Reader Lisa has once again rolled me in a comment string a nut to crack on this page.
She wrote:
'And no, I would not call myself a "philosopher". This term is mandatory to me .... '
And besides, for use with:
'Magnus, you're right when you say that I occasionally provoke, then, if anyone join in 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 to mandatory, may not even because she is a woman.
In what way it could be mandatory when someone calls himself a philosopher respectively philosopher?
In the sense of the fact that it is so in a systematic responsible for delivery (within the meaning systematic - strategy - action as well as a system to be delivered) adventure himself? 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 at one of the most renowned philosophical faculties worldwide) studied, a man whose mental abilities otherwise I really appreciate that Nietzsche had even been a real philosopher because he was not a closed system . have presented such as Kant (Nietzsche once said that I now quote from memory, he does not trust basically all systematists ... But he also said: "We ... new philosophers") (more ...)
