I have not studied the subject as you and some of those making comments, so some of it gets too intricate, leaving me a bit confused, even when I think I have grasped the basics.
As I'm reading, I cannot help wonder at how philosophers differ from non-specialised philosophers, for most of us tend to link our way of thinking to emotions. I would not dare claim that either is wrong; we need, to function realistically in life, to have the ability to use both view. Perhaps it is also that by the actual alternating, we arrive at new insights and new uses are created for us to theorise on?
I was amused to read your comment
here are certain things here and there, tho, that strike me as thoughts of genius, and that chime well with some of my own approaches.
That sounds very human of you :)
I have learnt a few things from this post, which means it is given value by me, even if all I can reward you with is a thank you.
+++
I was wondering, what if you meet an old man, somewhere in the hills of Cyprus, and you find out that he has lived for over 2,000 years.
Though not educated (formal education), he has given much thought to what life is and what gives meaning to our existence. Some of his thoughts seem to have originated from thoughts of philosophers of other ages, but they have evolved in sometimes weird ways and some of it that mostly originates from him, is so different it does not make much sense to anyone of this age.
Would you feel it is important to study and learn from him? Do you think it would alter the way you see philosophical subjects?
Now, let us change the scenario slightly. Think of an ancient philosopher you highly respect; whether Socratis, Plato or anyone else, of any national origin. You meet him and find he has changed, his thinking in some ways far more intricate, spiralling in ways that confuse you and in other ways, he has simplified many of his theories so that he has little time for those who have not.
Would you want to learn from him, despite the risk of the changes perhaps alienating you from the man you were and all other philosophers of our time?
(Sorry, but as you probably know of me, I love playing games of the mind...not for others, but for myself, so that I sometimes find I change. Maybe I grow, evolve, and maybe in fact, I actually devolve - but at least I don't remain what I am for too long.)
Philosophy welcomes anyone, as well as science. Being a professional philosopher matters to the extent that other people's opinions matter. What you describe about old philosophers and mountains, is what I do whenever I pick up a book! I can go back 2000 years ago, or travel to another continent, etc. I would listen to anything your non-specialized philosopher has to say. After all, I read a lot, and reading is by its nature mostly listening.
I actually get your comment quite often in different forms, I mean the gist of it, which I believe to be "can't non-philosophers philosophize?" or "aren't we all philosophers?"
The thing is, practically, you can discover all the truths of mathematics by yourself, but you'll benefit if you study others who went over it already. It will save you time, and keep you from "wasting" your time rediscovering other people's thoughts. If I were an immortal I'd rather rediscover it all by myself, but we don't have that luxury of time, so we must cut corners, i.e. study, either in an academic institution or independently but with similar rigorousness.
In general, I would learn from anyone, and we should all learn from everyone. Sometimes though people are just inconsistent. There are rules of thought just as there are rules of math. Sometimes people are even downright mischievous and dishonest. We should recognize those cases, so as to release ourselves from the tutelage and/or influence of these people as quickly as possible!
As always, I'm thankful for the reading and the comment, hopefully my reply is up to par!