Expectations of a Philosopher
- May 13
- 2 min read
I see a mismatch between the common, collective view of a philosopher and what is productive for a philosopher to be.
I have defined philosophy as the study of truth over time
All too often, people view philosophy as a way of figuring out what the best, most optimal way of doing things is. This is idealism and while it can be a part of philosophy, it is not the goal of philosophy itself.
All too often, people view a philosopher as someone who must be a role model and set the best precedents for others to follow. I disagree with this. A great philosopher is one that is themself and is not trying to be anything other than themself. This is setting the best possible precedent for a philosopher. If they are a role model, it is by chance but it is unproductive to expect it.
If someone is trying to be a leader or fill a particular social role in which modeling ideal behavior is a necessity, then of course they must be a role model.
I would argue that a philosopher is the only kind of person or public figure which being a deontological role model is not to be expected. The only expectation that makes sense for a philosopher is for them to be themself. That's it. Anything more or less is unproductive.
The expectation for a philosopher to be themself is also much better than Nietzsche's view that "for a philosopher to deserve our respect, they must preach by example." I've poked holes in this in various places but another hole is that a philosopher is commonly misunderstood in what they are preaching. Slander is also incredibly common among philosophers. To hold them accountable for the perception of what they preach is unrealistic. Tis much more realistic to hold them accountable to being themself.
Comments