RE: re: re: but how do we know someone is a really a philosopher?

[nd603@soton.ac.uk]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


esoterically arrogant? is that possible? being arrogantly esoteric surely is
but i'm not sure about esoterically arrogant.does have a nice ring to it
though...

anyways just thought i'd agree with andy in general, although personally i
think the only reason we consider people who claim to be philosophers
arrogant is that, as philosophy students, we hold all the great
philosophers in extremely high esteem. most people don't. i deliberately
used the word 'great' there, btw, because whilst i consider myself (and a
lot of people i know) to be a philosopher i certainly don't consider myself
a great philosopher, and hence should not be considered in the same bracket
as plato, kant etc. which should remove the charge of arrogance to some
extent.

being a philosopher should simply require you to look at the world in a
philosophical manner. which everyone on this list will do.thats easy. being
a great philosopher you have to make some great contribution to the history
of philosophy.it should be as simple a distinction as that.

and perhaps marx more accurately deserves the title of 'most obviously
influential philosopher'.the fact that he didn't consider himself a
philosopher is also of little importance.our own opinions of our
status/import in the world are rarely accurate.

nick




Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm