While it is important to study philosophy and the subjects therein, an often-overlooked question that few seem to grapple with is what constitutes a philosopher in the first place. When we think of the term philosopher in your minds, mental images flash of Greek wise men, sitting upon a stone, pondering mysteries. Others may think of Roman emperors and their entourages, akin to Marcus Aurelius. Still others may bring up Siddhartha or Confucius from Eastern ideologies. All of these answers are fair and correct. However, these simply cannot nor should not be the end of the discussion.
I began my search to this question where all reputable deep dives for truth begin; Wikipedia (sarcasm!). The issues listed on the main page of Philosopher are numerous. First, the requirement of “deep thinker” and “lover of wisdom” from Ancient Greek translations are introduced. However, this is not a very helpful answer. This is because nearly anybody can claim these attributes. Very few people, then or now, would prance about idly proclaiming their love of ignorance and explicit love of being dumb. Many more people proclaim to be rational, reasonable people (even as Dan Ariely’s book Predictably Irrational debunks, but that is beside the point right now).
The Wikipedia page lists those who contribute to the fields comprising philosophy as philosophers. Conventional wisdoms states that in order to do this, one must obtain a Ph.D and publish articles in their field of expertise. However, this is a flawed criteria. If “having a Ph.D” is a requirement than that actively rules out several of the greatest philosophers throughout history. Surely, the requirement of graduate school shouldn’t be used as it undermines the bedrock of it’s field. Furthermore, even in our modern era as back in the golden age of philosophy (whenever that was?), one did not need a Ph.D to publish something profound (or for their time, upsetting, since history is littered with discoveries and statements that were upsetting for their time). Case in point, Betty Friedman and Gloria Steinem are often-quoted however they both lack Ph.D’s.
If we continue to hold that “having a Ph.D” is an absolute must, then that will almost certainly extend to “one who teaches philosophy” as a requirement. While there are some instances of this occurring throughout history (i.e Socrates teaching Plato, Aristotle teaching Alexander the Great, and so on), in our modern world this means teaching on a college campus. The more time one spends teaching, the less time is naturally spent on being a practitioner or researcher. It is difficult to live on the bleeding edge of pushing ethical issues forward and grade papers written by under-motivated eighteen-year-old freshman. Therefore, unless a Ph.D is publishing regularly and teaching philosophy to barely-adults, then the philosopher-in-question is no longer The Man in the Arena (to paraphrase former president Theodore Roosevelt). A non-publishing Ph.D is essentially a highly-credentialed pundit.
The limited utility of pundits becomes even more clear in the realm of social theory and sociology. A non-publishing Ph.D sitting in the ivy-coated walls of a liberal arts college may know a lot of the foundational textbook theories of how society functions but applying this to The Man in the Arena lens, they are merely well-educated spectators. Contrast that with esteemed billionaire Jay-Z. He emerged from a struggling home in NYC and rose to stardom in the 1990’s. His net worth has exploded over the past decade with several successful business ventures, thereby catapulting him to the Three Comma Club. Jay-Z is a practitioner and his wisdom cannot nor should not be overlooked. Jay-Z is The Man in the Arena who has won many a gladiator match. Jay-Z has formed, through hard-fought victories, a pretty thorough understanding of society. Jay-Z is more of a philosopher than a non-publishing Ph.D or pundit.
With all of that said, why are Jay-Z’s quotes not held in the same regard as his Ph.D touting contemporaries? Is Jay-Z’s fire-forged views of the world somehow less relevant or less worthy of consideration? Who gets dubbed a philosopher is a charged topic, one rife with the bias towards academicians instead of those who actively move the world as discussed above.
The Wikipedia page also proclaims that politics and political theory are sub-fields of philosophy. This isn’t wrong, per se. Going as far back as Plato’s The Republic, philosophers have dabbled in political theory. However, this breaks down in modern-day America, with our reverent love of radicalization between our two parties. Thus, the process of who is-or more importantly, isn’t-dubbed a philosopher is dictated on what is favorable to the radicals of whatever party is in control of Washington. To frame it another way, when Republican’s control the cultural narrative, professional pundit Ben Shapiro is far more likely to be dubbed a philosopher while the lauded Jay-Z will likely not be. This is bias in some of it’s most blatant forms and hence who becomes ordained as a philosopher is obscured behind a wall of exclusion. This inherent bias will alter the course of history because the losers of the political/philosophical rat-race will be forgotten to time.
So where does this leave us? Frankly, my bias is not towards the non-publishing Ph.D or towards the pundit, but towards The Man in the Arena. Jay-Z, Wiz Khalifa, Jack Welch, and Peter Thiel are certainly philosophers in my book. Their quotes and accomplishments will-and should-live on the passage of time. Marijuana-loving college freshman will study the likes of Jay-Z, Elon Musk, and Anthony Bourdain several generations from now just as current study Plato and Siddhartha.
Home Page 