GENIUS FORUMS

Which is a more valuable classification of "philosophy"? Today many students understand the word philosophy as a category of information, while it can also be something much more personal. Students regard nietzsche, kierkegaard, and the likes as writers of philosophy, while philosophy is indeed something which any individual has a right to claim as his own. this may simply be an example of a word with multiple definitions, however, I wonder what it means to the average human being in conversation. When I say, "philosophy," I don't mean the subject, but i have found people will interpret the word to mean the subject when I use it in conversation. To clarify once more, I don't regard Nietzsche as a part of "philosophy" so much as I would say Nietzsche has his own philosophy, just the same as anyone else.

i got this account just to check if the poll would work, but I guess not. just to let you know.

Good poll!!

I much prefer to read the "living philosophers" of our day...

People (philosophers) that lived in the past is okay to refer to every now and then ... but philosophy is a living drama for now... let the dead bury the dead.

The writers (plus David, Kevin & Dan) on this forum work for me ... so much time left -- but so little spare time to squeeze in my selfish hour a day on the Net.

Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

this idea is what I am trying to get at, and I am sure your own philosophy developed quite a bit in Vietnam. It's a matter of conceptualizing certain ideas in a way that will resonate with another human being. Nietzsche's philosophy has become academic throughout the world, but the popularization of his theory is not when it becomes philosophy.

I reckon I disagree. I do not think that the philosophy of Nietzsche has become academic. Everything is academic to academics. Vietnam is academic to academics.

Rask wrote:

but the popularization of his theory is not when it becomes philosophy.

Is not what? Popular or academic?

Kind of astounds me the gladhanding going around here. Looks like an "anything goes" type of thing. Say anything you want and call it philosophy.

Faizi

How would philosophy develop for a soldier in Vietnam?

I can see how thought might develop from one's experiences in war and other things but it is preposterous to think that a soldier develops philosophy while fighting a war or develops it simply because he has served in war.

Many thousands of people have gone to war and
returned home to do nothing other than to
languish. I have met several young men returning from
Iraq and I have not met a philosopher among them. Nice kids but no thinkers.

This thread is very self congratulatory.

Faizi

Who are the living philosophers of our day?

Faizi

Homer Simpson?

http://groups.yahoo.com/_the_primative_madness/

Bart

ok you're a little too far off on this one to bother with mkfaizi. i don't think anything you said has anything to do with anything I was talking about, but hey, a common means of communication cannot always be possible.

means a lot unimaginable meaning for each of us. this is truely reflection of nature which is super power

How you define philosophy is directly related to who you consider a philosopher.

Philosophy cannot simply be the way someone happens to live their life, or else you end up saying insipid things as "everyone's a philosopher". That makes the word completely meaningless, because I am certain that some people are philosophers, while others are not.

Being a philosopher is different than being a thinker. Engineers are thinkers. Scientists are thinkers. Not all of them are philosophers. But you have to be a thinker to be a philosopher.

Taking philosophy courses, studying philosophers, reading philosophic books, or even dealing with topics generally considered to be philosophical, does not make one a philosopher. It can make one a dilettante, a politician, a sociologist, an historian, a pseudointellectual, or any number of things that don't qualify. Being a philosophy professor does not make one a philosopher; writing philosophy articles does not make one a philosopher.

A philosopher must have, above all else, an attitude toward truth that is so uncompromising that he lives and dies by his words. What makes someone a philosopher is his ability to take what he thinks and apply it to every aspect of his life. He does not simply think; he does not simply do. He must think about what he does, and do what he thinks. It is this attitude that makes a person a philosopher.

Philosophy is the result of philosophers living their lives for the sake of truth.