May anyone call themselves a philosopher?

This resource is a wikidebate, a collaborative effort to gather and organize all arguments on a given issue. Feel free to add new arguments, rewrite long or confusing arguments, and remove irrelevant or low-effort arguments. That's the unique wiki aspect of wikidebates! You can even restructure, rename or delete entire debates when necessary. See the Wikidebate guidelines for more.

Subject classification: this is a philosophy resource.

Philosophy is the love of or the desire for wisdom [fact?]. Everyone can philosophize. You ask yourself big questions and then think about those questions. But if everyone can philosophize, does that mean everyone may call themselves a philosopher, regardless of their experience or education? Or are there certain requirements for this?

Anyone may call themselves a philosopher

Pro

• Pro The term 'philosopher' is not protected, unlike 'doctor' or 'historian'. This means that anyone can call themselves a philosopher.
• Pro Everyone is a philosopher, since everyone does ask questions about life.
  • Objection It’s a false ungrounded assumption that everyone does so.
    • Objection It is an assumption, but it is grounded in the fact that we "humans" are still alive: everyone that is justly "able" and chooses to keep living have weighed the sides of life and death at one point. Questioning the environment is one of the first things that humans learn as they step into the world.
  • Objection Admittedly, all (adult?) people have to resolve some fundamental philosophical questions, such as what should I do in my life or is the world my dream. However, if that suffices for one to be called a philosopher, the statement "I am a philosopher" loses all meaning/differentiating power. And the point of predicating about subjects is to differentiate/discriminate. This suggests this approach is not a good idea.
    • Objection There should be no fundamental differentiation that comes from the title "philosopher". This comes from class values at its roots, and so is the statement that differentiation and discrimination is paramount to predicating about subjects.

Con

• Con One should have completed an accredited education in philosophy.
  • Objection Education is arbitrary. We consider Socrates a philosopher, yet he did not receive an accredited education. It seems reasonable to say that Socrates is popularly considered to be a philosopher. In this case, is popular thought wrong?
    • Objection Meta: An argument proper should not contain questions. This is an argument analysis exercise, not an interactive debate.
  • Objection What if people struggle with studying in school but are still good at philosophizing? Then they would never get the chance to call themselves a philosopher.
    • Objection Meta: An argument proper should not contain questions. This is an argument analysis exercise, not an interactive debate.
• Con One should be able to prove that one is engaged in philosophy if one wants to call oneself a philosopher. Otherwise even a non-philosopher with dishonest intentions can call himself a philosopher.
  • Objection There is no honest or dishonest intentions in the definition of philosophy, it is simply the desire to ponder.