5 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: what makes someone a philosopher?
It kind of depends on what counts as a contribution to the field. The fact that Lois Lane thinks Superman is bullet proof but doesn’t think Clark Kent is bullet proof is a decent example of the distinction between de re and de dicto but I wouldn’t say that the creators of Superman have contributed to philosophy.
I’m not the right person to comment on the philosophical value of works of fiction because it’s well outside of my area of expertise. But I will say that I’m not sure that it’s proper to credit Dostoyevsky with whatever insight someone has gained from his work. I’m also unaware of Dostoyevsky having used the methodologies of philosophy (as opposed to those of literature) in any of his works. But I must confess I know little about his writings as well.
I’m not opposed to someone without a degree doing philosophy. But rather I want to establish that philosophy is not merely a subject matter but that it is properly understood as addressing some subject matter in the proper way and with the proper tools. If Hank from 2B sits down and cracks open his books and sets about doing that then fuck yeah more power to Hank. I just don’t think every jackass who has ever gotten super high and been like “but what do we really know, man?” Is doing philosophy because that happens to also be something epistemologists have wrestled with.
Comment by robothistorian at 27/01/2025 at 02:38 UTC
1 upvotes, 3 direct replies
But I will say that I’m not sure that it’s proper to credit Dostoyevsky with whatever insight someone has gained from his work. I’m also unaware of Dostoyevsky having used the methodologies of philosophy (as opposed to those of literature) in any of his works.
So, going by this, would Nietzsche be considered a philosopher? What about Spinoza?