What Constitutes a Philosopher?

[Phenofun]

I want to use works by Michael Pollan as a source for my undergraduate thesis topic and my professor continually persists that he is not a philosopher. I disagree with this and do not understand how he feels he can make this conclusion. He points out that Pollan is a journalist, which is true, but it seems silly to think that he cannot be both. I see philosophy as a practice that has practical applications to everyday life. Pollan writes original, thoughtful works centered around food. His writing has helped to inspire a new way of thinking about food, cooking, and eating. If anyone has read his work, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. 

Edited March 16, 2015 by Phenofun

[Pol]

Wine and poor life choices.

[Happydays2]

What makes a person a philosopher according to your professor? (apart from non-journalists). I've never read Pollen, but he sounds philosophical to me (esp if he, like you said, inspired new ways of thinking about food, cooking, and eating)

[sidebysondheim]

It seems like you're using a very wide definition of 'philosopher' where your professor is using a narrower one such as, those formally trained in the discipline of academic philosophy and publish as such.

[Electric Anxiety]

I've never read him either, but it sounds like your professor's standard of what makes a philosopher is absurd.

I think anyone who studies any subject as thoroughly as possible with a passion, or at least has put in a large amount of effort in understanding a subject, is a philosopher. I think almost everyone is a philosopher in some sense or another as long as one thinks about things in a meaningful way whatever those "things" may be. What is meaningful is obviously relative, but I think you know what I mean.

What does PHD stand for no matter the field or subject of the one who has the degree? Exactly...

[jo;yryts65edy]

I agree, he sounds philosophical to me as well. I once had a philosophy professor that did not even consider himself a philosopher. He was very intelligent and interested in philosophy, but just did not see himself as being one. Rather he was just a human wondering about the world and trying to share that with others. In my mind, that kind of made him the most philosophical person I've ever met. However, just having a PhD doesn't cut you to be a philosopher. I definitely think it goes beyond that.

[isostheneia]

The relevant question seems to me not whether Pollan is a philosopher, but whether he's the best person to use as a primary source in an undergraduate thesis. You could certainly engage with many of the topics he discusses by investigating arguments made by people specifically within the discipline. Here's a page on the philosophy of food which might help. Discussing people who are in published conversation with other philosophers will probably make your project much easier in the long run, I would think, regardless of the question of whether Pollan is a philosopher. You could always cite him in passing or in footnotes, while engaging other people's arguments as well.

[DontFly]

I want to risk disapproval and voice a different view. I think your professor has a point. There are several issues conflicted here. First of all, just because someone isn't a philosopher doesn't mean their view cannot be of philosophical interest - and conversely, just because someone's view has the potential of eliciting philosophical interest, doesn't mean they're a philosopher.

Moreover, the exercise of "doing philosophy" is, of course, valued in proposing original views and investigating philosophical matters in discourses not previously investigated. But the purpose of an undergraduate education in philosophy is, in my opinion, to familiarize students with the way philosophy as an academic discipline functions, and in doing so equipping students with tools with which the student can then go on and make original contributions. As such, there is great value associated in restricting the course of study to a focused and well defined group of people, namely, academic philosophers.

[Electric Anxiety]

I want to risk disapproval and voice a different view. I think your professor has a point. There are several issues conflicted here. First of all, just because someone isn't a philosopher doesn't mean their view cannot be of philosophical interest - and conversely, just because someone's view has the potential of eliciting philosophical interest, doesn't mean they're a philosopher.

Moreover, the exercise of "doing philosophy" is, of course, valued in proposing original views and investigating philosophical matters in discourses not previously investigated. But the purpose of an undergraduate education in philosophy is, in my opinion, to familiarize students with the way philosophy as an academic discipline functions, and in doing so equipping students with tools with which the student can then go on and make original contributions. As such, there is great value associated in restricting the course of study to a focused and well defined group of people, namely, academic philosophers.

Very good points.

And I didn't mean having a PHD makes you a philosopher, but the amount of research and work requrited to obtain a PHD is quite a lot usually making such a person very knowledgable in their field and making him/her in a sense a philosopher of what he/she studies.

But I also agree it seems your professor is saying "philosopher" in the more narrow sense. I tend to think of philosophy in more open and general terms however, and prefer not to limit what is meant by philosophy or what it means to be a philosopher. Many disagree with this way of thinking about philosophy though.

[Dumbnamechange]

Yeah, I'm going to side with the professor on this one, for multiple reasons, though I'm pretty much just seconding Dontfly and isostheneia.

 

First, the safest criteria for what counts as philosophy and what counts as being a philosopher is that one works within a certain discourse or historical dialogue. Obviously, this is just a rough standard, and triggers a bunch of false positives and misses a lot — but it's nonetheless extremely relevant. The less someone is responding to philosophers of the present and past, the more justified it is to not consider them as being a part of the practice. This is the reasoning behind academics who distance themselves from "mere critics" and, say, Zizek (who's accordingly more of a philosopher when he's writing about Hegel, less so when he's "philosophizing" about the connections between Batman and the financial crisis). It also, I think, explains what I think is a needed separation of poetry and philosophy. I'm not saying this criteria is the end of the matter, but rather something one simply can't ignore on the grounds that it doesn't gel with an ideal world where everyones a philosopher. 

 

Second, your professor is just doing a good job of looking out for your academic career. Following the point above, even if you are capable of writing an edifying piece on this guy, most other philosophers won't care and might even consider it a joke if they aren't familiar with his work. Hume and Nietzsche are, in this sense, safe (again, if only because there is a certain tradition in place).

 

Third — I don't know how to be less blunt about this — can you really not just accept that he's not a philosopher and incorporate his work in some other way? Like what's really at stake here, is there some actual obstacle to referring to him as a journalist/critic/writer? I really can't imagine a professor a priori dismissing any reference to a non-philosopher, so long as you qualify the source's occupation, and — again, no offense — it just seems like a weak rhetorical mistake on your part to not just bend on this point, choosing instead to cite the author's work under some other name. (That is, simply don't call him a philosopher then but instead cite him as a supporting part of one of your arguments with evidence or as phrasing some thought in a clear and distinct way, or extract your own philosophical argument from his text — say, e.g. his writing seems to represent such-and-such a philosophy...)

 

So those are the practical arguments. As I've probably betrayed my own theoretical position on this by now, I might as well say that — as a metaphilosophical matter quite apart from the above — I disagree with the tenderhearted sentiments that seem to be on offer here.

 

If everyone's a philosopher, then it becomes a vacuous term, and no one's a philosopher. I also would be wary of b.s. etymological arguments. They're pretty much always a wash because of some inevitable untranslatability. (Also, I would generally just run a fast as I can from anyone obsessing, "Love of wisdom, love of wisdom. Are you a lover of wisdom? Is he a lover of wisdom?") It's a kind of cheap rhetoric. (I remember in primary school, teachers saying to my class, "You're all teachers! You're all scientists!")

 

But—and this is my biggest point—I think this is all stemming from an unduly value-laden conception of the term, i.e. seeing "philosopher" as a compliment or an insult. The term is no doubt used this way often but I would say it's used invariably mistakenly, or at least inconsistently. For instance, "philosophical" tends to be a compliment for a film, art-piece, novel, etc., but people always just mean "poetic" (which we avoid saying because it tends to sound too sentimental but is nonetheless felicitous). Really when's the last time you saw a film or read a novel that was remotely anything like Critique of Pure Reason, First Meditations, Republic, etc. — in style or substance? Conversely, "philosopher," usually is an insult, as in a crank or a charlatan (because a philosopher who's actually doing their job well is just speaking "common sense" or the "plain truth" — i.e. has no need to philosophize).

 

My recommendation is to just deflate whatever value you are for some reason attaching to these terms (i.e. don't use them as a compliment or insult — we don't even often use "philosopher" to mean "wise"), instead see it as a name for a certain kind of professional/practitioner, and the cases in which the terms are appropriate will become less controversial/interesting. My bet is that this guy probably won't be one of them; even if he's a tricky case, who cares if there's some other way you can just get around it.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Dumbnamechange

[Electric Anxiety]

I just realized reading your first post, what does it matter whether Pollan is a philosopher or not for your thesis?

If you are doing something philosophical with his work, are writing about a philosophical topic, and you probably are using many other philosophical resources, I don't see why it matters if Pollan is a philosopher or not to be used as a source, especially if it influences your thoughts.

 

How many philosophers have used literature or other forms of art as influence to start a project, as a source, or as a reference?
If Pollan writes about food, and you are writing a philosophical paper about food, I think whether he is a "philosopher" or not ultimatley does not matter.

 

I'm not sure if your professor is trying to get you to not use Pollan, but if you think he is a philosopher then great, if your professor thinks otherwise, then oh well. You can use Pollan as a source either way

 

Everyone is going to have different opinions of what philosophy is, or what makes a philosopher as you see above. What I think really matters is that your work is credible and what you are doing with it is philosophical regardless of the resources you use.

 

[Electric Anxiety]

I realize a few above said the same thing, just use him in alternative ways, but I don't think you have to be proven wrong that Pollan is a philosopher if you think he is.

You are a philosopher and are allowed to make the distinction between "philosopher" or not in your own unique way

[Dumbnamechange]

You are a philosopher and are allowed to make the distinction between "philosopher" or not in your own unique way

 

Relativism! Boo!

[Electric Anxiety]

Lol, may be but PhenoFun is still going to think of Pollan as a philosopher or not even after hearing everyone's position. I'm not claiming that is good or bad but just the way it is.

At least we are not discussing something like killing where the issue of relativism is much more important.

Most of us think PhenoFun can find a way to still use Pollan anyways so hopefully he/she feels reinforced that the use of Pollan is acceptable.

[qualiafreak]

I've used individuals who are technically not philosophers for philosophical papers. However, some of their ideas were not really informed by the intricacies and distinctions of the philosophical debates at hand. In one particular case, I used a Neuroscientist. I didn't base my report solely around him, but instead used some of his evidence to argue against a different philosopher's view. His theories (the non-philosopher) didn't have enough "finesse" to be taken seriously in the philosophical community, by themselves. That just made my paper all the better, because I added said finesse and put his theory under a "philosophical lens," if you will. I'm not sure if that's the case with Pollen though.

[Electric Anxiety]

Those are very good points as well.

If you are able to use someone else's work to do something more with it I think that actually shows off your philosophical abilities.

Philosophy of food can exist for that very reason, that people were able to take a topic not spoken of widely philosophically like food, and do so.

I think its fascinating to read philosophy papers on topics not commonly discussed in such a manner.

Doesn't mean I like to go to Barnes&Noble and read every "Philosophy of something" book though lol. I usually stick to academic works.

[Phenofun]

Thank you to everyone for your thoughts, both supportive and opposing! And thank you Isothenia for the link you provided. The book Cooked by Pollan is one of five other sources. I should have clarified that my professor said I can use it as source, but that it won't be considered a philosophical source. I was also informed yesterday that this book combined with another non-philosophy source will only be counted as one source. He is also instructing us not to define the terms of the paper in the beginning of the paper because he thinks it's better to do that as you go. This also frustrates me because it contributes to the idea that he is not giving us the freedom or independence to develop an original paper reflective of our interests, passions, and writing styles. It feels as if we are instead being told to cater to his desires and personal preferences.   

 

 

Dumnamechange said "My recommendation is to just deflate whatever value you are for some reason attaching to these terms." I do not think I am attaching value to the term.

 

Dumnamechange also said "Can you really not just accept that he's not a philosopher and incorporate his work in some other way?" Why should I accept it? My professor is not the ultimate guide for determining who is a philosopher and who isn't. Yes, I am going to have to incorporate his work as a non-philosophy source according to my professor, but that doesn't mean I can't question it.     

 

One quote that I really empathized with was from TheQuakerMan, who said:

 

"If you are doing something philosophical with his work, are writing about a philosophical topic, and you probably are using many other philosophical resources, I don't see why it matters if Pollan is a philosopher or not to be used as a source, especially if it influences your thoughts.

 

How many philosophers have used literature or other forms of art as influence to start a project, as a source, or as a reference?

If Pollan writes about food, and you are writing a philosophical paper about food, I think whether he is a "philosopher" or not ultimatley does not matter."

Edited March 18, 2015 by Phenofun

[herenowagain]

My rule of thumb is someone with a publication in a peer-reviewed philosophy journal.

 

You can like biology and not be a biologist. You presumably constitute a "biologist" when you know enough to contribute to the field and do contribute to the field (with things like monetary contributions not counting and publications in lay-public publications like TIME magazine not counting).

 

So I apply something like the same measure for who constitutes a philosopher.

[DontFly]

Thank you to everyone for your thoughts, both supportive and opposing! And thank you Isothenia for the link you provided. The book Cooked by Pollan is one of five other sources. I should have clarified that my professor said I can use it as source, but that it won't be considered a philosophical source. I was also informed yesterday that this book combined with another non-philosophy source will only be counted as one source. He is also instructing us not to define the terms of the paper in the beginning of the paper because he thinks it's better to do that as you go. This also frustrates me because it contributes to the idea that he is not giving us the freedom or independence to develop an original paper reflective of our interests, passions, and writing styles. It feels as if we are instead being told to cater to his desires and personal preferences.

I'm sorry for having to voice disagreement again. It seems to me that your professor is being very responsible in teaching the class what they need to know. I agree with what Dumbnamechange said, which was that everyone is a philosopher just means no one is a philosopher. I don't think everyone is a philosopher. I also don't think that the best way to learn philosophy is to have the freedom to do it the way mature philosophers do.

Science students high school and below don't do experiments the way scientists do, but someone who has never gone through that process is unlikely going to become a scientist. There're ways of teaching tools that necessarily involve guidance (or even restrictions) that don't exist in the real field.

Edited March 18, 2015 by DontFly

[ianfaircloud]

I admit that I didn't read all the posts in the thread, but since this thread has life, I'll chime in.

 

In the context of academic philosophy, when people speak of philosophers, they're generally using a term that they mean to construe narrowly. That's my experience, and it makes sense to me, given the point that DontFly makes. The point is that it's hard to give a very broad meaning to philosopher without including anyone who speaks to deep questions or who thinks in the abstract or engages in reasoning from the a priori. In our context as people studying academic philosophy, it would be pretty odd for us to be referring to something as broad as this.

 

In other contexts, the broader meaning may be implied. For instance, I have heard some people refer to Martin Luther King, Jr., as a philosopher. The people who label King a philosopher do not mean the same thing that we students of philosophy mean when we call someone a philosopher. Their context is different, and the word takes on a different meaning in that context. Theirs isn't a misuse of the term, unless the term's meaning can't change with context. Plainly it can, because it does.

 

In law school (a different context), when I speak of philosophers, I use the term "academic philosophers" to refer to the narrow group. Otherwise I don't use the term, because I think it's not useful for my purposes.

 

Edit: By the way, what difference does it make whether, in the context of academic philosophy, we label someone a philosopher? No serious student of philosophy would deny that philosophical insights can be discovered in the works of a nonphilosopher, however the term is used. I don't see why this Pollan character is any different. Maybe the concern is that Pollan isn't engaged in the debates that concern most academic philosophers today. If a student approached me with serious, long-term interests in academic philosophy, and she wanted to write an undergraduate thesis on the work of someone who isn't engaging the debates that concern most academic philosophers today, I might discourage the thesis only because it may not be a good entry-point into academic philosophy. Frankly, I was told not to write a paper in the philosophy of religion for the same reason! Or maybe the concern is that Pollan isn't engaged in the methodology that most academic philosophers use today, or maybe the concern is that Pollan isn't adopting the style of most "analytic" philosophers. I can see an advisor on purely practical grounds telling a student (who wants to pursue a career in academic philosophy) that it's wise to stay fairly "mainstream" when writing a thesis. So on further thought, I wonder if the advisor who called Pollan a non-philosopher just meant to encourage the student to do something a little more mainstream for an undergraduate thesis. That makes sense to me.

Edited March 18, 2015 by ianfaircloud

[Dumbnamechange]

Dumnamechange said "My recommendation is to just deflate whatever value you are for some reason attaching to these terms." I do not think I am attaching value to the term.

 

Dumnamechange also said "Can you really not just accept that he's not a philosopher and incorporate his work in some other way?" Why should I accept it? My professor is not the ultimate guide for determining who is a philosopher and who isn't. Yes, I am going to have to incorporate his work as a non-philosophy source according to my professor, but that doesn't mean I can't question it.     

 

Just to be clear, I think we're in agreement though you phrased this as though it were otherwise. When I said, "Can you really not just accept that he's not a philosopher" I meant it in the practical sense: does something actually turn on whether you can call him a philosopher; will the paper not go through if you cannot convince your professor? It seems (in the same post from which I quote) that you actually can accept, in this sense, that he's not a philosopher. That's all I meant (there).

 

But I do think it is inconsistent that if (1) you can practically assent to not calling him a philosopher and, as you claim, (2) you are not loading the title with value, that (3) you still care as to whether or not he is a philosopher. It seems to follow (from 1 &3), almost analytically, that you are just trying to bestow an honorary title on him — cast a sidelong glance and wink saying, "I respect you even if no one else does." Again, it seems the only reason you would want to call him a philosopher "over and above" journalist/author is because you are carrying normative baggage with the term — e.g. insightful, wise, deep, far-reaching — when it's simply a (possibly linguistic) mistake on your part to overlook that journalists and authors can be insightful/wise/deep/far-reaching as much as philosophers can, if not more. Philosophy has no exclusive right to any normative praise — it's just another humdrum academic field. 

 

In other contexts, the broader meaning may be implied. For instance, I have heard some people refer to Martin Luther King, Jr., as a philosopher. The people who label King a philosopher do not mean the same thing that we students of philosophy mean when we call someone a philosopher. Their context is different, and the word takes on a different meaning in that context. Theirs isn't a misuse of the term, unless the term's meaning can't change with context. Plainly it can, because it does.

 

Again, since there's 100% agreement on the pragmatics here, I'll only kindle what might be the spark of a debate. I think the MLK ("counter")example is a wash, since — in addition to being a theologian (arguably philosophy) — MLK was in fact very well versed in what students of analytic philosophy consider philosophy. Take a look at "Letter from Birmingham"  and he's riffing on legal positivism and (a kind of proto-Dworkian) Natural Law all over the place. So, it's not plainly clear that the meaning has changed (i.e. it's not a misuse, not because the sense has changed, but because it fits e.g. the criteria I mentioned above of participating in a historical dialogue). And it would be increasingly strange to persist in calling him a philosopher the less he spoke about such things. But seriously, again, this is a case where calling someone a philosopher is almost insultingly selling him short. IDGAF whether MLK was a philosopher (because that's just a humdrum title for someone who has a certain humdrum profession/hobby). He was A LOT more important things that that: he was a great political leader — who cares at saying anything more than that? Unless you are extremely attached to equating "philosopher" with, say, "visionary" (or some other compliment), I really can't see the point in pushing this fact. (Just call him "visionary" then, which implies only "visionary" whereas "philosopher" can equally imply "uselessly speculative," "pseudo-intellectual," etc. as much, if not more than "visionary".) 

 

Even speaking as a fan of ordinary language philosophy, I think there's some sensible way in which people can systematically misuse terms (e.g. "begs the question" when they mean "beget"/"raise"). We don't have to make overwrought, backlogged assumptions in each case that some kind of sense-variance has shifted. In particular, what I have been arguing, is that if (1) in every single case (all nearby possible worlds) of term-utterance X having particular sense X2 there is some nearby term Y with the same meaning & (2) X controversially applies (because X1 =/= X2), then use Y instead. This goes for the philosophical/poetic distinction, where I think most people can admit they are just conflating terms that can better be held distinct ("Philosophy" is what bored most non-majors as freshman; "Poetry" is what they were too embarrassed to sign up for). If by "philosopher" someone intends some compliment, then it is as a matter of fact better for them to just use the compliment instead, since as a matter of fact "philosopher" is often used dismissively/insultingly. By communicative norms, there is a mistake being made here. (I'll leave it as an exercise to see how many Gricean maxims are being violated.) 

Edited March 18, 2015 by Dumbnamechange

[Dumbnamechange]

Sorry for all the long posts. I've been out of school for a year and have grown antsy, jumping on any chance I have to get back into the swing of things. 

[Establishment]

I'll have to disagree re: MLK, and that he was: "in fact very well versed in what students of analytic philosophy consider philosophy."

 

His letter talks about the distinction between just and unjust laws, but this doesn't mean any familiarity with the philosophical literature of legal positivism and natural law (and no, I don't think quoting Augustine on a pretty famous point, one that anyone who studied theology had to have come across anyways, is any appropriate indication) in the same way that when some Western hippie talks about "we're all just one," I don't think he's familiar with Parmenides. Now, if there's any evidence of him reading Hart, or writing a paper on Augustine's view of the law, then that's a different story. Excluding that, I don't see how Ian's example of MLK is a wash. His Letter from a Birmingham Jail doesn't indicate to me that he is in any way a philosopher in the sense that academic philosophers use the term.

[Dumbnamechange]

I'll have to disagree re: MLK, and that he was: "in fact very well versed in what students of analytic philosophy consider philosophy."

 

His letter talks about the distinction between just and unjust laws, but this doesn't mean any familiarity with the philosophical literature of legal positivism and natural law (and no, I don't think quoting Augustine on a pretty famous point, one that anyone who studied theology had to have come across anyways, is any appropriate indication) in the same way that when some Western hippie talks about "we're all just one," I don't think he's familiar with Parmenides. Now, if there's any evidence of him reading Hart, or writing a paper on Augustine's view of the law, then that's a different story. Excluding that, I don't see how Ian's example of MLK is a wash. His Letter from a Birmingham Jail doesn't indicate to me that he is in any way a philosopher in the sense that academic philosophers use the term.

 

Fair enough on the vagaries. He does give distinct Natural Law arguments and distinct positivistic arguments (and, if I remember right, he even draws the distinction rhetorically, but not in the technical terms). But I suppose it was something of a cheat for me to give that argument: he doesn't make (those) explicit references, and according to my own criteria, that's what's required for my point to go through.

 

Nevertheless, I stand by the position, and have to say that you're just wrong. He studied philosophy formally at Harvard and Boston University. (A quick google search shows the list of courses he took.) And in other literature he references staples like Marx, Mill, Rousseau and Locke — which might be "easy" but I don't know how that defeats my point on what exactly made him a philosopher. (And I think your dismissal of his writing on Augustine is a little condescending, approximating a denial of the counter-evidence for some weird ulterior reasons.)

 

I mean, MLK is clearly called a philosopher. What I would be interested in as counter-evidence to my position is some similarly influential political figure, who has no substantial place in the historical dialogue we call philosophy, being called a philosopher. Lincoln: great man, made great, clear and well-reasoned points about the nature of political rule and so forth — but a philosopher? I don't hear it often. (Then consider, e.g., Jefferson, who is sometimes called a philosopher: he implicitly and explicitly drew upon Locke.) I'll be honest and say that I'm not familiar with any of Gandhi's writings. He's clearly called a philosopher, and if that's not in virtue of his knowledge of and references to past philosophers, then I am wrong. I simply don't know enough on that point — except that we was a trained and excellent lawyer, and I imagine he must have had training in political theory (of course, from the British-run universities), so, even if it seems ad hoc, there's probably the philosophical, Lockean background there too.

 

P.S. It's not on Hart, but here's evidence of him on Hegel for you: http://ethicistforhire.blogspot.com/2015/02/martin-luther-king-jr-and-continental.html

 

P.P.S. Another thing I think you and Ian might be skipping over is the fact that King and Gandhi have been brought into the dialogue of academic philosophy ex post facto (i.e. made relevant to academic philosophy by contemporary and later philosophers drawing upon their work). I think it's an easy point (in my favor) that these figures in fact are a part of current curricula in academic philosophy. Which, tying this back to the original post, might mean that if the OP writes a good enough paper, he can make Pollan a bonafide philosopher after the fact, simply by inserting a sufficiently systematic version of his ideas into the cultural conversation. But I think with, e.g., MLK, we're fumbling with a kind of political correctness anyways: since he's a cultural hero, anything respectable he ever did gets thrown in under a long list of titles, even if his work therein was amateurish (which I'm not saying it is, only that it would be hard to tell the difference).

Edited March 19, 2015 by Dumbnamechange

[ianfaircloud]

 

Again, since there's 100% agreement on the pragmatics here, I'll only kindle what might be the spark of a debate. I think the MLK ("counter")example is a wash, since — in addition to being a theologian (arguably philosophy) — MLK was in fact very well versed in what students of analytic philosophy consider philosophy. Take a look at "Letter from Birmingham"  and he's riffing on legal positivism and (a kind of proto-Dworkian) Natural Law all over the place. So, it's not plainly clear that the meaning has changed (i.e. it's not a misuse, not because the sense has changed, but because it fits e.g. the criteria I mentioned above of participating in a historical dialogue). And it would be increasingly strange to persist in calling him a philosopher the less he spoke about such things. But seriously, again, this is a case where calling someone a philosopher is almost insultingly selling him short. IDGAF whether MLK was a philosopher (because that's just a humdrum title for someone who has a certain humdrum profession/hobby). He was A LOT more important things that that: he was a great political leader — who cares at saying anything more than that? Unless you are extremely attached to equating "philosopher" with, say, "visionary" (or some other compliment), I really can't see the point in pushing this fact. (Just call him "visionary" then, which implies only "visionary" whereas "philosopher" can equally imply "uselessly speculative," "pseudo-intellectual," etc. as much, if not more than "visionary".) 

 

This is such an interesting reply and deserves its own analysis. The point seems to be this: Ian says that Martin Luther King, Jr., isn't a philosopher in the sense that the term is used in academic philosophy. But the example is a wash, because Martin Luther King, Jr., is "in fact very well versed in what students of analytic philosophy consider philosophy," and his work suggests a deep understanding (or perhaps, his work contains elements of) legal positivism and Natural Law. Therefore when people speak of Martin Luther King, Jr., as philosopher, it's "not plainly clear" that they use the term in a different way than the way the term is used in academic philosophy.

 

As I said above, there is no doubt that great people who are well-versed in philosophy, whose work reveals deep philosophical insight, may nevertheless not fit the description of what we (in academic philosophy) call "philosopher," because the word is used very narrowly in these circles of academic philosophy. I think our use has to do with the common projects among academic philosophers, the methodologies, the writing style, etc. Again, it's very narrow.

 

This is an irony of academic philosophy, because (as Dumbnamechange points out) the work of people like Martin Luther King, Jr., does reveal deep philosophical insight and understanding. A professor of mine once said, "The true philosophers are not people like us working in academic philosophy." What he meant is not only that nonphilosophers produce work of philosophical value, but also that nonphilosophers have produced perhaps most of the best work of philosophical value. And don't they deserve the title, "philosopher," more than we do? But words aren't assigned meaning that way; they are assigned meaning by their shared meaning across a community of speakers.

 

It's also very interesting to me that Dumbnamechange says that "being a theologian" is "arguably philosophy." In my own experience in theological and philosophical circles, people don't say that theologians are philosophers or even arguably philosophers. The people who do say that theologians are arguably philosophers are not in these circles. Their use of the term is the folk usage that I described in an earlier post above (philosopher in a very broad sense). It looks like maybe Dumbnamechange uses the word in this folk sense, too.

 

Then there's Dumbnamechange's point that "people can systematically misuse terms." This, too, is interesting. Misuse suggests that there's a correct way to use a word. Isn't the correct way to use a word just the way that (among a group of implied hearers, to borrow a phrase) ordinarily gets the point across to those hearers? I'm with the editors of dictionaries when they list among the definitions of "begs the question," "to elicit a question logically as a reaction or a response." In certain circles, this is now a perfectly correct (though irritating to us) way of using the phrase.

 

Dumbnamechange suggests that Martin Luther King, Jr., is better called a visionary and a great political leader (among many other things). Maybe those terms apply, but why doesn't the term philosopher apply? I don't use the word like that, because I find myself speaking in a context of academic philosophy. I also don't use "beg the question" the way quoted above, for the same reason: in my context, it means something different. But that says nothing of the context of ordinary, competent speakers of English. They do use the word philosopher to mean basically anyone who thinks and speaks about deep issues, who has an inspiring moral vision, who has an influential Weltanschauung.

 

This is all to say that Dumbnamechange's reply is interesting and elicits a lot of questions (some would say, "begs" a lot of questions) to which I have attempted answers.

 

Edited March 19, 2015 by ianfaircloud