Humanities desk
< March 14	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 15[edit]

Requirements for a philosopher.[edit]

Are there any special requirements needed to become a proffessional philosopher? Like personal aspects,a talent in academics, or a generally high IQ or EQ? Matthew Goldsmith 02:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightylight (talk • contribs)

The only real "requirement" is that you find someone willing to pay you. "Professional philosopher" isn't really a common occupation. Short of finding a crazy rich guy to be your patron, you're really talking about being a university professor in a philosophy department. That's probably the closest thing to being a "professional philosopher", but it's going to encompass a lot of professional duties that are outside the bounds of ruminating on the meaning of life -- education, bureaucracy, finding and funding graduate students, that sort of thing. For that particular sort of post, you probably need a Ph.D. in philosophy. There are plenty of other day jobs that will allow you the time and means to philosophize, but again, you won't really be a "professional philosopher", and they'll all come with their specific requirements. — Lomn 04:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A professional philosopher? Get a PhD in philosophy and a professorship, and write influential works. You should probably learn what Analytic philosophy and Continental philosophy are also.AerobicFox (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply having a PhD in philosophy does not make one a philosopher. You must have to create influence and write best-selling books. Only then you will be recognized as a philosopher, even without formal education in philosophy. Noam Chomsky, a philosopher, is a professional linguist. Ayn Rand, a philosopher, was a Hollywood screenwriter. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any formal requirement that the books you write be best-sellers before you can be considered a philosopher. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think Chomsky is a philosopher. Some of his works are about linguistics, and some are essays about politics. 212.169.184.176 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy identifies him as philosopher. You may don't like his views, I also don't like his views. But that is not a reason to discredit him as a philosopher. Being a philosopher does not mean what the person is saying is correct. Karl Marx was also a philosopher. --Reference Desker (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marx had a PhD in philosophy. Chomsky is a linguist who has written extensively about philosophical issues. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky is considered a major player in the field of philosophy of language. There are lots of ways to do philosophy without having a degree in philosophy. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky studied philosophy and linguistics in his youth. As Mr.98 points out, there is such a thing as philosophy of language. In any case some of Chomsky's work has broader implications for philisophy.--82.152.205.201 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any formal definition of "bestseller", so that's OK. 81.131.21.241 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could become a medical ethicist or bioethicist: someone who advises on ethics in a medical or research context; this job involves making philosophically-guided decisions about the nature and meaning of life and death. This requires either training as a doctor and studying additional ethics courses, or coming from a background in philosophy or law and taking a further qualification in medical ethics.[1][2][3] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I studied philosophy, so hopefully I can help. :) in terms of skills, the main thing you probably need is an analytical mind - philosophy (especially, but not exclusively, in the empirical tradition) is about logical analysis. You take a problem, or a proposed solution, and examine it to death. You also need to be comfortable with doing a lot of reading in depth, and to be good at expressing your thoughts (although remembering some of the stuff I read, the extent to which this is true is debatable). It helps if you can recognise how your own biases affect your thinking, and thus you can potentially allow for this in what you do. Otherwise, I think it would be difficult to pin down some precise skills - it is primarily about your ability to think, and,most importantly, to think about abstract topics. (My wife, for example, has never been able to cope with thought experiments, whereas I've never had a problem accepting the premises for the sake of the logic).

A degree is going to be pretty much essential, at least if you want to go into academia, and you have choices there - working in a philosophy department (tricky, as there are far fewer places than there are people with philosophy doctorates, so you have to be very good), working in a related field where you combine philosophy, analytical skills, and subject specific knowledge (applied philosophy includes this, or, for example, cognitive science, AI, various humanities - there are a lot of possibilities, although you won't necessarily be a professional "philosopher" as such), or move into an areas such as bioethics (per Colapeninsula) - I considered that at one point, and it is an interesting path. Keep in mind that philosophy covers everything from metaphysics to philosophy of mind to philosophy of religion, with a great number of fields in between (eg epistemology, formal logic, ontology, aesthetics, ethics), so while some are only really useful in a philosophy department (I loved metaphysics, but you don't get to apply the bundle theory in more practical fields), others are useful elsewhere (ontology/epistemology in knowledge management, formal logic in computing, philosophy of mind in AI, philosophy of religion in theology). - Bilby (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if you do not get the grades to do a PhD and then are lucky enough to get a university teaching job, then at least you will be able to deal with the misery of your unfulfilling job at McDonalds, or if you are lucky at a call centre, philosophically. 92.15.23.213 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ability to read a lot of long boring navel-gazing philosophy books without falling asleep. 92.15.5.217 (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think a willingness to drink hemlock would be on the list. That tends to weed out the wannabes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are all wrong... to become a "professional philosopher" all you need to do is attempt to make your living from philosophy... Of course becoming a successful professional philosopher is much harder. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's why so many philosophers don't give up their "day jobs" at McDonald's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow,deeply profound stuff there,Bugs.Hotclaws (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates was a "wannabe," Bugs...? WikiDao ☯ 19:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a pedant, then this is the job for you!! You'll have fun writing ten volumes on some minute point that nobody else would ever bother about. You'll be thrilled to argue with other pedants about all the excrusiating detail of some entirely imaginary concept, free from consideration of such trivialities as "evidence" or "usefulness". 92.15.23.213 (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the debate on this page is a very good example of analytic philosophy :) ..... don't take this to seriously though, folks, I seem to get flamed when I'm not being completely on topic. It's been emotional (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've signed up for a program to become a philosopher king. But right now I'm still stuck at dining philosopher since someone keeps taking my fork... 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a linguist, Chomsky may recognize that with the reversal of the word "philosopher," you have nearly created an antimetabole. It appears that some are born philosophers, some achieve the status of philosophers through a PhD, and some have philosophy thrust upon them. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for a moment of seriousness in all the fun and games, the original distinction was between technical proficiency and seminal ideation: Philosophers were those who created new ideas that changed the way other people thought about things. Unfortunately, philosophy has always been disliked (philosophy is by its nature anti-conventional and infuriates people with an investment in the status quo), and the modern world has become very technically oriented, so most PhDs (literally 'doctors of the philosophy') are truly unphilosophical people who excel at sophisticated techniques. If you want to be a 'professional' philosopher, you should either get yourself a PhD in philosophy and find a nice university to call home, or acquire a taste for strong coffee (and strong beer, if you lean towards phenomenology), and find a nice cafe to call home. Either way, sit yourself down in front of a computer and start writing, and don't stop until you (a) change the way people think, or (b) die.

No bets on which comes first. Life is never easy for the philosophically-minded. --Ludwigs2 18:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A) There is a sense in which every person is a philosopher. In this sense, we recognize that each person has valid, and unique ideas and wonderful intellectual contributions to the world. This sense should be encouraged, because it recognizes the potential of each person, which is very humanistic. B) There is a sense in which only PhDs in philosophy, who have published in writing, ideas which have been validated by other academic philosophers in a peer review are philosophers. This sense should be encouraged, as it preserves the integrity of the field of study and furthers the use of credible methodology such as the requirement of the use of valid reasoning. There is a full range of senses which lie in between these two. Greg Bard (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biography: Famous last words[edit]

I am still looking for any biographical work available on last words of famous personalities, does anyone know of any such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winston Williams (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Kath: "Don't worry, it's not loaded". --Jayron32 04:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarzan: "Who greased the grapevine???" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This same question was asked within the last week or two on one of the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, it was the OP that asked that time as well. Apparently they still haven't seen the answer that they're looking for. Dismas|^(talk) 06:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, we're into rerun season now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search of "famous last words" on Amazon gives a number of hits, some of which seems relevant to the OPs question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And which were pointed out last time as I recall. 130.88.162.13 (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the archived discussion: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 4 ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching on Google for "famous last words" produces a lot of lists of them. Using the same phrase on Google Books produces many books with that title, many available to "preview". 92.15.5.217 (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, each of The Book of Lists has a list of famous last words. (At least one of them definitely does. I think more than one does.) The list is only 10 or 20 long in each case. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few to be found on this site: http://www.corsinet.com/braincandy/dying.html. Also, you may want to look up "last words" in wikipedia's sister page wikiquote. There is a list in progress there too. --DI (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adherents of Sikhism[edit]

Not all Punjabi people are Sikhs, but are all Sikhs ethnically Punjabis? I have checked the articles Sikh and Sikhism and the best thing I could see is the following unsourced statement in the last paragraph of the Sikhism page:

Since 1968, thousands of non-Punjabis have taken up the Sikh belief and lifestyle primarily in the United States, Canada, Latin America, the Far East and Australia. These first and second generation Sikhs are of various ethnic backgrounds and include Caucasians, Blacks, and Chinese.

However, I am looking for something in the Indian/south asian context. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 13:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism is indeed a Punjabi religion, and the fact of its concentrated geographical location has been used by them in the UK to argue that discrimination against them constitutes racial rather than religious discrimination. Been trying to find a reference for this, but I've gotta go work and have run out of time. Maybe more later! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC) I wonder if this site will help? http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page --TammyMoet (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A number of Americans of European descent have converted to Sikhism, so the answer to the question is, no. Corvus cornix_talk 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner wanted to know whether in South Asia Sikhs are ethnically Punjabi. My impression is that TammyMoet is right. I think that Sikhs are quite likely to run businesses that operate in different parts of Asia (and indeed Europe, north American). If they then move to a different region they would after a couple of generations not be Punjabi. But being Sikh they might still be considered ethnically Punjabi. Complicated. Need to hear from some Sikh editors. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this article. A famous legal case that meant, like Jews, Sikhs were not only seen as a religious group but an ethnic group. Thanks--SH 12:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are a few Pashtun Sikhs (e.g. see [4]), although opinion divides on whether their ancestors converted from Islam, or whether their ancestors were ethincally Punjabi, but in generations of living in Pashtun-majority areas, their communities have come to identify as Pashtun. Warofdreams talk 16:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the answers. I think I can summarize by saying that an overwhelming majority of of Sikhs in South Asia are Punjabis (perhaps 90% or more) while there is a small non-punjabi Sikhs being Pashtuns, etc. I also found Sikh Rajputs who are ethnically Rajputs. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 03:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book about white European conscripted in to the Imperial Japanese Army[edit]

I am trying to find the title of a book. But my memory is a bit fuzzy on it, and im not even sure wikipedia has a article on it. Its about (I think) a white British (could be any other caucasian european) child born in japan who gets conscripted into the Imperial Japanese Army (could have been navy) because he was born in Japan. He go's through training under racism and abuse but is discharged before having to fight (I think).

I thought it would be easy to find but with such a fuzzy discription... If this sounds familiar to anyone, could you point me in the right direction?--SelfQ (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a fit for your description, but fits the 'feel': Empire of the Sun? Made into a fine, if upsetting, film. 86.164.66.59 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it. Good film, but its not the one I am looking for. I real sure on the "white guy conscripted and trained", just all the details around it are to fuzzy for a search. The terms are to broad for a google search sadly.--SelfQ (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What time period is it? (It's not something like Shogun, I assume.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it was during world war 2. So 1930/1945ish --SelfQ (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWII started in September 1939, almost in the '40s. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IJA was fighting in China well before 1939. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but SelfQ said it was "during world war 2". The Second Sino-Japanese War is not normally considered a part of that conflict, is it? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been during the war in china. like I said 1930/1945. I am not sure when the large scale conscriptions started. Also, if this might help, I remember the cover of the book was a kind of orange/beige colour and had his photo on it (in uniform I think).--SelfQ (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]