19 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: what makes someone a philosopher?
Are you counting people like Plato and Aristotle non-phds? Because if not I think it’s plainly the case that lay people have not contributed more to philosophy than those who engage in its study and practice. I do think the analogy with science holds. We all go about our days learning from the world, testing hypothesis, and adjusting our understanding of how the world works based on input. But like, we aren’t all scientists.
It’s about how it is done, and not as much what is done. There is philosophizing about subject X and then there is just talking about X. Both can be enlightening, but only one involves certain scholastic methods and with an attention to prior contributions and distinctions that might not be practically significant.
Also I’m not certain that it’s desirable for it to be the case that everyone who sits there and has a think about right and wrong to be a philosopher.
I’m fine excluding Tupac from being a philosopher. I don’t think that takes away from his life, work, or the meaning people have found in those things.
Comment by Kriball4 at 26/01/2025 at 22:43 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
While it's definitely a stretch to claim that lay people have contributed more to philosophy than people who hold a PhD in philosophy, surely lay people can make use of the same scholastic methods as professional philosophers? And some people who haven't received a formal degree in philosophy are evidently capable of making some contributions to the field. I'm not talking about Aristotle or Confucius, who lived before formal educational institutions, but certainly received a very rigorous education by the standards of their time. I'm thinking of well-read writers like Dostoevsky or Stirner.
Comment by [deleted] at 26/01/2025 at 19:09 UTC*
-13 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[deleted]