CONTEST: What is a group of philosophers to be called?

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.

Comments

[Eleatic Ephesian]

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.

[Q the Enchanter]

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?)

[t e whalen]

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.

[Roman Altshuler]

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

[Justin Coates]

A group of philosophers is certainly nothing more than a gruep of philosophers.

[Andrei Buckareff]

I'm quite fond of 'wad'. 'Gruep' and 'pox' are also winners.

[David Zimmerman]

A "lemma" of philosophers.

[V. Alan White]

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. . .

[Pseudonym]

Unfortunately, "school of philosophers" already means something else.

I suggest "compound". As opposed to "monad", naturally.

[Joe Campbell]

A 'gaggle' seems right. One definition is "a group of people, especially a noisy or disorderly group."

[Matt McAdam]

For those looking for inspiration look here:

http://www.rinkworks.com/words/collective.shtml

An "implausibility" of gnus?

[Simon Cabulea May]

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*.)

[Hilary Kornblith]

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.

[Neal Tognazzini]

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.

[Alan White]

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.)

[Al Mele]

a derangement of philosophers

[Graduate Student #4]

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

[Q the Enchanter]

"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.)

[Tamler Sommers]

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.

[Oisin Deery]

A "confusion" of philosophers?

[Eleatic Ephesian]

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. :)

[Simon Cabulea May]

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."

[carey]

Why not use the greek 'sori' (a heap)?

[Audrey Anton]

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

[Jonathan Jong]

Some thoughts:

A demonstration of philosophers
A quibble of philosophers
An deduction of philosophers
A persuasion of philosophers

[Robert Seddon]

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...

[Anibal]

The philosophical covenancy or the covenancy of philosophers

[Alastair Norcross]

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.

[Bradley J Rettler]

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...)

[Justin]

A file of philosophers.

Semantically, it only works if they're traveling in a line, or being evaluated during a job search.

[Dillon]

I have a colleague who avers that the correct term for three philosophers is a "trifle".

[joe]

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.

[peterj]

A Locus of Philosophers.

[John A.]

"Brains in a vat"

[Mark Smeltzer]

Vagabond Kings.

(*cough* the republic *cough*)

[Thom Brooks]

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"

[john a]

star-crossed lovers of wisdom

[Nate]

How about:

"A garden of philosophers."

[Robert Talisse]

A group of philosophers is a *ponder* of philosophers. Duh.

[Chrys M]

somebody mentioned philosophers working together, a "team" of philosophers?

[Peter Wright]

'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 …

[Katrina]

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.

[Seiriol Morgan]

'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.

[Anne Jacobson]

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.

[Anne Jacobson]

PS:
U of H is really glad to have Tamler joining us!

[KC Satterlee]

An aggregate of philosophers

[KC Satterlee]

An aggregate of philosophers

[Nate]

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.

[Alex Guerrero]

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.)

[A G G]

A knot (or not) of philosophers