I agree with 2 and with 4 (to an extent).
3. Seems to beg the question whether there is A truth about something. I tend to see truth as perspectival, relative to a horizon of discourse, and capable of many gradations of meaning.
1. I happen to take the position that humans ARE the central element in the universe, without whom the universe is meaningless, and that a good part of reality is socially constructed. I don't think that makes me a bad philosopher.
Regards,
John

I tend to see truth as perspectival, relative to a horizon of discourse, and capable of many gradations of meaning.

A philosopher has to be brave, to dare to ask, regardless what the anwer might be. And a philosopher must want the answer, and never stop looking for it.

Totally agree Lily.

Throughout history, some of the greatest philosophers have been persecuted for asking questions and relating their thoughts. It takes a brave person to say something that the majority doesn't want to hear.

Rich

I think a good philosopher starts by challenging assumptions and asking questions about "the question" rather than immediately seeking an answer to the question itself. I can not recall if I heard or read this, but if it is someone's else quote, I apologise for not acknowledging that person

"Philosophers refine questions rather than answer them."

I guess what I am saying is that if an answer about something is knowable or known, then that something is no longer a concern of philosophy but rather becomes a subject for science. Thats seems to be the progression of things in the past eg cosmology, psychology etc. Newtons great work The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy was considered philosophy in the 1700's but is now considered a science.

Anyone can challenge assumptions, why should that make anyone good at philosophy? Philosophers do refine questions, and doing that is a part of being good at philosophy, I agree. But why, if they refine questions, should they not try to answer them? In fact, it often turn out that after the question has been refined, it may be that the answer is now obvious, or even that there was really no question there to start with, but only confusion, and the refining has exposed the confusion.

Philosophers do refine questions, and doing that is a part of being good at philosophy, I agree. But why, if they refine questions, should they not try to answer them? In fact, it often turn out that after the question has been refined, it may be that the answer is now obvious, or even that there was really no question there to start with, but only confusion, and the refining has exposed the confusion.

How would it follow from the fact that great philosophers have been persecuted for asking questions, and relating their thoughts, that good philosophers are philosophers who ask questions, and who relate their thoughts? Much less than it follows that good philosophers are brave persons who say what the majority does not want to hear? What is suppose to be the connection? Why can't someone be an excellent philosopher who is no brave, and who never says anything other do not want to hear? I would think that a good philosopher is someone who is good at philosophy, just as a good carpenter is good at at carpenting, or a good plumber is good at plumbing. They don't have to be brave.

I think that if a philosopher does not begin by challenging any assumptions or at least recognising any grey areas in any assumptions, then that philospher fails in being a good philosopher, because the validity of any answer is unknown.

I did not say good philosophers should not try to answer questions, I said a good philosopher should start by asking questions about "the question" rather than immediately seeking an answer to the question itself.

I think that if a philosopher does not begin by challenging any assumptions or at least recognising any grey areas in any assumptions, then that philospher fails in being a good philosopher, because the validity of any answer is unknown.

I did not say good philosophers should not try to answer questions, I said a good philosopher should start by asking questions about "the question" rather than immediately seeking an answer to the question itself.

I think a good philosopher starts by challenging assumptions and asking questions about "the question" rather than immediately seeking an answer to the question itself. I can not recall if I heard or read this, but if it is someone's else quote, I apologise for not acknowledging that person

"Philosophers refine questions rather than answer them."

I guess what I am saying is that if an answer about something is knowable or known, then that something is no longer a concern of philosophy but rather becomes a subject for science. Thats seems to be the progression of things in the past eg cosmology, psychology etc. Newtons great work The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy was considered philosophy in the 1700's but is now considered a science.