[Role Modlin]

I have always equated professional philosopher with bulls**t artist.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

It's a different rule each time the game is played?

Yes. Usually the winner of one round [whoever first guesses the rule] makes the rule for the next.

The game is unwinnable until both positive and negative assertions show up.

If everything is marked as following the rule, it is irreducible given enough variety of construction.

If everything is marked as not following it, you are just guessing in the dark.

To guess the rule, you need [roughly] equally as much negative as positive information about it.

But a complete thought sets up parameters, however permeable.

Perhaps "bounded thought" would be a more appropriate term, then.

I don't like the idea that an artificially limited assertion can be said to be "complete" in any manner.

Whatever frame we draw around reality, we know we don't have "complete" reality. There is more.

Ah, but I wasn't defining thought. I was defining complete thought. "Thought" is a different can of worms.

I know. I still don't find it satisfying. I might define it "All that may be asserted," which is unassertable.

How can we say "Some cats can be born blind" is "complete" in any sense if infinite thoughts spin off it?

It is not just that we are asserting a large mass of ideas, but a combinatorially unfathomable infinite mass.

Even the most simple of assertions "I am" has truly infinite boundaries..

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Leboman

I've been doing my best to follow this discussion but my brain asploded about two posts ago.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Mine, too...but I keep talking. That is how to be a professional philosopher, I suspect.

Originally Posted by Leboman

I have always equated professional philosopher with bulls**t artist.

But ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ has the intent to deceive. I don't think [most] philosophers intend to deceive anyone [except themselves?].

It is true that philosophy [and not just professional philosophy] is conducted by folks who don't know what they're talking about.

But that's kind of the entire point.

The other [ok, not "the" only other] Lewisism that I always come back to is that "mortals tend to become what they pretend to be".

Another common expression that I find extremely ironic [well, more just plain distasteful in this case] is "I don't pretend to know..."

OF COURSE YOU DO! We all do!

We pretend to know everything that we know. We put it out there (literally: "out"-"stretch"). We say more than we can possibly back up.

We, as the literal meaning suggests, outstretch our own ability to comprehend. And, I think, this is the only way to gain new knowledge.

It isn't ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ if you realize you have no clue what the hell you're talking about. It's honest pretending, hoping things come together.

The entire scientific model is built on pretending: Pretend hypothesis A were true, what would be the expected result? Is that what we find?

How boring to talk about what you know!

[Role Modlin]

Honestly...it's probably because my brain isn't hardwired to function at very high levels. I would love to be able to participate in such discussion but I lack the education and acumen to do so.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Nate

But ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ has the intent to deceive. I don't think [most] philosophers intend to deceive anyone [except themselves?].

I don't know, this charge was raised against Derrida. Many of the heirs to the Continental heritage are like him, though I enjoy Derrida: they hide behind thick jargon.

Wittgenstein encouraged many of his promising students not to be academic philosophers.

In my mind, there's only academic philosophers. People who are unpublished but call themselves philosophers are like people who are unpublished by call themselves poets: they are pretending, though (no offense, Lewis) they don't necessarily become what they posture.

Yes, this means I do not consider myself a poet.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

In my mind, there's only academic philosophers. People who are unpublished but call themselves philosophers are like people who are unpublished by call themselves poets: they are pretending, though (no offense, Lewis) they don't necessarily become what they posture.

Yes, this means I do not consider myself a poet.

In this day and age, certainly you don't mean "published in a book," or do you?

If not, then what is it that you do mean? Widely read? If so, how widely read?

Non-self-published? Externally funded? Work-for-hire? Employed by another?

Or is the academic angle? Do you require philosophers to teach? To research?

What of poets? Would you require yourself to teach literature? Surely you read it.

[I'm not arguing against your own self-appraisal. Think what you will of yourself!]

[Role Modlin]

I write a lot...but I would feel uncomfortable calling myself a writer.

By definition I am a published songwriter, but I still don't consider myself a songwriter either.

It's interesting, because I do write all kinds of stuff. I guess I would have to generate some sort of income before I thought of myself in those terms.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Nate

In this day and age, certainly you don't mean "published in a book," or do you?

Published in a book not released by oneself, yes.

If not, then what is it that you do mean? Widely read? If so, how widely read?

No, "widely-read" is not part of my equation.

Non-self-published? Externally funded? Work-for-hire? Employed by another?

Or is the academic angle? Do you require philosophers to teach? To research?

What of poets? Would you require yourself to teach literature? Surely you read it.

[I'm not arguing against your own self-appraisal. Think what you will of yourself!]

Yes, I would argue that a philosopher or poet has received some level of recognition from those qualified to give it (academics, other philosophers, other poets, publishing houses, public awareness) and makes a significant part of their living or stakes a significant part of their public reputation on philosophy and/or poetry.

I think calling oneself a philosopher or poet without some sort of external recognition is simply an exercise of ego.

A history degree did not make me a historian, either.