Who is the Philosopher?

I was in an epistemology class during this discussion. 

“Do you consider philosophy professors as philosophers?” 

It struck me. I hadn’t really thought about this question before, and when it was brought up, I couldn’t wrap my head around the concept.

Are philosophy lecturers philosophers or are they experts on philosophy? I pondered how to approach this question. On one hand, lecturers have a wide range of knowledge regarding philosophical works and discourse, but does that constitute them as philosophers? On the other hand, not all philosophers are well-versed in all types of philosophy (they might not live to infinity to discover and revise their beliefs), so are they not experts on philosophy?

This meta-philosophical question regarding philosophy is somewhat important, but from a practical standpoint, it does not matter. Let me briefly explain.

Philosophical Practice

Considered taboo to some people, the act of doing philosophy has been synonymous with going against religion or, in a more pragmatic lens, going against the ruling power. Philosophical inquiry often forces its subject to critical assessment and scrutinizing the status quo, something that throws the balance of order off. It’s not to say that philosophical thinking is meant to disturb all aspects of life (though in the process, it certainly will), but thinking in a philosophical manner pushes the limits of our understanding by asking thought-provoking questions.

Since philosophy has no real boundaries, its scope of inquiry is limitless. Some philosophical knowledge can be applied on a day-to-day basis (e.g., the rise of stoicism in contemporary literature), but sadly, most are closed to academia or educated people.

Interest in doing philosophy is confined to classrooms, or in some extreme cases, secrets, due to the animosity philosophy presents. There are caveats, of course, but the fact of the matter is that philosophy is not as widespread as it should be. 

Yes, I think more people should do philosophy.

As I was finishing up my degree, I didn’t really think that there was a philosophy-specific job that was worth pursuing. But, through a simple internet search, I realized that I needed to expand my horizons. Philosophy is not meant just to be studied; it needs to be lived. It needs to be practiced, just like any other skill; experiment, refinement, repeat. We need to constantly engage in the act of doing philosophy.

What’s more interesting is that people can do philosophy; they aren’t just trained to do so. People engage in philosophical dilemmas every day:

1. Should I fire an underperforming manager nearing his retirement?

2. Should I help my cousin with his bad debt?

3. Where should I invest?

4. 
   

People ponder these questions almost all their lives, but they are not equipped in trying to make a decision. Hence, a vicious cycle of wondering without an endgame occurs, increasing our anxiety and potentially leading to depression. So, the idea that philosophical thinking only asks deep, fundamental questions is flawed. Every day decision-making involves philosophical practice, and we ought to help people think philosophically.

How to actually do Philosophy?

In Timothy Williamson’s book Philosophical Method: A Very Short Introduction (2020), he mentioned that there isn’t a standardized way of doing philosophy. However, we have to acknowledge the use of logic and language as the basis of all thinking. Is this disputable? Yes. But we can’t deny the power that logic and language have to guide our thoughts. Our subject matter or point of interest can be the destination, but our cognitive capacity is what gets us there. So, for the time being, let’s accept that we need logic and language to do philosophy. What’s next?

There is no real starting point in philosophy; however, we can evaluate our beliefs to get the engines rolling. It does not need to be an exclusive belief: check your surroundings. Observe your political climate, your work, or your social circle. What are the rules governing certain behaviors? Are there any pattern that underlies their movement? What is their motivation to wake up every day? Asking these simple questions can lead us to understand what is commonly accepted and what is opposed. (Common sense).

Then, as a practice, dispute their claims. E.g., A dedicated office worker needs to stay late with no compensation. Is this true? Is this always true for all conditions? Is there a possibility that this is not true? Can it be true and not true at the same time? What can make this statement false? (Dispute).

Next, consider asking a different set of questions. What is dedication? How late is considered good? Does staying mean being physically there, or can we be virtually staying? Can a free dinner compensate for the late working hours? (Clarifying terms).

There is no really set of steps that is done to do philosophy, but one thing is for sure: philosopher asks more questions than they have answers. Most people just ask questions because they’re interested in the topic or out of simple curiosity. However, purposeful questioning about our everyday lives lays the foundation of philosophical thinking.

Elliot Cohen outlines this in his book Logic-Based Therapy and Everyday Emotions (2016). Using Aristotelian logic, our everyday struggles are broken down to their syllogistic form:

1. Premise 1 : If somebody cuts me off, then I will be pissed.

2. Premise 2 : Somebody cuts me off.

3. Conclusion : I will be pissed.

   
   

Structuring our behavior in this mechanistic manner helps us understand, truly, how we emote and react towards a stimulus. From the above example, we can analyze the way we think in a couple of ways.

1. From premise 1

Is the governing rule true? Should I be pissed whenever I am cut off? 

2. From premise 2

What counts as cutting me off? If there are two people in front of me and one is subbed out with her friends, does that count as cutting me off? If two people replace the person in front of me and make me have to wait for 3 more people before paying, does that mean I was cut off?

3. In the conclusion

Does the reporting align with premise 1 rule? Even if I was cut off, should I really be pissed? Maybe they need to go to the toilet, or they left their dog in the car? Am I only pissed or is there any complimenting emotion?

As you might observe, this type of structured philosophical inquiry seemed to be practical. It is the one I’m advocating for. However, it is not an exhaustive list of practices needed to do philosophy. Some might even argue that what I presented is not philosophy. But back to the initial question, who has the power to judge and deem someone a philosopher?

It’s important to reiterate that though the question of who can be considered a philosopher is important, practically, it’s useless. Not because philosophy is useless, but let’s leave that daunting task to the academics or librarians. We should focus more on the thinking, the philosophizing.

So, who is the philosopher?

Most probably, you, your families, your friends, and virtually anyone capable of using logic and language, at least, in my estimate.