The "Wizard" and the "Sorcerer" Factions In Philosophy -- Proving Innate Philosophers Exist

Alex Mos's Synopsis:

Philosophers can be allegorically divided into two factions: Wizards and Sorcerers. The "Wizards" are academics who mastered philosophy by studying it. The "Sorcerers" are philosophers with innate abilities to philosophize with or without a conventional education in the field. Getting an academic degree is the most respected way to become a philosopher; however, some philosophers became influential thinkers without education.

People often underestimate the natural talent to philosophize and believe a degree is needed to be an accomplished philosopher. The author's innate skills prove them wrong, as he has written hundreds of articles and books without academic schooling. Philosophy should not be limited to academia. It can and should be practiced by anybody with an affinity for logical thinking and empathy. The author is determined to become a renowned philosopher and contribute to humanity through philosophical non-academic works.

In English, or at least in role-playing games, the terms "wizard" and "sorcerer" may seem synonymous, but in fact they are very different, and that difference, I believe, should also apply to philosophy and philosophers. The Wizard is a master of their craft through their ability to study and experiment, while the power of the Sorcerer comes from their own innate skill.

I myself read mostly to research my articles, to back them up with facts and to confirm the arguments I made and make. I do not have any degrees and yet I am good at philosophizing. I therefore belong to the "sorcerer faction" in philosophy, rather to the "wizard faction", which is common to regard philosophers as belonging to.

Like with fictional sorcerers I can technically make a philosophy article out of any subject, without the necessity of reading several books about it. That's because like sorcerers, my talent to philosophize is innate, not acquired. It's part of who I am, and I would've been a philosopher by heart even if I did not took the very few philosophy courses I took at university and online.

Some of you thought I am a doctor, that I have a degree, that I am an academic lecturer. Negative. It is all mainly natural for me.

Of course, the differences between the sorcery and wizardly factions do not have to be polar opposites. In fact, people who have a natural affinity for philosophizing, like the Sorcerer has for his magic, may study it like a Wizard does, to enhance their already-existent abilities.

It is not like studying philosophy academically will make the innate philosopher lose his or her innate ability. Functionally, external study is but an improvement, and improvement does not cancel what one already has.

It is mainly a matter of whether or not you can philosophize "out of thin air", or in other words -- philosophize so naturally that people would think of you as an authority in your field, with or without your educational/academic achievements in philosophy as something to be studied.

Philosophizing is a skill, and not only a field of study.

However, what many people fail to realize, both within and outside of philosophy, is the fact that being well-versed in philosophical ideas is but one way to be a philosopher -- the way of the Wizard, the conventional way, the academic way. Those who base their philosophizing on their innate talents, like some kids naturally do, are what we can call natural philosophers, or "Sorcerers" as an allegory.

This isn't to be confused with natural philosophy, which is a specific philosophical movement that focuses on natural events, and isn't about philosophers themselves.

The more respected way to become a philosopher today is by the way of the Wizard: Through education and the continuous study of well-known philosophers, their theories, arguments, and so on. That is the orthodox way devised and conquered by academies, the only places on Earth where you can feel secure about being a philosopher -- through the degrees they give you, by remembering concepts of greater philosophers and putting them on assignments.

The irony of this is that some of these philosophers, like Socrates and David Hume, were never academic philosophers themselves. According to some research I did, there are even freelance, degreeless philosophers.

The origins of philosophy, however, are not Wizardly but stem from the Sorcerer archetype: From the innate desire to better understand the world and the universe by contemplating and asking questions. The desire to understand reality is the most innate drive for philosophizing there is.

As written before, Socrates was not academic and never wrote anything himself; his philosophership came not from academic research but from inquiring about things to the people of Athens, which is what made the Athenian court accuse him of "corrupting the youth".

What if Socrates was born today and not back then? What if he lived in an age where his original philosophizing was undermined by the "dictatorship" of the academy? What if his thoughts and theories about the world would be discarded because he didn't read books, didn't write anything himself, didn't "do his research," and so on?

And yet he is classically deemed as the founder of Western Philosophy. Where it took years for plenty to be accomplished in philosophy, for Socrates it came naturally by being "assigned by birth" to the "sorcerer" faction.

This is why the way of the "Sorcerer" in philosophy is so underrated, because people believe that having an innate skill or affinity for philosophy is insufficient. When people ask me where I have gained the material to write so many books and articles, they fail to realize the underrated power of the mind; that there are people who are more contemplative than others, and that's what essentially makes them the philosophers in the method Socrates used: by asking, researching from within, and coming up with your own answers.

The mind is a very powerful tool which, in my case, granted me my freedom from being a physical handicap. I view my mind not as something to be proud of, for the intellect isolates me from the world, but as something imperative for my survival and for my work to you, my readership. I do not take pride in being a genius. I take pride in still being able to survive after all I went through. My mind is a work tool, not an aim. My desire to survive stems not from arrogance but from wanting to work for you!

In fantasy, Sorcerers do not read books to enhance their abilities; they do not subscribe to certain schools or universities; they do not have masters of their own to teach them how to do their magic; they are simply born with the gifted potential to cast spells, like some children are born with the natural need to inquire about things; things that non-philosophic adults think of rarely, if at all.

And indeed, philosophers should be seen on a spectrum; a spectrum of natural skill and book-smarts. I myself used to read plenty of books, but since the Reaping Fatigue Era started and finished, I can no longer read books, much to my sorrow. I am, however, trying to restore my reading skills by reading articles online, that serve as research for Philosocom's material. It's why I'm nonetheless capable of sourcing my words on a very large scale -- which is going to be all of the site's material.

And if I wasn't a "sorcerer" by nature, you wouldn't even get the material you've been reading here that I wrote.

However, I don't let it break me because I know that metaphorically. My material comes mainly and innately and intuitively rather than empirically or with external research. That virtue, unfortunately often seen very negatively by those who are unaware that philosophizing is also an innate need. Anyone can become a philosopher as long as they develop that "muscle" within them. Hence why I wrote a guide on the matter.

And that "muscle" is not the sole product of well-respected institutions that grant you certificates over something you can be even without them. Those who are "sorcerers" by nature don't necessarily have to adhere to the authority of the so-called "wizard" faction, which dominates the contemporary world.

I'd like to assume that it is difficult to explain those whose skill in philosophizing is not innate, if at all, that philosophizing can come naturally. That's because the ability to understand the other side may often than not require one to search within themselves, in order to confirm what they've been told. After all that's how empathy works. However, it's quite hard to understand something someone else has, but do not have yourself.

Ultimately, logic is what makes a philosophical argument cohesive and sensible. It is the electricity of electronics, the "Ki" of monks and martial artists, and so on. Likewise, there are people who are more logical and more inquisitive than others, and that's what could eventually turn them to philosophizing -- just like Socrates did.

Some people are just more in-tune to logic, like empaths are more in-tune to the emotions around them. Logic is but the meaning, the "logos", this reality is built on. And when you show a deep understanding of it through insights that come intuitively, then you might be a "sorcerer of logic".

Philosophy should not be the sole property of the academic elite. It should be spread across the world and practiced even by the most common of people! Basic and even advanced philosophical questions should be tackled by anyone without the fear of being seen as pretentious, and being a philosopher can be an occupation as well as a hobby.

People told me I shouldn't philosophize for I am a pretentious man. Look where I am now when I resisted their words.

Let us return the original naturalness of philosophy to contemporary philosophy. Those who are unable to read books or don't get a degree like me shouldn't be excluded by the academic elite. By the same token, people who don't write philosophy, shouldn't be excluded as well. After all, it was once more Socrates who didn't even write anything. Should we discard him for not being a writer, and for being a stonemason? Would not it be a waste of potential to discard him from academic and non-academic discourse, due to these reasons alone?

Philosophy is a thing we do for love, arguably, and not for the sake of being more professional than the "common man." Likewise, philosophers shouldn't fear being wrong, for mistakes are a path to the truth.

Universities and other high-level institutions shouldn't monopolize such a basic field; people should philosophize in the convenience store, at cafes, and on the internet, just like I do. Furthermore, it deserves to be profitable because profitability is also one of the ways a field earns its relevancy in a capitalist-based world.

It is time to stop seeing philosophy professors as more respected just because they were able to afford or had the opportunity to earn degrees. I too wanted to be a philosophy professor, but it was too late for me due to the Reaping Fatigue Era of my life.

However, it will not stop me from trying to become and be seen as a philosopher just like any other philosophers, who gained their philosophership through either "sorcery" or "wizardly" means. Remember: philosophy is older than the conception of academic institutions. According to my research, the first academy was Plato's academy, and of course, Plato was far from being the first philosopher.

Fun fact: there is no difference between the two in Hebrew (sorcerer and wizard). If I didn't know English, this article wouldn't have been completed. Learn at least more than one language and your understanding of reality can be improved.

And yes, I've no reason to let my lack of academic expertise to stand in my way of working for humanity, and making this world a better place using my, and others', philosophical insights.

Hail Philosocom.

Bonus: Real-life examples of the two archetypes

Wizards:

• Plato: Founded the Academy, one of the first institutions for higher learning in the Western world. Focused on studying and building upon the ideas of his teacher, Socrates.
  

• Aristotle: Another student of Socrates who compiled a vast amount of knowledge on various subjects and created a complex philosophical system based on logic and reason.
  

• Immanuel Kant: A highly influential German philosopher known for his critiques of reason and his exploration of ethics and metaphysics. He heavily studied the works of previous philosophers.
  

• Karl Marx: Developed a social, political, and economic theory based on historical materialism. Studied philosophy and economics extensively as a member of the disciple group known as the Young Hegealians, apprentices of Georg Wilhelm Hegel.
  

• Confucius: A Chinese philosopher who emphasized the importance of morality, social order, and personal relationships. He founded the revered school of thought known as Confucianism, a social and moral philosophy. Much of Chinese education throughout history was developed thanks to him.
  

• Soren Kierkegaard: A Danish philosopher who focused on individual subjectivity and existential anxiety. Dubbed as "The Father of Existentialism". Known for his original and often paradoxical ideas that challenged established philosophical norms. A doctor in theology.
  

Sorcerers:

• Sitting Bull: A Native American spiritual leader and tribe leader. His wisdom quotes are his philosophical legacy to humanity.
  

• Laozi: The mysterious founder of Daoist philosophy. His life is surrounded by mystery, and he has no known formal education. Much of his wisdom, then, must come from somewhere.

• Blaise Pascal: A mathematical autodidact and polymath, this genius was mainly homeschooled, and yet he contributed much, such as the first calculator to be practically used.