What exactly makes a person a good philosopher, their credentials, or the way they argue philosophical topics?
Many of you say its the credentials that make you a philosopher. But don’t all we post anonymously? So credentials can’t be trusted especially when many lie about them inorder to win an argument or, at the very least, claim or use them to try to add credulity to their ideas and opinions.
Personal honesty and having people being able to relate or agree with you…
It’s more than just argument that makes a good philosopher. Salesmen and politicians can argue well, but that doesn’t make them good philosophers. And credentials clearly don’t matter to the quality of your philosophy – though they may affect who’s willing to listen to you. Ancient Greek philosophers had (and *could* have) no credentials, because they were starting from scratch.
I think that a good philosopher needs at minimum:
* The ability to observe
* The ability to reason
* Some sense of what the important questions are
* Some felicity with language
My justification is as follows:
* If you can’t observe then you can’t validate or support your arguments
* If you can’t reason then your arguments will be flawed
* If you don’t know what the important questions are then your arguments may be valid, but nobody will heed them
* If you don’t have some felicity with language then your meaning will be murky, and people will get bored
On the other hand, if you have all these facilities then you’ll
know what to think about; be able to take guidance from what you see; be able to explore and form coherent arguments; and be able to articulate them interestingly and capably for yourself and others.
Moreover, we can tell good philosophy from bad philosophy by comparing the philosopher’s observations with our own; tracing through their reasoning; considering the impact of the question; and reflecting on how well the philosopher has articulated the material
Our ability to judge the quality of philosophy therefore depends on our own abilities to observe, argue, question and communicate. When we can do these things well, the credentials of the philosopher won’t matter so much. If we’re poor at these things then *who* may be more important to us than what and how and why.
Neither of the two. I think a good philosopher is someone who speaks his mind and sticks to his beliefs and convictions regardless if he is contested or not, his ideas/words act as a catalyst for awareness and discovery.
The very thought that he still has to know a lot more and a lot more and a lot more……………
A good philosopher, who is believing in unconditional love to all living things.