor." - you can't reduce philosophy to logic. "Philosophy is, after all, respect for obtaining knowledge." - I thought science does that. – rus9384 Jul 3 '18 at 8:17
  • @rus9384 All we know of Socrates is by way of fiction. I haven't attempted to reduce philosophy so. You could do well to distinguish obtaining knowledge and the virtue of it. – Mr. Kennedy Jul 3 '18 at 14:29

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.