User talk:Alexscara

Welcome to Wikipedia
Mushroom (Talk) 22:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Gilles Bernheim
Hi, My question is - surely you can be a philosopher without holding the title of "agrégé of philosophy. The question would be - does he have sufficient originality of thought.  I don't know if the admitted plagiarism is enough to discount all his thinking, but it sounds as if it doesn't.  jmo.  Springnuts (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Part of the problem is your edit summary, imho, which makes it appear as if the lack of the specific qualification is what you think stops a person being a philosopher.  But you pack a lot of POV when you say "the rational tradition of philosophy can sometimes be at odds with a more mystical understanding of the world by religious thinkers."  I think it depends what he is writing - is he writing philosophy or not.  If he is, then I would say he is a philosopher.  But I am happy to let others make the judgment - eg this since your revert: .    Regards,  Springnuts (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Quote: you've reversed my edits twice. Not me, me hearty.  One to me; one to Barrelproof.  Friendly regards,  Springnuts (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)-