So yea what qualifies a person as a philosopher?

__________________

Head trauma, anti-social behavior, and a brightly colored ceremonial sash.

Reclusive, insane, people that are usually poor writers relatively speaking.

Seriously though, anyone can be a philosopher as long as they are on a quest for truth (whatever that means), have a love for wisdom, and most of all are capable of learning and listening. People that employ the dialectic when learning, thinking, and communicating tend to fall into the category of the philosopher.

The question: "I wonder what that (person) means?"

__________________
Sapere Aude!

The power of abstraction, or as Charles Hockett puts it, The Ability to Temorally and Spatially Displace Subject and Object. This is what makes a philosopher, thus all humans are philosophers.

I am not entirely sure, many people would like to have the respect that professionals bestow upon their peers. I would think that ones work would need the continuity, order and systematic process to bring ones entire work into a rational totality. That each part might be seen to relate not only to other parts but also to the whole.

I knew I was missing *something*.

One who pursues wisdom; not only loving it, but showing effort through discourse and/or study over the long term.

A philosopher is one who loves wisdom. I say this plainly, because if one loves wisdom, they will seek it, and through seeking it, everything will fall in place to fulfill the love.

Love is not something passive, but is an ever enduring relationship between the loved and beloved.

__________________
de omnibus dubitandum est

Everyone is a philosopher if they speak there perception of how they view are existence, yet some lack a form of peotical art to it, due to the lack of intented thought that they put into there philosophy

Intellectualy based thought and wisdom from trail and error, spoken into word's with intent to show there point of view and perception of such.

Yet there come's to a point within philosophy that a philosopher would not call him/her self as a philosopher, for they would understand what it really is, and that's only what you or another say philosophy is, therefore you would not need to call it such, nor would philosophy mean the same as another has defined as.

So What qualifie's a person as a philosopher?

The point of view and perception of this existence that you follow and speak, or the point of view and perception of another's of this existence.

So it's what you say, or another has said for you that will only qualifie you as such, yet a true philosopher would not define him/her self as such, yet other's would define him/her by such.

But have to have some shared known word to relate or communicate.

Wana make a new word for such?? Wonder how we can make a new word

So every person that posted in this thread and shared there point of view(founded in wisdom or intellectualy based thought or observation of this existence) and perception of what qualifies a person as a philosophy, has just commited an act of philosophy, therefore wouldnt every person that has intent to do such be such?

Well I think such, that's why it all rym's like such

__________________
For it is what it is, for that is what I say it is, therefore making it what it is, and thats what I say it is, and therefore I made it what it is

Well I’m such as that such… and I can tell you we don’t take to kindly to that such.

Somehow now, I think that the term philosopher is too light a term. Perhaps philosophers should call themselves the “anointed ones.” LOL! Keep in mind that philosophers have been relatively celebrated throughout history but somewhat equally despised because of the high honors they always manage to bestow upon themselves. Theres always been a terrible byproduct of egocentric waste when processing philosophy. Diogenes is laughing at all of us right now in some cynical fashion as we speak. “Man doth like an ape that the higher he climbs, the more he shows of his bottom” (Francis Bacon)

Personally, anyone who even remotely refers to themselves as a philosopher should be met with equal skepticism. That whole identification as a philosopher implies some level of specialty that crosses a line I think philosophy was not meant to cross. There has to be some higher level of humility rather than hubris to keep the science respectable. “Knowledge for the sake of knowledge and not for any others, for this is the truest of all the sciences” (Aristotle)

I’d still like that ceremonial sash though… preferably in red.