Re: Philosophy and arrogance

[nd603@soton.ac.uk]

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


i have to disagree with you actually peter. whilst a philosopher is
undoubtedly a lover of wisdom, i don't think you can create any kind of
hierarchy of greatness purely by the extent to which someone loves wisdom.

firstly, as you said, wisdom is a form of knowledge, or understanding, and
as such the extent of your wisdom(which should not be confused with your
love of it) can be measured, at least theoretically.wisdom isn't something
that just comes to you, you have to search for it, work at it. the likes of
Plato and Kant are great philosophers not simply because they loved wisdom
more than others, but because they could actually contribute something to
our search for wisdom and knowledge.they were not content with loving the
knowledge they had - they actively (and successfully, which is important)
furthered the extent to which mankind as a whole could be considered a
'wise' species.thats what made them 'great' philosophers.

i think being able to communicate is important too - a truly great
philosopher should not be happy with gaining more wisdom for themselves,
but should love to see wisdom in others too.(kant does suffer a tad here,
he's not exactly the most readable)

i'm aware here that i'm using 'wisdom' to denote some kind of truth that can
be discovered, which i'm not entirely happy with, but i don't see how else
you can describe it without rendering philosophy arbitrary, and frankly, a
bit pointless.does that make all philosophers believers in absolute truth?
even if that truth is just that all things must be contingent?


a brief hypothesis to illustrate my main point here - take 3 men. all love
wisdom equally.but one is a bit stupid, and cannot grasp all of the
concepts the other two can.the second is an extremely knowledgable teacher
- his knowledge of philosophy is rivalled only by the third man, who is not
only a great teacher, but has also done some pioneering work of his own,
that has made a significant contribution to philosophy. which of these men
is the greatest philosopher? to my mind, it has to be the third, because he
is the only one who has actually discovered some new truth, added something
to human wisdom.and can the first man be considered a great philosopher at
all, despite his love of knowledge? i don't think so.

i do agree that to be a philosopher is not a vocation though, its a state of
mind.those we regard as famous modern philosophers are in fact lecturers,
writers, and the like. philosophy is the field they work in, but you won't
get paid for simply being philosophical.

nick




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