i can almost abhor the term philosophy being
used, overused, playing hide & seek with it,
overusing it, overusing -
the i'm a "philosopher":
   and there are clear "reasons",
                     there is most mythical logic
outside of the confines of
mathematics in the form 1 + 1 = 2
   and the linguistic confines of grammar
akin to a + b + o + u + t = about...
   pretty much nothing...
                 given... there's a big difference
between a philosopher,
           and a thinker...
            that's what i woke up with today,
did my duties, made dinner -
and some other bits and bobs...
                   forgot about my original
schematic, let it sieve itself into a day
filled with pockets of time, drifting on
a sea of subconscious amnesia...
   three drinks later at 11pm...
boom!
              i managed to remember it...
what? the difference between what
a philosopher is, and what a thinker
is...
           a philosopher is someone who
can't escape the cognitive moral question...
the Θ apex -
                      given that...
    you don't actually put a key into
   a keyhole sideways...
       so the θ apex is a fallacy of sorts...
         the Φ apex (prefix) -
  ergo? the Θ apex (suffix) -
                     i never understood the modern
audacity to presuppose "being"
a "philosopher" before being a thinker...
a fiddler of sorts...
             the Θ apex is a genesis of
thought...
     the Φ apex is an exodus of thought...
spewing words in some sort of
Socratic dialectic -
      prodding - asking a variety of
dichotomy questions -
                           basically looking for
100 Zeno paradoxes in each supposition
that's a presupposition
whereby nothing leads to a proposition -
or at least: albeit blind faith...
   and what is the epitome of
jurisprudence?
                       the statue of justitia...
i'd prefer blind faith,
  than blind justice...
                but no...
          i could never claim to be a philosopher...
the so-called term is overused
by so-called "philosophers":
   there are two golden maxims -
don't do unto others what you wouldn't
wish to be done unto you...
   and?
    don't give any advice...
         modern "philosophers" seem to talk
too much and in talking too much
tend to give advice -
  sort of tickling at the idea of
a dialectic - but rarely accomplish it...
      i like to think,
   and the pleasure derived from
thinking is: to not give advice -
instead? provide an outlet of voyeurism -
i'm a thinker, not a "philosopher"...
         what a pompous term -
to reverse the Cartesian principium primo...
i think: not because i am -
              but because i think,
   therefore will think ad continuum...
      who needs to pivot on
the crutches of i am with the term
philosophy?
               i could never consider myself
a philosopher -
   no more, or less, than a priesthood status...
it's a bogus terminology -
apparently if you self-describe yourself
as a, "philosopher": you can don
Vatican style armor of impregnability -
i can't exactly consider myself
giving either good advice, or for that same
reason - scoffing off schadenfreude
by giving bad advice...
                     as a thinker: i stopped
asking the moral ()ought -
                 i put my ego into another door...
               put the key in,
turned it, and found behind the door -
less of an inquisition and self-laceration -
in swamp questions...
                       less a momentum built upon
a ?-impetus (of question -
  which no one would answer, directly,
in the contemporary sphere of all things
temporal - including me in it) -
    but an !-impetus -
              no questions -
        no advice to give -
                               no rigid questions
engulfed by schematics of scholastic
origins - systematical approaches -
     exhausted and boorish - boring even
the library's moths...
                          just the purity of,
narrative - the whole point of
    cutting out the Cartesian point of:
the most over-used word in philosophical
writing - thing -
     res (in Latin) -
    it's like philosophers abhor nouns -
or... more to the point...
                          truth can achieve its peddle stool
status of motivation and subsequent
ambition / impetus / whatever...
       oh the genre isn't dogma -
   and philosophy is just another
genre in the spectrum of literature -
           so pure narration is
the extensa for what a philosophy isn't,
   cogitans: thinking -
                   it would appear so...
    unless running at a brick-wall repeatedly,
re-digesting old unsolvable problems isn't...
well then...
      who can have the audacity to call
themselves a philosopher and not a thinker?
who is will to mitigate a public image -
and not allow a voyeuristic audience?
   probably someone...
   who also manages to gain an audience with
a mainstream newsroom ditto-head...
       it's like:
(a) but i'm a philosopher! i'm here to use logic, reason....
(b) but i'm a journalist! i'm here to...

both are neither.