# Which MBTI types are the most into philosophy?



## Veraine (Aug 16, 2015)

And do they take different approaches toward philosophy, and if so, how are they different?


----------



## me and my spoon (Mar 18, 2016)

I suppose Intuitives, who look beyond the immediate and are more likely to enjoy theorising for its own sake. Sensing types might be more practical in their philosophy - implementing mindsets for how to live their life and applying it. 

Introversion too will lend itself to philosophy with its focus on introspection and reflection. I conjecture that Extraverted philosophers will be broader in their scope of interests and maybe not so much focus on the subject and their place in the world. 

Thinking type philosophy is more likely going to rid itself of the subjective human elements more, whereas Feeling types might put that element - the human condition, feelings and everyday experience - at the forefront. 

T's might be more inclined to be more interested in external structures and processes. Perhaps leaning more towards metaphysics and logic. Feeling, on the other hand, towards Ethics and topics/perspectives such as existentialism. 

A Feeler's writing style might concentrate more on their personal perspective and conveying that, rather than formal logical deductions and axioms as per the Thinking type.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

From my experience personally, INFJs


----------



## Madman (Aug 7, 2012)

Does it matter? Life is pointless...:happy:

Philosophy is quite a broad subject. Personally I am _very_ interested in philosophy. Mostly the philosophy of language, the philosophy of mathematics and of course logic. Why? Because it is relaxing and fun...

I think all types can appreciate philosophy. Life is philosophical, so you cannot really escape it.


----------



## Schizoid (Jan 31, 2015)

When I heard the word "philosophy", I start thinking about Ti. 

There is a reason why Ti doms are considered as the most abstract type, don't you think so? 

I personally consider myself a "philosophical" person, but then again I have tertiary Ti. 

So I'm gonna go with types that have Ti in them. xNTPs, xSTPs, xNFJs.


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

Schizoid said:


> There is a reason why Ti doms are considered as the most abstract type, don't you think so?


No, where do this come from ? I think your judgement is biased by your idealisation of this function. 
Concerning the topic, I would say INXX type are more likely to be interesting in philosophy because of the direction of the domain which is questioning oneself about fundamental problems by thinking beyond what is common to think. INXX types are known to be metaphysical thinker which lead to be more philosophical.


----------



## Miss Bingley (Jun 28, 2013)

My immediate response is any introverted intuitive (INxx). I once audited a Epistemology and Metaphysics class, and I was honestly lost within minutes - but the students in the class seemed to really like it/be very knowledgable about it. I'm in an Ethics class now, and most of the people who speak up frequently seem to have a good grip on Ni or Ne.


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

I think any type could be into philosophy, really.


----------



## Silastar (Mar 29, 2016)

That's an awesome topic. Going to try for a quick answer and not too complex. 

I'm going to say intuition is what matters most. I found several 'S' types are plain and too straightforward when attempting to decipher philosophical concepts. When they make philosophy, i often see they assume too much out of common sense (but objects do exists, it is obvious!) and do not offer enough arguments. Furthermore, i rarely see them making the effort to understand Hegel or even Kant. Let alone Heidegger and company. 


Most influential philosophers:

Plato - INFJ
Aristotle - xNTP
Aquinas - INTP
Descartes - INTP (?)
Hume - ENTP (?)
Kant - INTP
Hegel - xNTJ
Nietzsche - INTJ
Wittgenstein - INFJ


----------



## funambulist44 (May 7, 2014)

I would agree that the most important part would be N>S. A huge part of philosophy is abandoning things you take for granted, which includes the validity of information coming from your senses. Sensors rely too heavily on their senses to feel comfortable departing from them, I think.


----------



## MuadDib (Jul 28, 2017)

I'd say probably INFJs, INTJs, INTPs, and ENTPs, the most of which INTJ's and the least of which INFJ's.


----------



## ondes Martenot (Sep 27, 2016)

Silastar said:


> Most influential philosophers:
> 
> Plato - INFJ
> Aristotle - xNTP
> ...


Why xNTP for Aristotle?


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Silastar said:


> That's an awesome topic. Going to try for a quick answer and not too complex.
> 
> I'm going to say intuition is what matters most. I found several 'S' types are plain and too straightforward when attempting to decipher philosophical concepts. When they make philosophy, i often see they assume too much out of common sense (but objects do exists, it is obvious!) and do not offer enough arguments. Furthermore, i rarely see them making the effort to understand Hegel or even Kant. Let alone Heidegger and company.
> 
> ...


Aristotle is ENTJ. Hume is definitely Te, I'd say ENFP. 

Heidegger is useless anyway. Kant and Hegel are plain wrong. From the philosophers thus far listed, Hume got the closest to understanding the human mind and guess how? by the oh-so-sensor common sense. I do not discredit the other philosophers for their contributions (Wittgenstein is my favorite but he contributed questions rather than answers, which in itself is a great contribution anyway), but the matter of fact is that the purpose of philosophy is to give us the most accurate map (understanding) for the territory (reality). Complex arguments and vacuous intellectualizing is not what philosophy is about, it's a mere consequence of philosophical inquiries. The truth is the most important. I'd rather read a boring philosopher who got a few things right than an entertaining philosopher who got everything wrong. In this sense, I'd say sensors are more philosophic than intuitives are. They prefer not to chase after cats that are invisible, intangible, inaudible, and permeable to everything you throw at them. They work with what they have and make more rational conclusions than intuitives generally do. Intuitives only gain advantage where it's difficult to be rational without a complex system of theory (say, as economists or engineers). But even there, it's more a matter of practice than of cognition. 

What's a big red thing that eat rocks?

An intuitive will insist it's something special, some animal of some sorts. But mostly, the answer is just: A big red rock-eater. And you can expect a sensor to get that right before an intuitive does. Summarily, I would say that while intuitives tend to be more interested in philosophy, they mostly suck at it. Sensors may not be interested but their beliefs about reality -- if they have any at all -- tend to be more accurate than the beliefs of the intuitives.


----------



## Silastar (Mar 29, 2016)

@Stawker, @ondes Martenot I do not know why, at the time, I wrote Aristotle as an xNTP. He is clearly a Te-dom with iNtuition as aux function. So yes, that was outright wrong - possibly I didn't pay attention at the time, or just misjudged entirely.



Stawker said:


> I do not discredit the other philosophers for their contributions (Wittgenstein is my favorite but he contributed questions rather than answers, which in itself is a great contribution anyway), but the matter of fact is that the purpose of philosophy is to give us the most accurate map (understanding) for the territory (reality). Complex arguments and vacuous intellectualizing is not what philosophy is about, it's a mere consequence of philosophical inquiries. The truth is the most important.


I am afraid, but what you think philosophy should be about is not what it _is _about. First of all, your assertion is filled of strong (very strong) theoretical presuppositions. You mention that philosophy should give us an accurate map for reality. On its own, this statement hosts several issues already.

You seem to believe that philosophy's true purpose is knowing the truth. However here comes the first obvious question: what is "the" truth? Because you appear to have a very strong *opinion* upon what truth is which, in other words, means that you presume what you're trying to discover. You are introducing a strong philosophical assumption within a meta-philosophical question - circular reasoning. Can you prove your point? How is it knowledge? How can you determine truth before doing philosophy, if philosophy's purpose is to give us a map of reality? 
You can't set a concept of truth before you practice philosophy and then say philosophy is about that type of truth. 
It's obvious, then, that you deem Sensors great philosophers - in spite of the fact they are usually terrible ones - because from what I read, your concept of truth is basically "common sense" (and maybe some science). Which would lead us into philosophical issues but alas, as we're speaking of metaphilosophy, let's leave those for an other topic.

Then comes a second problem. Is your definition a descriptive one or a normative one? It seems you lean towards the second: philosophy should give us an accurate map of reality - even if it does not always happen. First issue: what about the philosophers you said are "bad" and "wrong"? Are they philosophers in your opinion? If the answer is no: your definition of philosophy is not comprehensive. If the answer is yes: it's still misleading because it fails to explain how they are bad without falling into the above circular reasoning. You just slapped there a value you like and said "that's what it is about!" 
... How do you draw such a normative value - why it is the core purpose of philosophy to search for the truth? You did not say that. Furthermore, you'd most likely fall again into the above circular reasoning, applying an arbitrary concept of truth or have to change definition.

More problems: This reality / truth you speak of... Does a philosopher has to understand the entire truth, or just a part of it? Is an author that speaks of a part of reality (and is correct about it) still a philosopher? and if the answer is yes: assuming they are correct about a part of reality, many scientists/thinkers are not treated as philosophers but they are possibly correct about some stuff. So that's an other issue, much like this one: what about descriptions of what is accurate and occurs in our world, but that is nevertheless described with incorrect terms? (for example, physics - let's assume this scenario: that the physical laws are not platonic entities that exist on their own but are properties of atoms, that would make physics inaccurate, yet still able to describe reality - is such a form of reasoning still philosophy? yes or no? if the answer is yes, then philosophers such as Heidegger may acquire relevance in the canon aswell... if the answer is no, it opens the issue of language barriers etc etc).
How can I prove that certain authors are good and others are bad within the philosophical canon; and without a preconceived idea of reality? (spoiler... basically you can't) so in your definition I will need to apply a circular reasoning unless I just presume there is a truth without stating what it is. However... the _study _of truth implies that there are more essential points, which I will adress below. 

Point being - You assume too much and your definition is too strong to be accurate.
1. If we were to define philosophy we'd have to start from the bottom.
Let us assume philosophy exists, as we are looking for a definition of it.
We should find a definition of what it -is-, before telling people what it should be about.
2. Clearly, philosophy is a discipline which has matured through the history, hence a discipline with a secular tradition:
Philosophy is a discipline inscribed within a tradition. -- this statement would deserve on its own years of study and puts in evidence the importance of language, philosophical concepts aswell as helps us deterring an arbitrary concept of truth.
3. What did these authors within this tradition speak about? What was their aim? Their method? There were many aims and truth was not the sole one - nor there is just one perspective from which individuals see the truth or understand it (even in a system with an universal truth, there is a difference between having a correct opinion and a _justified belief_ / knowledge of truth). They also spoke of morality, politics, etc etc.
And that would not be enough as we also have to find what motivates philosophers and how they worked (what was their method). Were they only looking for truth for the sake of truth, or did they have other reasons aside from that? Their motivation influenced their work? We're moving very far from your definition about philosophy. These would be the other core points to define philosophy as a discipline - but further study would be unnecessary. The concept of researching the truth is inside these points, but in such a way that it is indeed very different from what you wanted it to be (--> just the possibility of it being different implies a difference on its own).

Without bringing any further point, if the reasoning followed is correct, the philosophers that you disregarded acquire more relevance, as they have given a solid contribution to the tradition. And I am afraid, but that is what matters for philosophy as a discipline.

If anything, the concept of truth would arise into such questions: "is there any progress within philosophy?" "is there a thing such as an universal truth and can we find it? what is it about and to which extent is that connected to philosophy?" -- in such a view alone you _could _say that authors such as Heidegger are "useless" and Kant and Hegel are "wrong". However, that would not be a description of what philosophy is but rather a very subjective and most likely (see the reasons above) untrue speculation.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Silastar said:


> [MENTION=419890]
> I am afraid, but what you think philosophy should be about is not what it _is _about. First of all, your assertion is filled of strong (very strong) theoretical presuppositions. You mention that philosophy should give us an accurate map for reality. On its own, this statement hosts several issues already.
> 
> You seem to believe that philosophy's true purpose is knowing the truth. However here comes the first obvious question: what is "the" truth? Because you appear to have a very strong *opinion* upon what truth is which, in other words, means that you presume what you're trying to discover. You are introducing a strong philosophical assumption within a meta-philosophical question - circular reasoning. Can you prove your point? How is it knowledge? How can you determine truth before doing philosophy, if philosophy's purpose is to give us a map of reality?



Yudkowsky - The Simple Truth

Basically, you can substitute 'truth' with 'accuracy'. If I can predict the territory from my map accurately, I know the truth. And that's knowledge. Any further attempt to question 'How is that knowledge?' is chasing after a cat that is... you know what it is.

Sensors aren't usually great philosophers because they usually don't like to be called philosophers. Imagine a kid who loves fixing bikes but sucks at it. That kid calls himself a 'mechanic'. Then there's an adult who calls himself, say, a 'doctor' but then he actually knows how to fix bikes. The kid is our intuitive, and the adult is our sensor in this context.



> Then comes a second problem. Is your definition a descriptive one or a normative one? It seems you lean towards the second: philosophy should give us an accurate map of reality - even if it does not always happen. First issue: what about the philosophers you said are "bad" and "wrong"? Are they philosophers in your opinion? If the answer is no: your definition of philosophy is not comprehensive. If the answer is yes: it's still misleading because it fails to explain how they are bad without falling into the above circular reasoning. You just slapped there a value you like and said "that's what it is about!"
> ... How do you draw such a normative value - why it is the core purpose of philosophy to search for the truth? You did not say that. Furthermore, you'd most likely fall again into the above circular reasoning, applying an arbitrary concept of truth or have to change definition.


If philosophy is not about the truth -- however you define truth -- then it's mere fiction. Do you want to relegate philosophy to that level? I don't. 

A bad doctor is still a doctor. What makes a bad doctor? repeated failure at treating patients. But why must he treat patients? that's his job as a doctor. And if he does it well, he gets called a good doctor.



> More problems: This reality / truth you speak of... Does a philosopher has to understand the entire truth, or just a part of it? Is an author that speaks of a part of reality (and is correct about it) still a philosopher? and if the answer is yes: assuming they are correct about a part of reality, many scientists/thinkers are not treated as philosophers but they are possibly correct about some stuff. So that's an other issue, much like this one: what about descriptions of what is accurate and occurs in our world, but that is nevertheless described with incorrect terms? (for example, physics - let's assume this scenario: that the physical laws are not platonic entities that exist on their own but are properties of atoms, that would make physics inaccurate, yet still able to describe reality - is such a form of reasoning still philosophy? yes or no? if the answer is yes, then philosophers such as Heidegger may acquire relevance in the canon aswell... if the answer is no, it opens the issue of language barriers etc etc).


Given the above definition of truth, a part of truth works. That's all there probably is anyways; I mean, the idea that truth might be a single proposition comes from...someone's ass?? At least with my definition of truth, you are working with something you can actually work with. But is efficacy really the criteria of truth? No, it's the criteria of a definition. I invoke the imperceptible cat again: is that still a cat? you may say, 'yes verily it's cat because it has the shape of a cat', but then how do you know its shape when it's invisible? Was it divined to you? Well, that'd be a preposterous proposition. We'd like to see how you can prove it.

Choosing to call someone a philosopher is a social matter, not a philosophical one. In your daily life, you probably do a lot of things that fall under the domain of an electrician, a plumber, a cook, etc, yet nevertheless you don't go by any of those titles. I may not call a scientist a philosopher but he's nonetheless done philosophy if he gets philosophical things right.



> Point being - You assume too much and your definition is too strong to be accurate.
> 1. If we were to define philosophy we'd have to start from the bottom.
> Let us assume philosophy exists, as we are looking for a definition of it.


If you are asking this question, then I assume you haven't read 'Philosophical Investigations' of Ludwig Wittgenstein. You should.



> 2. Clearly, philosophy is a discipline which has matured through the history, hence a discipline with a secular tradition:
> Philosophy is a discipline inscribed within a tradition. -- this statement would deserve on its own years of study and puts in evidence the importance of language, philosophical concepts aswell as helps us deterring an arbitrary concept of truth.
> 3. What did these authors within this tradition speak about? What was their aim? Their method? There were many aims and truth was not the sole one - nor there is just one perspective from which individuals see the truth or understand it (even in a system with an universal truth, there is a difference between having a correct opinion and a _justified belief_ / knowledge of truth). They also spoke of morality, politics, etc etc.


Invoking abstract fields of morality and politics still does not negate my definition of truth. They are nonetheless our constructs and our chief difficulty in those fields is the fact that those are poorly defined, partly owing to our imperfect language, and partly owing to our psychology which is unable to simulate experiences that are not its own. 

I would like for you to give me examples of philosophers who weren't chasing after the truth, whichever version of truth they have had espoused.



> And that would not be enough as we also have to find what motivates philosophers and how they worked (what was their method). Were they only looking for truth for the sake of truth, or did they have other reasons aside from that? Their motivation influenced their work? We're moving very far from your definition about philosophy. These would be the other core points to define philosophy as a discipline - but further study would be unnecessary. The concept of researching the truth is inside these points, but in such a way that it is indeed very different from what you wanted it to be (--> just the possibility of it being different implies a difference on its own).
> 
> Without bringing any further point, if the reasoning followed is correct, the philosophers that you disregarded acquire more relevance, as they have given a solid contribution to the tradition. And I am afraid, but that is what matters for philosophy as a discipline.
> 
> If anything, the concept of truth would arise into such questions: "is there any progress within philosophy?" "is there a thing such as an universal truth and can we find it? what is it about and to which extent is that connected to philosophy?" -- in such a view alone you _could _say that authors such as Heidegger are "useless" and Kant and Hegel are "wrong". However, that would not be a description of what philosophy is but rather a very subjective and most likely (see the reasons above) untrue speculation.


Adopting the position that philosophy is first and foremost a tradition before it's any sort of searching and seeking forgets the origins of philosophy. It became a tradition later on. Was philosophy philosophy before or after it became a tradition? 

In my part of the world, there are families of doctors. Everyone is a doctor in those families and no one deviates from that tradition. Following your logic, there can be no doctors outside those families.


----------



## Silastar (Mar 29, 2016)

> Basically, you can substitute 'truth' with 'accuracy'. If I can predict the territory from my map accurately, I know the truth. And that's knowledge. Any further attempt to question 'How is that knowledge?' is chasing after a cat that is... you know what it is.


You realize that this is an _ad hoc_ statement? Of course I ought to question how that is knowledge, it's the entire point of knowledge. There is a difference between having an opinion which is correct and having a justified belief upon that thing (and even a justified belief might not be enough to be called knowledge). You are literally ignoring a dozen of theoretical issues (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/, https://www.google.it/amp/s/mashimo.../12/bertrand-russells-inductivist-turkey/amp/) for your sake. 
Furthermore, what is more important, is that before you didn't even give me any definition of what your truth is: you can define truth in any way you'd like but the circular reasoning is still there - any determined concept of truth requires philosophy beforehand.




> Sensors aren't usually great philosophers because they usually don't like to be called philosophers.


If you look at analytic philosophy, a lot of philosophers are Sensors. I know quite a few xSTJ that do study philosophy aswell.



> If philosophy is not about the truth -- however you define truth -- then it's mere fiction. Do you want to relegate philosophy to that level? I don't.


Your conclusion is incorrect but, even if it was correct, it just places in evidence how your value is sought after by your stomach, not your brain. Anyway, the tertium non datur is old stuff as of now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic



> If you are asking this question, then I assume you haven't read 'Philosophical Investigations' of Ludwig Wittgenstein. You should.


 I am afraid but at this point I doubt your knowledge upon the topic; you're trying to call yourself out by calling some important author. If you bothered posting arguments it could actually have some value but, alas, the way you're doing is just shielding behind a name, not even adressing his thoughts (and also https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority).
If I wanted, I could have pointed you at a tradition and a source and tell you: "look, it's there, go get the answer!" or "I'm more learned than you are! here are these important authors you have disregarded!" and so on. However I'm not doing it not only because it is a cheap move, but also because it doesn't really make you sound a learned individual but more someone that can't articulate his own thoughts: all authors have controversial statements. 
...It also makes me wonder why you're calling in Wittgenstein who, in the Investigations, had an anti-theoretical view upon what philosophy is. 



> Invoking abstract fields of morality and politics still does not negate my definition of truth. They are nonetheless our constructs and our chief difficulty in those fields is the fact that those are poorly defined, partly owing to our imperfect language, and partly owing to our psychology which is unable to simulate experiences that are not its own.
> 
> I would like for you to give me examples of philosophers who weren't chasing after the truth, whichever version of truth they have had espoused.


You never gave me a definition of truth before? And your current one is wrong. 
I was speaking about philosophy as a discipline. It is also about these topics: morality and politics. Arguably the reality is even more complex to describe and language is even more complex when it comes to metaphysics. The concept of truth is also abstract, being a concept in the first place. And it's arguably more abstract than morality and politics, that often have a practical purpose.
By the way: here you adopted a different concept of philosophy. Here you just introduced a new definition - a philosopher is any thinker that chases after the concept of truth. This is different from your previous definition. It is interesting that you introduced a weaker version of your theory - it's also more descriptive/better.
Anyway, if you read my words, I never said that there are philosophers that did not look after the concept of truth - but it doesn't matter because there are philosophers that did not chase the truth (Phyrrho for example). 
There are also philosophers that may not actively look for the truth and attempt to deny its existence. Directly: such as Vattimo's weak thought but also indirectly (for example, contemporary hermeneutics). But my entire point is that the concept truth is not the main factor within philosophical research. I am not denying its importance in the canon, but you yourself, through this statement (you challanged me to find a philosopher, in all of the _tradition_, that didn't use the concept of truth) introduced an other factor which you had to deem more important than the research for truth in philosophy, which is the tradition itself. 




> Adopting the position that philosophy is first and foremost a tradition before it's any sort of searching and seeking forgets the origins of philosophy. It became a tradition later on. Was philosophy philosophy before or after it became a tradition?


After, of course. The first philosophers did not define themselves 'philosophers'. Philosophy becomes self-aware at the time of Plato, who is the first one that stabilizes the term. 



> In my part of the world, there are families of doctors. Everyone is a doctor in those families and no one deviates from that tradition. Following your logic, there can be no doctors outside those families.


 @Stawker Could you elaborate this a bit more?


----------



## Grad0507 (Dec 12, 2013)

Veraine said:


> And do they take different approaches toward philosophy, and if so, how are they different?


I would assume NTs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

I gotta say, I asked around for a while now. N types seem to be more interested in philosophy than S. They enjoy it. A lot of times my conversations with S types are really, really bound to what's happening in the real world and their lives. Not much what if questions, or talking about "useless" philosophical stuff just for the sake of it. I could be wrong. It might all be a stereotype, but just my experience with people in my life.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

Ni-Ti


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Silastar said:


> You realize that this is an _ad hoc_ statement? Of course I ought to question how that is knowledge, it's the entire point of knowledge. There is a difference between having an opinion which is correct and having a justified belief upon that thing (and even a justified belief might not be enough to be called knowledge). You are literally ignoring a dozen of theoretical issues (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/, https://www.google.it/amp/s/mashimo.../12/bertrand-russells-inductivist-turkey/amp/) for your sake.


I fail to see how all those issues negate my idea of knowledge, since all the issues nonetheless persist even in my idea. Besides, if we are to follow Wittgenstein, then the trouble is in defining knowledge meaningfully, not in knowing what it is. And that's what I subscribe to. In any given situation, I can clearly discern between what I know from what I believe I know from what I simply believe and so on. Trouble begins when I try to jam my idea of knowledge into a definition. 



> Furthermore, what is more important, is that before you didn't even give me any definition of what your truth is: you can define truth in any way you'd like but the circular reasoning is still there - any determined concept of truth requires philosophy beforehand.


I linked that article, The Simple Truth, to convey the very obvious fact that we know what truth is before all philosophy. Then philosophy comes in and creates its own problems surrounding truth which, quite frankly, are mere subterfuge. I suggest you take the time in reading and understanding that article because if you don't, then we'll be wasting more time in arguing this out. Reading that article saves more time, you know. 



> Your conclusion is incorrect but, even if it was correct, it just places in evidence how your value is sought after by your stomach, not your brain. Anyway, the tertium non datur is old stuff as of now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic


Does Many-Valued logic posit that truth doesn't exist? If no, then it's a distraction.



> I am afraid but at this point I doubt your knowledge upon the topic; you're trying to call yourself out by calling some important author. If you bothered posting arguments it could actually have some value but, alas, the way you're doing is just shielding behind a name, not even adressing his thoughts (and also https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority).
> If I wanted, I could have pointed you at a tradition and a source and tell you: "look, it's there, go get the answer!" or "I'm more learned than you are! here are these important authors you have disregarded!" and so on. However I'm not doing it not only because it is a cheap move, but also because it doesn't really make you sound a learned individual but more someone that can't articulate his own thoughts: all authors have controversial statements.


The reference I wished to imply was merely a sentence long, and you could've got it even if you had only watched SchoolOfLife videos on Wittgenstein: Definition of words based on their usage. I chose to refer to Investigations itself because if I hadn't, you'd be questioning me regarding the reasoning behind that idea and that'd be a colossal waste of time given that there's already a book written on it.

(Friendly note: it's not appeal to authority if we both agree on the veracity of the source)



> ...It also makes me wonder why you're calling in Wittgenstein who, in the Investigations, had an anti-theoretical view upon what philosophy is.


Do I not?




> You never gave me a definition of truth before? And your current one is wrong.


You never explained why.



> I was speaking about philosophy as a discipline. It is also about these topics: morality and politics. Arguably the reality is even more complex to describe and language is even more complex when it comes to metaphysics. The concept of truth is also abstract, being a concept in the first place. And it's arguably more abstract than morality and politics, that often have a practical purpose.
> By the way: here you adopted a different concept of philosophy. Here you just introduced a new definition - a philosopher is any thinker that chases after the concept of truth. This is different from your previous definition. It is interesting that you introduced a weaker version of your theory - it's also more descriptive/better.
> Anyway, if you read my words, I never said that there are philosophers that did not look after the concept of truth - but it doesn't matter because there are philosophers that did not chase the truth (Phyrrho for example).
> There are also philosophers that may not actively look for the truth and attempt to deny its existence. Directly: such as Vattimo's weak thought but also indirectly (for example, contemporary hermeneutics). But my entire point is that the concept truth is not the main factor within philosophical research. I am not denying its importance in the canon, but you yourself, through this statement (you challanged me to find a philosopher, in all of the _tradition_, that didn't use the concept of truth) introduced an other factor which you had to deem more important than the research for truth in philosophy, which is the tradition itself.


I defined philosophy before, not philosophers. It's easier to define subjects of field, you know, than to define people who pursue it. What's the criteria for a doctor of medicine again? Someone with a MBBS degree? 

Did any of those said philosophers claim outright that their philosophy is a fiction and is credible precisely because of that?
I think not. And if they didn't, then remember the phrase I inserted: regardless of their idea of the truth. Claiming that reality is a fiction is different from claiming that my philosophy about reality is fiction, since if the former is true, then oh well...... 

They may as well believe it doesn't exist but as long as they were after accurate statements (since ''nothing is true'' in itself would have to be a truth), I stand corrected. And I challenged you to find a philosopher who didn't seek truth, not philosophers who didn't 'use' it since that would go against your own idea that no one knows what truth is.



> After, of course. The first philosophers did not define themselves 'philosophers'. Philosophy becomes self-aware at the time of Plato, who is the first one that stabilizes the term.


You mean, philosophers became self-aware, not philosophy?



> @Stawker Could you elaborate this a bit more?


Nothing much, really. Was just remarking on your conflation of a deed with the doer of the deed.


----------

