Is the Philosopher or Philosophy king?

Is this supposed to be a trick ‘exam’ question?
Philosophy is what Philosophers say, ergo, there is no Philosophy without Philosophers.
Additional notes:
All free thinking being, human or otherwise, is a Philosopher.
Philosophy is not an exact science like math or physics. It is our interpretation of the universe.
Theology is not part of Philosophy since it’s sole purpose is to thwart our free thinking.
Philosophy is at the root of society and science.
Without freedom of thought, there are no Philosophers no advance in Philosophy no future.

Did I pass?

“but let the love of pure truth draw you to read”

Wow, when did the word truth got into Philosophy.

No. It is not a test.
So you didn’t pass.

Truth doesn’t exist, only honesty does.

Edit: Complete truth doesn’t exist, only complete honesty.
Therefore who says it is emphasized by consequence over what he says.

“complete honesty”
Oh, this is your class.
Glad I did not pass.
This is no Philosophy, this is gibberish.

"The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. "

“The weak do what they can, the strong do what they must.”
Raven
(makes more sense this way)

Interesting post.

Is it fair to say that Nietzsche’s ultimate virtue was his willingness to be true(honest) to himself … the hell with the consequences?

If so, the source of Nietzsche’s “Self” is a fair question … no?

Ditto for the faithful Thomas … n’est-ce pas?

Raven … you have a prodigious mind … I salute you.

I have been a strong fan of the quote you speak about for many years … yet never saw it in the perspective you stated this morning … how exciting!

This dovetails nicely with a thought that has been swimming around in my mind off and on for some time.

In a nutshell … the 1% get a bad rap … ergo … they are pooh pooed by so many.

The 1% substantially facilitated the journey of the species to where we are today … perhaps not a bad place.

Perhaps we are on the threshold of hominization(a Teilard/Huxley concept/conjecture) … which could only happen by being physically and psychically interconnected to a large degree. Just a thought.

Honesty is gibberish.
-ravencry4all

Brilliant.

That is not unfair at all.

I don’t believe in the “self”. I think we are all valuing. This valuing “values” it"self" by valuing consistently, and thus becoming a substance out of pure love and respect.

Valuing of course being manifested most loftily in humans as courage, love, reverence -

N’s courage is manifest in that he dared to love beyond himself.
Not below himself as the white left “loves” the immigrant who makes him feel powerful, but above himself.
Not a lot of people are able to “love upward”.

No “self” … intriguing thought … and you’re not alone in your thinking.

Your comments imply … for me at least … the human species … collectively … is a “self” … a container of sorts. Am I interpreting your comments correctly?

[b]

[/b]

Profound insight … happens every day … everywhere … in almost every human interaction … no?

FC … more emerging thoughts triggered by your last post.

We use a mirror to see our-self(s) … at times triggering reflections about our-self.

Perhaps in the same vein … the universe/cosmos chose the object … known to us as a human being … to be a “mirror” that IT might see itself and reflect on Itself.

Ridiculous thought??

pilgrim-seeker_tom
Thank you for the compliment, very rare I get one.

You observation has an element of logic, and I have no problem accepting the necessity of leaders and leadership.
In times of crisis for example a small number of leaders preferable, but on the long run it is destructive regardless of the original arrangement.
Except, and this is where the ‘must’ comes into play, the 99% has more power at any time.
Simple analogy - even if there is a limitation on every analogy - is the wolf pack.
The seemingly privileged alphas ‘must’ stand up and stand out, or lose the status.
Other members of the group will do whatever they can, or can get away with.

This is really just a thought without serious consideration.
What is our existence and our reality in the universe is just as relative as space-time.
Everything is dependent on the surrounding environment or circumstances.

Will play with this a bit more.

Something would like to add to the mirror theory.
This is a long held belief of mine that originate from working with computers.

Our understanding of the complexity of anything depends of the complexity of us.
Simply put, when you are coding of any data, the coder must have the capacity beyond data itself.
This is not limited to the actual data but the information it entails.
That of course establishes a fact of limitation, but also suggest a similarity, ergo the mirror.
In the case of a single individual, like me, my understanding is a reflection on me and of me.
One simple step from this, humanities ‘understanding’ that result in it’s collective actions is a reflection of humanity.

Without prejudice or political implications, an example.
President Trump is a reflection of the American population, their understanding and their reality.

Exciting post … not really sure why. :slight_smile:

… and it addresses FC’s OP statement … perhaps there is no philosophy king without a philosophy ‘pack’ … ditto for the alpha wolf.

[b]

[/b]

the surrounding environment and circumstances are constantly changing … yet there’s a human propensity to maintain the status quo … leading to friction and it’s consequences.

Hmmm!

Kool comments Raven. :slight_smile:

[b]

[/b]

Perhaps the “complexity of us” is simply trying to catch up with the complexity of our universe/cosmos.

[b]

[/b]

I remember several instances of people suggesting Trump is simply saying what so many Americans want to say yet are constrained by political/social correctness.

The “pack” empowers the leader. Yes … No

Perhaps this is the phenomenon supporting the exploding popularity of Jordan Peterson.

Mao Zedong comes to mind … the numbers involved are staggering … hundreds of millions of people empowering one man.

Some suggest Xi Jinping is currently experiencing the same vortex phenomenon … with even larger numbers … empowering him beyond the borders of China … BRI for example.

IS THE PHILOSOPHER OR PHILOSOPHY KING?

Couldn’t you say that they are One?
They become One depending on the relationship which flows between the two?
Why do you have to separate them?

Individuals are a snapshot, they are agents, carriers of ideas along a continuum that spans long before individual lives begin to long after their consciousness ceases.

But the individual is an entirety unto themselves, and without them an idea would not come about nor be able to sustain itself. A king is an agent, an absolute centre for an idea for as long as he is king, but the idea spans throughout his kingdom, carried by all subjects alike, it begins before the king exists and continues after his reign ends. Ideas have cultivation, they are prepared before specific points when they can be identified as having struck. They meld and evolve into new ideas continuously. A philosopher king has an idea out of previous ideas, ideas are more fertile and focused on him, he is “the king”, but the idea is bigger than him.

Very interesting post … though perhaps my interpretation is incorrect.

For me, your comments point to an “idea repository” beyond the biosphere … ergo short human life spans.

Again for me … your thoughts meld with Teilhard’s concept of “noosphere” … a thinking layer.

… and reiterates my suggestion that the ‘pack’ empowers the ‘leader’.