Hi Dan, You make some very thoughtful points. But I think of a philosopher as someone who is curious about the nature of Reality, or at least some aspect of Reality, not necessarily someone who has an opinion about everything. RMP was certainly a philosopher. I think, also, of his example of William James becoming interested in the relationships between squirrel, tree and observer is an excellent example. Getting underneath the obvious becomes an obsession. Anyway, here's a short few paragraphs I thought appropriate.
--- Who is a philosopher? By: Justarius on Feb 15 2007 “…A philosopher… has…[a] structure of thought unified by a purpose for his own life and for mankind.” Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, p. 141 Philosophers are commonly called “thinkers,” but really, that is not an adequate definition of a philosopher. A philosopher seeks the underlying meaning of things; he wants to understand it and codify it into a system of thought. If he succeeds in this task, he often feels compelled to share his system with the world, even knowing it is likely futile. This is because he loves the world, despite the difficulty it has given him. Contrary to popular belief, you do not need anything besides this burning desire to understand things and to connect them. You don’t need to get a PhD, to have taken any philosophy classes, or to have read a single philosophy book. Of course all these things can help you to sharpen your thinking and to avoid “reinventing the wheel,” but they do not in themselves make you more or less of a philosopher. Beyond the basic definition, no two philosophers are exactly alike. Some are comets: long lived and brilliant like Socrates; others are streaking meteors like Nietzsche, consumed by their romanticism and brilliance. Some create systems haphazardly, and other are meticulous beyond belief (compare Nietzsche to Spinoza). Some are cynical, and others are hopeful. It seems to be a function of your personality and how you react to your environment. Knowing what it means to be a philosopher, I’m sure not many people would choose such a fate for themselves or their kids, yet I believe it’s as unavoidable as fate. I suspect that some people may be genetically predisposed to be order seekers, and certain external circumstances simply activate these tendencies. Sheltering yourself or your kids from such stimuli may work temporary, but it is highly impractical in our increasingly connected world. Perhaps it is better to embrace who you are so that you can forge a path through life with true conviction and purpose. http://www.philoscifi.com/wisdom/on-philosophy/who-is-a-philosopher Marsha On Sep 9, 2011, at 12:32 AM, Dan Glover wrote: > Hello everyone > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> dmb said to Matt: >> I take "amateur" to be a description of one's motives. The word ...also >> refers to those who do something for the sheer love of it, for its own sake. > > Dan: > > Perhaps it might help to define a professional vs. an amateur: > > A professional: > > 1. Their full-time focus is on the craft, rather than a part-time avocation. > 2. Their entrepreneurial spirit compels them to focus on the business > elements of advancing their careers. > 3. They continually quest for improvement and excellence. > 4. They study others in their field toward the goal above. > 5. They've developed their own individual and unique aesthetic style. > 6. They have a technical capacity to achieve excellence with fluidity and > speed. > 7. They harbor a passion for the art form -- shown in both a > compulsion to create without being paid, and the ability to extract a > significant fee for their work. > > An amateur: > > 1. Their full-time focus is on things other than the craft, for > example, making a living, working a job, raising children, etc. > 2. They are financially disinterested in the business element of their craft. > 3. They have no formal training so their work may be seen as sub-par. > 4. They put forward their own thoughts with an open mind. > 5. Their lack of financial attachment is a sign of their commitment. > 6. What they lack in technical capacity they often make up for in > problem-solving ability. > 7. They harbor a passion for the art form -- shown in a compulsion to > create without being paid. > >> >> Matt replied: >> ...I've come to think that it doesn't do enough to help us amateurs conceive >> of our own projects. I think we can, and should, go further than that. >> ...Disciplinary standards have the upshot of giving one a defined sense of >> having discharged one's responsibilities to produce quality work. Not >> having a discipline can leave one in a void and lost, for there is no one >> they need to please. This can produce good work, but it certainly isn't an >> assured relationship. So what I'm thinking is that, aside from our love of >> doing whatever it is we are doing, is there a way of erecting a standard of >> excellence in amateur philosophy? ..perhaps the most important question for >> amateur self-definition: even if you would never make anyone else follow >> your own standard, what is _your relationship to others_? In a discipline, >> this has a clear answer. But in amateur philosophy, it might be something to >> continually meditate on. > > Dan: > > I find myself falling increasingly on the professional side of the > equation these days... not as a philosopher although that might be > disputed even in my own mind. Interestingly, I find myself drawing > away from people that I used to associate with and forming bonds with > others who are like-minded in that we desire both to create art and to > market it in a way that allows us to better pursue our craft > full-time. > > I find it even more interesting that the art of marketing is at least > as important as the art of writing, perhaps more so in this digital > age. I am at odds with many others in my chosen field in that they > tend to believe quantity is preferable to quality... a person with 100 > books to sell is seen in a better light than a person with only 1 book > to sell. To me, it seems better to have written 1 great book rather > than 100 mediocre books. But the marketing credo says differently. > > I like to believe, philosophically, that I can marry both quantity and > quality in a way that doesn't preclude one from being the other. To > that end, I tend to take longer in re-writing that which has already > been written in order to instill an order to my words that might > otherwise be lacking. I don't go in for writing "whatever comes into > my head." > > For instance... one fellow who I think a great deal of once told me > how he wrote a 3500 word short story in only a day and had it for sale > on his website a couple days later. Now, I couldn't do that... I mean, > I could and have written 3500 word short stories in a day but then it > takes me at least a month to edit it properly, re-writing it until I > feel a sense of satisfaction. > > I think the amateur philosopher might benefit from such a though > process as well. Don't just throw spaghetti at the wall and hope some > sticks... work at it. Put some serious thought into it. Consider your > words carefully. > >> >> >> >> dmb says: >> >> Imagine if your comments were altered so that they were all about amateur >> artists instead of amateur philosophers. In that scenario you'd find >> yourself asking if amateur poets and painters should erect a standard of >> excellence for themselves. It seems like a very apt switch to me because >> Pirsig's efforts to dig up the bones of the Sophists and rescue their cause >> basically amounts to a transformation of philosophy from a discipline to an >> art form. >> >> Think about it this way: Rhetoric is quite simply and vaguely defined as >> excellence in thought and speech. I think this notion has to be vague, has >> to include this lack of assurance, this lack of a need to please, this lack >> of external standards. The standards and rules are added post hoc, after the >> fact. The excellence comes first. So it's not that we need standards of >> excellence so much as excellence is itself the standard, the goal. Dharma is >> a good word for this sense of duty, one that's not imposed by external >> standards. It makes sense to repeat that line from the free will >> reformulation in this context too; to the extent that one follows DQ, one's >> behavior is free. > > Dan: > > As long as amateurs are content being amateurs, they have no real need > for external standards. And most people doing what they love aren't > compelled to turn it into a money-making enterprise. If they cross > that invisible line into professionalism though, and they desire to do > what they love full-time, then there are definite external standards > of which it is wise to at least be aware. Rather than reinventing the > wheel, study how others have done it. > >> dmb: >> Of course nobody wants to paint by the numbers, not even those who have a >> job in academia or are otherwise being held to professional standards. In >> that sense, the best pros are also amateurs. I mean, one can meet the >> standards AND paint without the numbers. On the other hand, even though >> Quality is an undefined goal, it's pretty safe to say that a lack of >> discipline is unlikely to yield excellence. A lack of concern for your >> relationship to others is usually not the stuff of which excellence is made. >> If the amateur cannot communicate his vision to others, he might as well be >> blind. And who ever got good at anything without working at it? In that >> sense, the undisciplined thinker doesn't quite deserve to be called an >> amateur. Someone who's interested but uncommitted, who's satisfied to dabble >> and skim, is probably better described as a hack or a dilettante. > > Dan: > > Exactly. And the undisciplined thinker, be they philosophers, > painters, writers, poets, etc., will not be taken seriously by anyone, > even other amateurs. But rather than it being a lack of concern about > the relationship with others, it is the lack of concern about the > relationship with art itself that betrays a person as a hack and a > dilettante. We all know quality when we see it... and we know it when > we don't. Right? > >> dmb: >> Picasso knew all the rules of painting. He pretty much literally grew up in >> a museum. He broke the rules on purpose and thereby set new standards. Who >> understood Newton better than Einstein did? Not too many. it's hard to set >> new standards if you don't see their point and purpose and limits first. The >> amateur as Rhetorician will break the rules and work outside the standards >> in that sense, like the Zuni Brujo, whereas the hack will tend to resent the >> professional standards as some kind of personal put down, as the doorman who >> thinks you're not stylish enough for this happenin' night club. > > Dan: > > Yes, I agree with this. Even as amateurs we should first master our > craft before attempting to improve it. And who better to observe than > the professionals... > > Thank you, > > Dan > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
