The basic thesis of the article is that dishonourable philosopher does not really exist and the idea of “dishonourable philosopher” is a nonsense. According to the author, if we deal with the philosopher who acts dishonourably, we can be certain that he was temporarily blinded by something, or probably we deal with a distinguished expert in philosophy, historian of philosophy or writer of philosophical verve but not with a philosopher. In order to prove it, the author refers to the classic Plato…
Read moreThe basic thesis of the article is that dishonourable philosopher does not really exist and the idea of “dishonourable philosopher” is a nonsense. According to the author, if we deal with the philosopher who acts dishonourably, we can be certain that he was temporarily blinded by something, or probably we deal with a distinguished expert in philosophy, historian of philosophy or writer of philosophical verve but not with a philosopher. In order to prove it, the author refers to the classic Platonic understanding of philosophy as the love of wisdom and to the phenomenology of Max Scheler who perceives a particular moral attitude of a person as a precondition of the ability to look inside the essence of the matter