A Concise Guide to Philosophy -- A Revamped Introduction

(For more meta-philosophy material, here are some articles:

https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophers-and-relevancy

https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-to-become-a-philosopher-philosophy-as-art-and-science)

A Concise Guide to Philosophy -- A Revamped Introduction

(For a great, brief introduction of philosophy, here is an external source).

(Background music)

Let's begin with a fun fact: In Hebrew, philosophers are called “Formulators of Ideas” (Hogeh De’ot in singular, Hogei De'ot in plural), which can be interpreted as opinions, assumptions, and theories. They do this through inquiry, contemplation, and research. It's also possible to argue that contemplation is a form of research. Whereas scientists experiment empirically, philosophers communicate, either through speech, discussion, or writing. Should the philosopher experiment, they would use thought experiments.

An opinion stops being just that when it covers a philosophical subject with a great deal of focus on reason, and is backed up by evidence. Then, that opinion becomes elevated beyond a mere assumption.

Even in the search of truth, we are bound to our own conception, since everything we do comes from ourselves and/or cooperation with others. And since the self is subjective, so are its deeds and expressions, regardless of existence.

Being bound to ourselves means that we are bound to the functionality of our brains as thinkers. Thus, should we improve said functionality by improving our reasoning and preserving our cognition, we can then take better advantage of the work tool that is the brain. And there is no thinker that does not use his brain for carrying out cognitive tasks.

As such, philosophers are considered "great thinkers" because they often do whatever they can to not only use their cognitive skills constantly but also make sure these skills are not impaired by irrationality. A seasoned philosopher would in theory be able to criticize anyone and anything, as critical thinking is a very core element stored in the tool box that's the thinker's brain. It would only make sense that a philosopher who is a poor critical thinker is also a poor philosopher.

The more logical and evidence-backed an opinion is, the more likely it is to be a fact or at least close to it. This is why different philosophers reach different conclusions on the same issue: As philosophers may approach the same issues differently. It is why different philosophers are distinguished by name, the more they are known. For there is a certain, unique individuality to each philosopher, which is evident in the way they think, and in the ideas they formulate.

And as such, philosophers may create different schools of thought, and may have their own brand of thinking, categorized by their names. And as such, my own thinking is of the Rubinshteinic kind.

Philosophy is the search for truth through the creation of premises, followed by their legitimacy for existence through good logical reasoning and searched evidence. Once a premise is built on these two, and once it is considered philosophical, it is a philosophical idea. It is an idea which can also be considered an opinion, as opinions can be correct as well, and thus should not be degraded nor discarded, as they could be more valid than others.

Example: If you believe there is a God, and God exists, then your belief is true; a belief known as theism; which is a theory, which is an assumption. Therefore, assumptions could be true, and not just mere speculations, backed up by momentary impressions of an object/idea. The truth is out there and can be found even through subjectivity, which we are bound to by existing as subjective beings.

And in this article, I attempted to redeem the logical worth of subjectivity.

Hence why the sentence "in my opinion, God exists" is true if there's actually a God. This means that our opinions could either be true, or serve as valid indications of truth. And as the premise of this article went: The philosopher is a formulator of ideas/opinions. It is the job of the philosopher to formulate valid opinions that could lead us to a greater understanding of reality around us.

The pseudo-philosopher may lack clarity and may "sin" in delusional thinking, which he or she may regard as valid points towards reality. The more he or she does it, the more evident that they are a pseudo-philosopher, or someone that markets themselves as a true philosopher, but lack the qualities of true philosopher-ship.

If you believe it will rain tomorrow and it will, your assumption becomes true, even if it was a product of your subjective opinion. Ultimately, the truth exists regardless of the tools we've used along the way to find it. And according to consequentialist thought, the end justifies the means.

Should someone call you pretentious for expressing your philosophical opinions, remember that even opinions can be true, as all opinions are beliefs or disbeliefs, which, through the work of scientists and philosophers, can be backed up and thus indicate whether your opinions are, in fact, true or false.

And when you advertise yourself as a philosopher, you need to "walk the talk" -- prove that you are indeed a philosopher. Or else, you will be deemed pretentious wrongly, even if you are not a pseudo-philosopher. That's because people can quickly submit to their confirmation bias, and as such, deliver misinformation by their own unintentional accord. Prove yourself publicly, and make your evidence present as a credible entity, and you can reduce this bias in the minds and hearts of others.

Let me finish with this: If you're going to be a public philosopher, make sure you are not as sensitive enough, to the point that you will succumb to your emotional biases.