Reader Lisa has once again rolled me in a comment string a nut to crack on this page.
You wrote:
'And no, I would not call myself a "philosopher". This term is too ... mandatory. '
And moreover, for use with:
'Magnus, you're right when you say that I occasionally provoke, then, if someone participates to discuss the provocation. But it is not a strategy, but sometimes it seems necessary to revive a discussion. '
I assume first that Lisa not only, therefore, the term "philosopher" for the mandatory, perhaps not, because she is a woman.
In what way it could be mandatory if someone calls himself a philosopher, respectively philosopher?
In the sense of the fact that it is so in a systematic responsible for delivery (in the sense of systematic - strategic - approach as well as a deliverable system) only push? So freedom in action, expression, ultimately forfeited even in thought? Needless unwise attack surfaces would offer the opportunity to be of Gelahrten ridiculous?
After all, I already heard of one who in Heidelberg (herewith on one of the most prestigious philosophy departments worldwide) studied, a man whose mental abilities otherwise I really appreciate that Nietzsche had even been a proper philosopher, because he not a closed system . had presented such as Kant (Nietzsche once said, I quote now from memory, he does not trust basically all taxonomists ... But he also said: "We are the new philosophers ...") (more ...)
