"The value of philosophy is… to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find…that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never traveled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect." Bertrand Russell: The Problems of Philosophy, p. 157
What is a philosopher? A ‘true’ philosopher is not a seeker of wisdom, is not a thinker about wisdom, is not an expert in wisdom, is not a writer about the subject of wisdom, is not one who analyzes data – a true philosopher may be involved in all of these tasks but that is not her true essence. To understand what it means to truly be a philosopher we must consider the words origin.
The word itself is of Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), a compound of φίλος (phílos: friend, or lover) and σοφία (sophía: wisdom). The term has been considered to be one coined by the ancient Greek thinker Pythagoras. Although Socrates did not coin the term he is who I associate with as embodying the meaning of the word – he is and was a lover of wisdom.
A philosopher is first and foremost a lover. A lover is someone who is passionate about her beloved, and in this case the beloved is wisdom. Wisdom is imagined as and is personified in human form as: Sophia. The word philosopher metaphorically ascribes the relationship of love between two human beings to that of the relationship of a person with wisdom.
A true philosopher is one who loves with both the mind and a body consumed with the passion and desire to be with, understand, share, know, touch, taste, join with and be consumed by her beloved. For Socrates, as Plato presents his thoughts, love, the Greek word he uses is Eros, is a continuum of emotions and responses. According to Socrates one could be passionately in love with someone and yet not desire to physically / sexually consummate that relationship, a love of a friend or comrade could be a non-physical / non sexual but passionate loving relationship. For Plato’s Socrates Eros is in its underlying essence the attraction of and the desire for Beauty. Through the pursuit of and the finding of Beauty one discovers also the True and the Good. The passionate and physical consummation of that Eros can give birth to the beautiful in the form of a child, and that passion can also give birth to a metaphoric child in the form of the artful expression and manifestation of beauty.
To know if you are in the presence of a true philosopher listen to her metaphors – do you hear therein the metaphors of love – sexual and the non-sexual language of love? Another way to know if you are in the presence of a true philosopher is to inquire into her sex and love life. Does she even have a lover? How does she treat him/her? A true lover, honors, cherishes, respects, cares for, shares with, longs for, desires, etc., their beloved. A true lover listens to their beloved and learns to see the world through their eyes, and very soul. A true lover is a unity of two people in the most intimate and most profound manner possible between human beings, although as Plato/Socrates noted, this Eros need not be physically consummated, but it will be physically expressed.
A thinker, whose metaphors are those of the mind alone, detached from and devoid of references to the body can not be a lover. One can not truly love another without a body. A lover is one who joyfully and fully embraces their body and the feelings and emotions it stirs. Lovers connect through their bodies with their beloved – that contact is a continuum from the chaste touch, holding, embrace and kiss, to the more ardent touching, holding embracing, kissing, suckle, caress, fondle, gaze upon, and ultimate joining with the other in that bliss of full intimate physical union.
One can be a lover and be celibate. For example, there are nuns and monks who have been labeled mystics – their love and passion posses them – but they do not and have not consummated that love and passion. Their words speak out with the metaphors of love and passion – they feel it to the depths of their soul – these are rare individuals who manage to be lovers without the physical consummation of that love.
But, there have been many who claimed to be, or are said to be philosophers – but these are passionless and disembodied beings, men and women cut off from their bodies, their feelings and emotions - those who are mere pretenders. They are thus not truly capable of being passionate lovers and thus are not truly philosophers. Be wary of the words and teachings of passionless thinkers.


Comments: 6
I see the 'normal' man, as wanting be other than, taking various 'directions' in a quest for knowledge first to hopefully culminate in wisdom that is about truth and love, in another term, a truly spiritual person.
Glad to see you active again here Gary (and always remember that my comments are usually 'aimed' more at potential readers than the author of the articles) :-)
When mankind takes that initial step from the 'ordinary' (IF they do at all, most do not), many seek answers in formal religion, others seek such in science ... both of these seem to mostly end up dealing in 5 sensory objectivity (though religion will insist otherwise, usually out of ignorance and pride) as the predominant determinations seem to indicate. Thus those two paths go in the direction of objectivity where scientific proof and faith are the determinants, each is never content, either searching or waiting.
As 'opposed' to the previous, there is another 'direction' that the philosopher takes, it is one into the realm of subjectivity, realms considered 'beyond' the 5 sensory (a realm religion speaks of yet oft settles for far less).
A successful philosopher will explore into the realm of the metaphysical, realms the religious and scientist steer well clear of, especially the religious that would call such the dark occult bordering on or well extended into evil as far as they are concerned.
As far as I am concerned personally, the transcendence beyond both philosophy and metaphysics will be the meeting of God or that closest spiritual truth that represents God by whatever name. Only then does one experience truly what is God's truth, UNconditional Love ... there is nothing better available to humankind that I am aware of ... IMnsHO.
I've been busy - found love, once again and been working on this book that is the source of this posting.
I too see the philosopher as someone who is a potential bridge between the world as viewed by scientists and the world as view by theologians.
The idea of the essay to focus on the philosopher as "lover" is to recall that we are not disembodied minds - which is how so many scientists, theologians and others who call themselves philosophers, actually act. When you think and act as the only source of importance is mental or non-physical things - you end up with a distorted view of yourself, others and the world. Hence my exploration of the "lover".
To remind us all that we are minds & spirits with a body, we are a unity. Something that you usual take notice of in your writings.
Thinking should be a passionate act - hence the metaphor of the Lover with its awareness of the physical. We are not and truly can not be dispassionate onlookers on life.
Glad to here the news of what has been happening with you, sounds like you are practicing what you 'preach' ... Later, j.