william l. craig

[Angrboda]

I think we can all agree that someone who repeatedly calls himself a "professional philosopher" can be alot of things, except a "professional philosopher".

What is a "professional philosopher" anyway?
Are there also "unprofessional philosophers"?
Maybe even "semi professional philosophers"?

Most books I read by philosophers were simply writen by people who were called "philosophers" and that by others and not by themselves.
Kant called himself a goegrapher, Hannah arent refused to be called a philosopher, I dont know what Karl Popper called himself, neighter what Adorno and Habermass called themselves.

I don't know. I think the term "professional philosopher" and the related "professional philosophy" are perfectly legitimate terms, and that they indicate that, at a minimum, the person has substantial credentials in philosophy from an institute of higher learning, and preferably that they use the skills acquired in pursuit of their professional careers. I've met a few bona fide professional philosophers, including ones that called themselves professional philosophers, and I didn't see anything phony or hubristic in most such claims. Philosophy, like any other modern specialization, requires standards and means by which one can separate the qualified from those who simply hung out a shingle a mere two hours ago. (I'm just now noticing that Craig's credentials were granted in philosophy of religion from an Evangelical seminary. All the same, Graham Oppy, one of my favorites, also occupies himself primarily with philosophy of religion, and I'd be the last to deny him his props.) No, I don't have a problem with either William Lane Craig or William Dembski claiming the title of professional philosopher, as it appears evident that they have earned that right. (I'm much more disturbed when people refer to Craig as a scientist.) And the fact that in the past, many renowned philosophers weren't themselves professionals in this sense doesn't negate the fact that many of them were. (I think. Wittgenstein, Russell, Godel, Quine, Kant [Kant studied philosophy at the University of Konigsberg, where he later held the chair in logic and metaphysics for fifteen years; of all the examples you might choose, I fail to see why you feel Kant a commendable one], Moore, Dennett, Searle.... I'm not coming up with many contemporary names that don't fit the mold.)

That being said, there is the legitimate question of how much credibility that grants you. While I'm sure many professional philosophers could readily school me in practically any topic in philosophy I cared to address, it's also been my impression that philosophy is one of the most sorely unacknowledged refuges for the incompetent. I'm tempted to conclude that a key indicator for a guidance counselor to recommend a student to pursue a career in philosophy is that said student be "dumber than a sackful of hammers." As someone who describes herself as an amateur philosopher, I'm dumbfounded by the lackluster and dull intellects of many in the profession.