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

[A G G]

A knot (or not) of philosophers

[Martin]

Some philosophers
A lot of philosophers
A puzzle of philosophers
A wizening of philosophers
A precision of philosophers
A coincidence of philosophers
A plurality of philosophers
A bunch of philosophers
A metaphilosopher

[Martin]

A collection of philosophers
A correction of philosophers
A connexion of philosophers
A fill of philosophers

[Martin]

A conference of philosophers
A confluence of philosophers
A congruence of philosophers
An extension of philosophers

[Martin]

An encounter of philosophers

[tnadelhoffer]

Perhaps to those who have been on the market this year (or recently), a group of philosophers ought to be called "an overabundance of philosophers"? :)

[tnadelhoffer]

Suggestions from the (non-human) animal kingdom:

shrewdness of apes
congress of baboons
siege of bitterns
clash of bucks
drove of cattle
brood of chicks
mob of emus
horde of gerbils
scold of jays
huddle of penguins
school of porpoises
pack of wolves

but at the end of the day, i may prefer:

a muddle of philosophers

[tnadelhoffer]

Suggestions from the (non-human) animal kingdom:

shrewdness of apes
congress of baboons
siege of bitterns
clash of bucks
drove of cattle
brood of chicks
mob of emus
horde of gerbils
scold of jays
huddle of penguins
school of porpoises
pack of wolves

but at the end of the day, i may prefer:

a muddle of philosophers

[Martin]

A flight of philosophers

[Martin]

And because we ourselves class 'philosophers' as a count noun, so the collective noun for us should be 'an encounter' - An encounter of philosophers - Also because when we are together, that is at least a potential encounter (and we love knowledge, and we have our best epistemic access to each other when we encounter each other); and because it sounds pretty.

[Martin]

And although, as Peter ("a concentration of philosophers") Wright says, the mathematicians have all the good ones, "a number of mathematicians" and "a set of mathematicians" being the standouts, an encounter can only be between more than one sentient being, whereas a set, at least a set of the sort that most mathematicians use, might be empty, and a number, at least in its strict mathematical sense, might be 0 or 1 or indeed, 3.142. Furthermore "encounter" connotes no particular part of philosophy, unlike the otherwise most superior "gruep" (which connotes analytical metaphysics), whilst it can connote (an encounter being a meeting or a fight) contentiousness or unexpectedness, rather pithily.

[Martin]

Also, adding to the pith, there are connotations of candour and depth (via "encounter groups" and "Brief Encounter").

[Albert Atkin]

A Posit of Philosophers. (Just for the sake of argument).

[Dillon]

There are some nice suggestions here, and I suspect that the following doesn't compete. But...

A priority of Philosophers

[Eddy Nahmias]

My votes (which may, for Manuel, entail votes against) are for, in no particular order:
gruep (best pun)
muddle
wad
and the most natural to use from the natural world:
gaggle
brood
school
I wish I could think of something better than these.

[By the way, though there was no flood of emails, I know deep in my heart you were all concerned about us here at Georgia State in Atlanta after the tornado. We are fine. Our building was right in the tornado's path but escaped damage, as did most GSU buildings.]

[JONOR]

AN EYE OF PHILOSOPHERS.
PARTLY FROM THE EERIE CALM IN THE CENTRE
OF A UNPREDICTABLE STORM - PHILOSOPHERS IDEAS ARE OFTEN
REVEALED AS A SOURCE OF POLITICAL WARS.
PARTLY BECAUSE THEY LOVE TO REFLECT
USING THEIR MIND'S EYES AND THEIR VISUAL EYES.
THEN THERE IS THE POTATO EYE -THEY
ARE SOMETIMES A SOURCE OF DISGUST.

[Mark]

It seems a notable oversight that no one has submitted "a wisdom of philosophers" as a suitable collective noun. It has much to recommend it -- since we take the wise person to have universal knowledge for its own sake of the principles and causes of things. Quite apart from capturing this truth, then, a "wisdom of philosophers" avoids the all-too-clever air other formulations carry and even the needlessly arcane. Yet it does so by capturing, with both finesse and subtlety, the diffidence that other sciences take toward philosophy and *vice versa*. For what is more useless nowadays than knowledge for its own sake? At the same time, but in the opposite direction, what is more muddled and quibbling than so much research in the absence of clear and distinct notions? Finally, if it is objected that "wisdom" is not sufficiently ampliative, given the Greek root, then it might be replied that this impression is likely to extend only to those who have already fallen in love with wisdom, but that for the majority of those who might become acquainted with it, it will prove somewhat more informative.

[Saul Smilansky]

A Manuel of philosophers

A Vargas of philosophers

(can I have my prize now?)

An ontology of philosophers

A stone of philosophers

A question of philosophers

A necessity of philosophers

A paradox of philosophers

An illusion of philosophers

[V. Alan White]

So once again, for "A(n) X of philosophers" how about X=:

Vox
Sophilon (turnabout is fair play)
Fax (equivocal on sending info and truth)
Profusion (professional fusion)
Perfidy
Prolix
Pillbox

Vox is right. I know it.

[c.kukathas]

An entelechy of philosophers.

[c.kukathas]

An entelechy of philosophers.

[Weston]

A case of philosophers.
A clutch of philosophers.
A grip of philosophers.
A quandry of philosophers.

[Martin]

An Excession of Philosophers

[Ian Halloran]

I think you're going to have to go with:
A ream of philosophers.

[Ian Halloran]

I realize this is finished but I just thought of another one:
A fluster of philosophers.

[Lewis Powell]

An n-tuple of philosophers.

[Martin Goldring]

An asspain of philosophers