Hi all-
What's the proper term for a group of philosophers?
My sense is that there is no widely accepted term for a group of philosophers. I do think there ought to be one. So, I thought I would tap the wisdom of the philosophical crowds for some nominees. I'm looking for something pithy, clear (so, no 'argument of philosophers'), and the kind of thing that in retrospect seems almost obvious.
The winning suggestion, as judged by me, will be announced during a talk I will give at the Pacific APA. Fame and fortune are sure to follow, or failing that, infamy and life as usual. Moreover, should I publish the paper in which I plan to use your suggestion, full credit will be given to you for suggesting the term, which will surely be grounds for admiration by the two or three people who read the paper.
Nominations are now open, and the contest will continue up until I give the paper around 9am-ish on Thursday March 20th, or whenever I last check the GFP before giving said paper.
Thanks in advance for you help with this crucial piece of soon-to-be immortal linguistic convention, or at any rate, the convention used in that sentence of my talk.
In the same spirit of seriousness in which you pose the question, I propose "wad," as in "a wad of philosophers descended on the town meeting, fussily disputed the very notions of 'town' and 'meeting,' and generally made a complete hash of it."
Why should this be the winner? Well, it's hard to get pithier than 3 letters. Furthermore, it is obvious to any non-philosopher that the term suits the gummy knots of anxious, unemployed dishevelledness that haunt the lobbies of hotels hosting APA division meetings. Finally, "wad" does double duty as a term for a single member of said groups, as in, "You do philosophy? Like, for a job? Dude, you are a total wad."
In the event that this is a winning entry, you may donate my fame to a worthy cause of your choosing.
Posted by: Eleatic Ephesian | March 06, 2008 at 02:46 PM
How about a "soro" of philosophers? ('Soro' is Greek for 'heap'; cf. Sorites.) Then there could be amusing, covertly self-referential debates about precisely how many philosophers constitute a soro.
Runners Up:
A priory...
An adicity...
A viz.... (namely, videlicet)
A fitch...
A set... (alas, probably takene by the mathematicians)
A P(x)... (where x is any philosopher; but how would we pronounce it?)
Posted by: Q the Enchanter | March 06, 2008 at 03:18 PM
The "term" you're seeking is a collective noun. I've got the following suggestions:
A colloquy of philosophers.
A stoa of philosophers.
A sufferance of philosophers.
Posted by: t e whalen | March 06, 2008 at 03:29 PM
I believe "P(x)" would be pronounced "pox," as in "A pox on that pox of philosophers!"
a veil of philosophers
an onta of philosophers
a semblance of philosophers
Uncharitably:
a prolix of philosophers
Posted by: Roman Altshuler | March 06, 2008 at 03:47 PM
A group of philosophers is certainly nothing more than a gruep of philosophers.
Posted by: Justin Coates | March 06, 2008 at 04:14 PM
I'm quite fond of 'wad'. 'Gruep' and 'pox' are also winners.
Posted by: Andrei Buckareff | March 06, 2008 at 07:01 PM
A "lemma" of philosophers.
Posted by: David Zimmerman | March 06, 2008 at 07:06 PM
OMG! Manuel--you could not have put a more fitting challenge to your peers. . . and me too!
The collectives " A(n) X of philosophers" that occur to me, unranked by positive/negative connotation:
X=
Platoon (long "a" obviously)
Plenum
Proof
Argument
Mind-set
Symposium
Conclusion
System
Acknowledgement
Employment (equivocal)
Unemployment (unequivocal)
Quash
Quandry
Footnote
Publish (or) Perish
Prehension
Parsimony
Problem
Pedantry
Impertinence
Reflection
Refutation
Affront
Misery
Plague
No doubt more to come. . .
Posted by: V. Alan White | March 06, 2008 at 08:48 PM
Unfortunately, "school of philosophers" already means something else.
I suggest "compound". As opposed to "monad", naturally.
Posted by: Pseudonym | March 06, 2008 at 10:25 PM
A 'gaggle' seems right. One definition is "a group of people, especially a noisy or disorderly group."
Posted by: Joe Campbell | March 06, 2008 at 10:47 PM
For those looking for inspiration look here:
http://www.rinkworks.com/words/collective.shtml
An "implausibility" of gnus?
Posted by: Matt McAdam | March 07, 2008 at 01:26 AM
Since we are talking about a discipline that prides itself on 1. specificity and accuracy, and 2. clarity, any collective term for philosophers should meet the following conditions:
1. It should accurately convey the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a group of philosophers.
2a. It should be a familiar English term, not in need of continual clarification or explanation.
2b. It should be a plausible candidate for being a linguistic convention, rather than a spur-of-the-moment, cutesy label.
Many of the above terms fail on point 1, since it is not *always* the case that a group of philosophers is e.g. pedantic or reflective. Similarly, many of the terms fail point 2a and 2b, since there would be far too many impediments to clear and effortless communication using the term ("a what of philosophers?") and hence too many occasions for misunderstanding and residual ambiguity ("oh, I thought you meant only that kind of philosopher ...").
On reflection, the English phrase which mostly closely and clearly conveys the property of being a group of philosophers is "a group of philosophers." This phrase, I submit, has analytical benefits that far outstrip any of other proposals above, ingenious as they may be. It is familiar, clear, and there are unlikely to be instances where a group of philosophers is not, in fact, group-like.
Nevertheless, the term "group" is far from perfect, since there are many groups that are not groups of philosophers. For instance, the Beatles and Supertramp were both groups, but these were not groups of philosophers, or at least not groups of philosophers qua philosophers. Hence there is a lack of specificity.
I propose therefore that we use the term "a group* of philosophers", where a group* is defined as any group except those that are not groups of philosophers. This proposal retains the intuitive linguistic clarity of the term "group" and is also remarkably accurate.
(It may also, incidentally, be of some help to us in understanding the phenomenon of groupies*.)
Posted by: Simon Cabulea May | March 07, 2008 at 06:58 AM
I believe the standard term here, at least as recorded in James Lipton's wonderful book, An Exaltation of Larks, is "a wrangle of philosophers." There's a terrific illustration in the book that goes with that term, at least as I remember it. There are monkeys hanging from various objects, animatedly engaged in argument.
Posted by: Hilary Kornblith | March 07, 2008 at 08:26 AM
Some suggestions, all short and sweet and perfect candidates for a linguistic convention:
A fusion of philosophers.
A sum of philosophers.
A mess of philosophers.
A trick of philosophers.
A block of philosophers.
A clog of philosophers.
A shamble of philosophers.
Posted by: Neal Tognazzini | March 07, 2008 at 08:41 AM
Okay, semi-seriously at least, a collective term for philosophers has to work at the level that, say, "a pod of whales" does. I guess that's why common phi-linked words like "argument", etc. won't work. Even in the context of discussion of a group of philosophers, one could not use these conveniently and singularly as just a collective as one does "pod" in "And then the pod went South" (Though the results could be quite amusing: "And then the argument went South.") So maybe neologism is the way to go--though repetition into common use works wonders. (Hey, even if we seize on a common term, we couldn't be worse off than the obscurity of "a murder of crows".)
So once again, for "A(n) X of philosophers" how about X=:
Brucet (from Monty Python's sketch based on uniform designation coextensive with all philososphers; we could then argue whether to pronouce it "Bruce-et"--like Bruce and duet, or "Broo-shay" with that cool french twist.)
Fog (or pretentiously, "Phog"--a collection of obscuring gray matter--nicely alliterative too.)
Posted by: Alan White | March 07, 2008 at 09:57 AM
a derangement of philosophers
Posted by: Al Mele | March 07, 2008 at 12:01 PM
A gruep of philosophers is a great suggestion. Before having read the comments 'gruep' was my first thought. Alternatively, in the spirit of gadfly-ery:
A cloud of philosophers
A swarm of philosophers
And because of my theoretical commitments, I feel compelled to offer:
A bundle of philosophers
Posted by: Graduate Student #4 | March 07, 2008 at 12:22 PM
"It should be a familiar English term, not in need of continual clarification or explanation."
Why should the collective noun for philosophers have properties their writings so rarely do? ;-0
Anyway, here's an "aye" for 'Gruep' as well. Love it.
Did want to note, just in case it was missed, that my "A priory" was a play on "a priori." (Well, I thought it was funny.)
Posted by: Q the Enchanter | March 07, 2008 at 02:03 PM
Simon wrote:
"It may also, incidentally, be of some help to us in understanding the phenomenon of groupies*"
You know, I've always wondered why they don't give workshops to philosophy graduate students to warn them about the potential dangers posed by the tidal wave of philosophy groupies they'll encounter as soon as they enter the world of professional philosophy. (The kind of workshops they run for rookies in the NFL or NBA, for example.) I think some of us arrive unprepared to deal with all the temptations and pitfalls that come with instant celebrity.
Posted by: Tamler Sommers | March 07, 2008 at 03:39 PM
A "confusion" of philosophers?
Posted by: Oisin Deery | March 07, 2008 at 08:47 PM
Despite having provided my own suggestion, I'm going to cast a(n inconsequential?) vote for "quandary," one more for "derangement," and finally, one against "group*."
Concerning the last, deconstructionists might accuse Mr. May of poaching on Derrida's ("La Différance") territory by proposing a distinction of terms that is visible without being audible. The term "group*" itself, they might say, is a sign of its own function of self-erasing exclusion. The only ones who "get" how "group*" is used (and who would never consider themselves part of a "group") are, practically by definition, those who belong to a group*. Or some such thing....
Mr. Sommers should not gloat. One TT appointment does not a baller make. :)
Posted by: Eleatic Ephesian | March 07, 2008 at 09:28 PM
Tamler -- it's mostly the paparazzi* that get on my nerves.
Eleatic -- I don't think the audibility criticism would hold water, as one would pronounce the term "group*" as opposed to just "group."
Posted by: Simon Cabulea May | March 07, 2008 at 09:51 PM
Why not use the greek 'sori' (a heap)?
Posted by: carey | March 08, 2008 at 08:36 AM
Great question!
So far, my favorite has been a symposium of philosophers. But in case that term is too likely to cause confusion about when we are discussing an actual portion of a conference as opposed to a group of philosophers in a bar, I propose the following:
a query
a pondering
Audrey
Posted by: Audrey Anton | March 08, 2008 at 03:56 PM
Some thoughts:
A demonstration of philosophers
A quibble of philosophers
An deduction of philosophers
A persuasion of philosophers
Posted by: Jonathan Jong | March 09, 2008 at 01:10 AM
Perhaps the term should helpfully reflect what philosophers by nature are supposed to do (i.e. love wisdom), but 'an amorance of philosophers' or 'a love-in of philosophers' would lack wisdom-specificity...
Posted by: Robert Seddon | March 09, 2008 at 08:12 AM
The philosophical covenancy or the covenancy of philosophers
Posted by: Anibal | March 09, 2008 at 09:35 AM
One that my wife would no doubt agree with:
An annoyance of philosophers
A more Socratic one:
An introspection of philosophers
Or one for the ethicists among us:
A consequence of philosophers
This last one has the advantage of being true. Every time there is a group of philosophers, the existence of that group is a consequence of philosophers.
Posted by: Alastair Norcross | March 09, 2008 at 02:36 PM
How about a "reduction" of philosophers?
reduction =df. a) to draw together or cause to converge, b) a group shown to be entirely dispensable in favor of another (physicists, probably...)
Posted by: Bradley J Rettler | March 09, 2008 at 06:19 PM
A file of philosophers.
Semantically, it only works if they're traveling in a line, or being evaluated during a job search.
Posted by: Justin | March 09, 2008 at 09:03 PM
I have a colleague who avers that the correct term for three philosophers is a "trifle".
Posted by: Dillon | March 10, 2008 at 08:38 AM
Maybe this should be a context dependent collective noun. For example, a murder of philosophers might aptly describe a group of philosphers interviewing or questioning you. While gaggle might be apt after a group of philosophers has had too much to drink.
Posted by: joe | March 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM
A Locus of Philosophers.
Posted by: peterj | March 10, 2008 at 08:21 PM
"Brains in a vat"
Posted by: John A. | March 11, 2008 at 09:30 AM
Vagabond Kings.
(*cough* the republic *cough*)
Posted by: Mark Smeltzer | March 11, 2008 at 06:05 PM
While I quite like Norcross's suggestions (esp "introspection"), a few more suggestions.
One I do not support, but thought I'd offer anyway:
"A murder of philosophers" (not unlike a murder of crows)
One I do support:
"A possible community of philosophers"
Posted by: Thom Brooks | March 14, 2008 at 06:48 AM
star-crossed lovers of wisdom
Posted by: john a | March 14, 2008 at 08:23 AM
How about:
"A garden of philosophers."
Posted by: Nate | March 14, 2008 at 08:40 AM
A group of philosophers is a *ponder* of philosophers. Duh.
Posted by: Robert Talisse | March 14, 2008 at 12:46 PM
somebody mentioned philosophers working together, a "team" of philosophers?
Posted by: Chrys M | March 14, 2008 at 02:17 PM
'Wad' is wonderful, perfect in every way, but you might consider 'shuffle', as in shifting about, implies a certain lack of sartorial elegance, uncertain and hesitant movement of the feet, dragging one's feet, a random mixing.
By extension you get 'shift' mmm thinks …
Posted by: Peter Wright | March 14, 2008 at 03:25 PM
a concentration of philosophers as in 'I noticed there was a concentration of philosophers in the quad, and wondered what had brought them out'
and, of course a pun referring to the deep concentration of a philosopher trying to outwit his/her colleagues (especially apparent at gatherings)
Of course the mathematicians have all the good ones, "a number of mathematicians" and "a set of mathematicians" being the standouts.
Posted by: Katrina | March 14, 2008 at 08:46 PM
'Concentration of philosophers' is good. A student of mine once suggested 'an irrelevance of philosophers', before laughing nastily at her own joke for a long time. Make of that what you will.
Posted by: Seiriol Morgan | March 15, 2008 at 02:24 AM
Too bad "pride" is taken. But looking at the other deadly sins, I came upon "gluttony". So:
A glut of philosophers.
Gluts have nicely puzzling formal properties. For example, a glut of philosophers in the States and one in Canada still gives one just one glut in North America. And one could solve the problem of a glut of philosophers in Europe and yet still have a glut in Germany. Or so I think, but they are puzzling.
Posted by: Anne Jacobson | March 15, 2008 at 05:28 AM
PS:
U of H is really glad to have Tamler joining us!
Posted by: Anne Jacobson | March 15, 2008 at 05:30 AM
An aggregate of philosophers
Posted by: KC Satterlee | March 15, 2008 at 07:23 AM
An aggregate of philosophers
Posted by: KC Satterlee | March 15, 2008 at 07:23 AM
Sorry, I should've been more specific.
One refers to a group of philosophers who work on phil. of action/free will/moral responsibility/moral psychology (did I leave anyone out?) as a "garden" of philosophers.
Moreover, one refers to a member of that group as a "gardner" and apparently one refers to the offspring of that group as "fruit". For the use of "fruit" see the following post: http://gfp.typepad.com/the_garden_of_forking_pat/
2008/03/more-garden-fru.html#comments.
Posted by: Nate | March 15, 2008 at 08:04 AM
Here are a few with historical inspiration:
A critique of philosophers.
A meditation of philosophers.
Here's one that I like just because it would be fun to say: A Begriffsschrift of philosophers.
For people working in a certain tradition: A continent of philosophers.
But this is my favorite:
An armchair of philosophers.
(The visual image is entertaining.)
Posted by: Alex Guerrero | March 15, 2008 at 02:04 PM
A knot (or not) of philosophers
Posted by: A G G | March 15, 2008 at 03:25 PM