I do not think I am very comfortable with this explanation Mike. As true as I believe it to be, because I doubt you'd have posted a deliberate falsehood.

With this rendition, it clearly omits anyone and everyone without the gift of words. I just do not believe that people who are poor in speaking make bad philosophers. I,sadly, fall deeply into the category of dumb at the mouth so you can see how this concept you post is a threat.

I kinda like Juims idea of the definition but when I first read it the person who popped into my mind first was the character from Bewitched "Mrs. Kravitz" Being a busybody in other words. I am not for a moment saying that that is what he said. It was just my first thought and I tend to understand my first impressions and trust them most.

In the end, I believe that you posted the Webster Dictionary definition of a Philosopher, but I think it was created by smart people to put stupid ones like me in my place.

Sorry if that sounds offensive. I don't intend such.

But you see, a cripple can be an athlete, if they are pitted against other athletic cripples. Obese people can exercise and become athletic too. But by your definition, dumb people cannot learn to be a philosopher, and I would hope that that isn't true.

Truly, if being a philosopher cannot be taught, what good is it to anyone? You are either born articulate, or you are not but I know a lot of smart people who are as dumb as bricks. I also know a lot of dumb people who are wise.

*shrugs*

I am just confused on your points. Not that I think them wrong, I don't know enough to make that claim.

i really know nothing....im an old fart.....i have nothing to go on but a minimal education, and experience....i contemplate, i ponder, i articulate as best i can, and wait for retorts.....i reach "philosophical medians" every day.

and yet i am asked my opinion on events every day, whether i want the questions and comments or not....."philosopher"? not even close....but i will tell you that i have a better grip on "life" than alot of people who are "smrter" than i, and that has been rendered from a certain set of "philosophies".....

.....or am i just full of s**t?....

my point is, personally, i believe clear thought and processing takes a certain frame of mind, which is not readily achievable by alot of people.....

"personal philosophy"

Doc B....

btw, nice to see ya, ya ole "boulder rollin' sonuvagun"... " SRC="images/smiles/icon_lol.gif">

I do not deny each person's potential to improve his capacity for clear thinking.

But, like it or not, good philosophy consists of clear thinking and its articulate expression. You can train to improve these abilities, but without them you don't have philosophy.

I also don't mean to suggest that philosophers are aggressive and unpleasant. What I mean by my "lions analogy" is this: real philosophers are much better at what they do than you and I.

An ordinary person debating philosophy with a philosopher is like me trying to beat Lance Armstrong in a bike race. Not only will Lance win, but the margin of his victory will be humiliating for me.

But if Lance were friends and we went on a casual bike ride through the woods, he would probably have the courtesy not to leave me behind.

The difference is that, in this second example, I didn't ask for a competition.

Similarly, most philosophers are respectful of other people's opinions in ordinary conversation. Indeed, my experience suggests that they are far more respectful than average. They tend to listen more carefully than most people.

But if you ask a philosopher what he really thinks of your argument, then be prepared for a humbling experience -- like challenging Lance to a bike race.

Were we arguing Mike?

I thought, that were were using our own limited abilities of philosophizing? I mean, isn't that the ability to express our viewpoint in a concise fashion?

I honestly thought thats what we were doing. If I lead everyone to believe that I was being purely argumentative, I apologize.

just because no one has, i posted the websters version, just as a benchmark for discussion....hopw ya'll dont mind, and holler if you disagree with this definition as a basekine....

Main Entry: phi?los?o?phy

Pronunciation: f&-'l?-s(&-)fE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -phies
Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

kinda makes me think in a few different directions just post=read.... hmm

Doc B...

Thanx Mike, I truly appreciate it.

I have few real fears in the forums, and one of them is my inability to convey. I am in many cases at a total loss to understand why so many people misunderstand me. It seems, from my perspective, that its as clear as a fine summer day. In reality, weatherdotcom couldn't forecast my posts if they had to.

I used to lose sleep worrying over this. I still do if the topic is going badly. The other day I royally pissed Gwil off and I still am unclear how.

*shrugs*

I think that you and I connect only because we spent hours in real time convo with MSN messenger. We learned.