The Metaphysics of a Philosopher — What Does it Mean to be One?
One of the most classic types of questions in Philosophy have to do with Metaphysics. So classic and central to Philosophy is Metaphysics in fact that many call it the “First Philosophy.” Metaphysics being the question surrounding “What it means” to be something. What is a desk? What is a home? What is a Philosopher? Or, what does it mean to be a Philosopher?
I was having this discussion with someone on social media. What does it mean to be a Philosopher? The question comes up often when someone disagrees with a certain thinker and considers their ideas as not even constitutive of Philosophy. “They shouldn’t be considered a Philosopher!” They might shout axiomatically. I came across someone in a comments thread of this question that rang true at the time. They said that their professors said there are no Philosophers, we are all just doing Philosophy. My professors said the same thing. It got me thinking however, why is this even possibly the case? I mean, we do in fact call classic thinkers like Plato and Aristotle to Bentham and Hume as “Philosophers,” why not now in modernity? While we could reference our professors, it doesn’t say anything about why that is the case anyways, there’s no justification to it, so it is unhelpful for discovering what it actually means to be a Philosopher at all.
Plato had his forms. He could have most likely said that everyone we call a Philosopher is really a reflection of the pure idea of what a Philosopher is. This could explain why some people consider some Philosophers and others not, we are making guesses at what a thinker is based on what they reflect, a mere shadow of “Philosopher… ness.” The interpretations of these shadows will differ. He did say, however, that a person is a philosopher who reflects upon the forms to begin with. Aristotle, on the other hand would say there has got to be some sort of defining feature among Philosophers that make them a Philosopher. This is something that seems reasonable; Philosophers are lovers of wisdom (which is the root of the word “Philosophy”). However, aren’t most people lovers of wisdom nowadays? If most people are lovers of wisdom, then wouldn’t everyone be a Philosopher? That doesn’t seem to be the case, as we argue about it quite often. This person is or isn’t a Philosopher, commonly throwing around the term “sophist” like some kind of slur for intellectuals. I think I follow in Wittgenstein’s footsteps here: if we just agreed on what it meant when we talk about something, i.e. the definition, then we wouldn’t have any problems discussing these issues. We do have a ton of problems when discussing these issues. So it follows, we do not agree on what is meant when we talk about these things.
The problem is clear. We don’t, and most likely never will, agree on what it means to be a Philosopher. Well, if we can’t agree on what it means to be something, then none of us really know what it means to be one. Truth is undeniable, if it truly is truth, spoken with justification. However, justification can always be deniable in some way, it seems no argument or justification is bulletproof. What I think this leads us to is a continued ignorance. If we have a continued ignorance about what it means to be a Philosopher, then we shouldn’t take the term so seriously. That, I think is the problem at large. What we can agree on, if we can’t agree on what a Philosopher is, is that we put who we consider as a Philosopher on a pedestal. We are willing to fight like mad to keep our cherished thinkers on said pedestal of being called a Philosopher.
Whether you think that since all are lovers of wisdom and as such all are Philosophers, or you think that nobody is a true Philosopher as they all just reflect the pure idea or form of “Philosopher… ness.” Or possibly you have a specific definition that differs from everyone else, I don’t think spending time Philosophizing about what it means to be a Philosopher is the most important thing to Philosophize about. I think people consider it an important area of discussion for discerning who to read and who to consider as an “intellectual.” But this seems to fly in the face of Philosophy, having been formed to question authority and attempt to face our own ignorance in search of truth. We utilize thinkers through history as they’ve just done the work and have shown their justification already, whether we agree with that justification or not. No dogma. This is the problem, considering someone to be, or not to be a Philosopher is a form of dogma, suggesting that people should listen to them because they are a “true” Philosopher. This is exactly the polar opposite of the goal of Philosophizing.
Want More?
Other than following me here on Medium, which I am sure you already do, right? You can catch me on facebook as Five Minute Philosophy, where I post memes daily, both original and reposted. I also have started teaching weekly classes on youtube under my name, Dave Klier. I have only just recently started and as such we are only on an Introduction to Philosophy course, with plans to continue into other classes as well.
