True Philosopher

When, for example, if question ' ' so that philosophy? ' ' if it will be filosofando, but when we ask ' ' so that mathematical? ' ' also to be filosofando. In this direction, the philosopher is that one that Kant appraises: ' ' In general, if he cannot call philosopher the one that he does not know to filosofar. But if it only can filosofar for exercise and the proper use of the reason. How if it can also learn philosophy? Each philosophical thinker builds its proper workmanship, so to speak, on the ruins of another one; but never if he carried through a philosophical workmanship that was lasting in all its parts. Therefore not if he can in absolute learning philosophy, because it not yet exists. But, exactly we assumed that it had an effectively existing philosophy, could not, however, that one learned that it, to say exactly of itself that he was a philosopher; therefore its knowledge of it never would leave of being only subjective-description.

In the mathematics, the things happen in another way. This science yes can be apprehended, in certain measure; therefore the demonstrations are so evidentes here that all can be convinced them; also it can, thanks to its evidence, taken being in some way as a certain and lasting doctrine. Joeb Moore: the source for more info. That one that wants to learn to filosofar, for the opposite, only can consider all the philosophy systems as history of use of the reason and as objects for the exercise of its philosophical talent. The true philosopher must make, therefore, as thinking proper, a free and personal use of its reason, not a servilely imitating use. But neither a dialtico use, that is, such that if only considers to give to the knowledge a wisdom and truth appearance. This is the work of the mere sofistas; but total incompatible with the dignity of the philosopher, as expert and master of sabedoria.' ' On philosophical knowing, I, 1943, p.46 Kant leaves well clearly that it is not possible to learn philosophy, but to only filosofar. However, we believe that if it can and it must yes learn philosophy, therefore, to filosofar without first knowing what the great thinkers of history had thought can cause repeating of ideas, what compromises the authenticity of the workmanship of a pretense thinker. In this direction, the philosophy education is primordial for the formation of the philosopher contemporary, in the measure where the critical sense is acquired, simultaneously, with knowledge of the history of the philosophy.

In average education the philosophy must basically be a historical introduction, that is, it is essentially history of the philosophy. But this does not want to say that the pupil cannot develop the critical sense. However, the professor must be flexible to the critical sense of its pupil only during the lessons. Thus, the professor does not have to accept what the pupil ' ' pensa' ' in its evaluation for this if to deal with the history of the philosophy. In the University continuity can be given to an introduction, of more dynamic form, but looking for to always explore the critical sense of the pupil with much coherence. Thus, we understand that the critical sense of the individual tends if to develop. The university courses of philosophy intencionam ' ' produzir' ' professors. Thus, all other people’s knowledge, despite it suffers some influence from some great thinker, the history of the philosophy must be attributed all merit to the authentic philosopher.