May anyone call themselves a philosopher?

This resource is a wikidebate, a collaborative effort to gather and organize all arguments on a given issue. It is a tool of argument analysis or pro-and-con analysis. This is not a place to defend your preferred points of view, but original arguments are allowed and welcome. See the Wikidebate guidelines for more.

Subject classification: this is a philosophy resource.

Philosophy is the love of or the desire for wisdom[fact?]. Everyone can philosophize. You ask yourself big questions and then think about those questions. But if everyone can philosophize, does that mean everyone may call themselves a philosopher, regardless of their experience or education? Or are there certain requirements for this?

• Pro The term 'philosopher' is not protected, unlike 'doctor' or 'historian'.^[1] This means that anyone can call themselves a philosopher.
• Pro Everyone is a philosopher, since everyone does ask questions about life.
  • Objection It’s a false ungrounded assumption that everyone does so.
  • Objection Admittedly, all (adult?) people have to resolve some fundamental philosophical questions, such as what should I do in my life or is the world my dream. However, if that suffices for one to be called a philosopher, the statement "I am a philosopher" loses all meaning/differentiating power. And the point of predicating about subjects is to differentiate/discriminate. This suggests this approach is not a good idea.

• Con One should have completed an accredited education in philosophy.
  • Objection Education is arbitrary. We consider Socrates a philosopher, yet he did not receive an accredited education. It seems reasonable to say that Socrates is popularly considered to be a philosopher. In this case, is popular thought wrong?
    • Objection Meta: An argument proper should not contain questions. This is an argument analysis exercise, not an interactive debate.
  • Objection What if people struggle with studying in school but are still good at philosophizing? Then they would never get the chance to call themselves a philosopher.
    • Objection Meta: An argument proper should not contain questions. This is an argument analysis exercise, not an interactive debate.
• Con One should be able to prove that one is engaged in philosophy if one wants to call oneself a philosopher. Otherwise even a non-philosopher with dishonest intentions can call himself a philosopher.