The Futility Of Talking To 21st Century Citizens
Richard Carrier's Response To P Atkinson's Definition Of Philosophy (11/11/2015)

P.A.: Dear Sir, To claim you are a published philosopher is to claim you know you are a philosopher, so can you please tell me how you know you are a philosopher?

R.C.: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-to-be-philosopher.html — https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28767718/highlightedcv_philosophy.pdf — http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8247 — http://www.richardcarrier.info/contrawood.html#philosopher — http://www.richardcarrier.info/McFallRebuttal1.html — http://www.richardcarrier.info/philosophy.html

Dear Sir, Thank you for responding to my question but your reply is unhelpful. It is innuendo to cite a work in answer to a question for this is merely grandstanding: if you know the work contains the answer then why not just supply the answer? Otherwise the suspicion must be that you do not know the answer but are pretending that it is present in the cited work.
Philosophy is the pursuit of truth, and as truth only exists in an understanding, then to discover how truth is created requires studying how an understanding creates truth; so philosophy must be the study of understanding. I would be grateful if you would acknowledge you cannot refute my claim, or else please refute it.

R.C.: I linked to all the places where I answer the question. Pointing you to the answer you asked for is not "innuendo." — You can choose to go read my answer, or not. — Consider which decision constitutes a concern for understanding. — Richard C. Carrier, Ph.D.— http://www.richardcarrier.info

Dear Sir, Thank you for your reply but it is unhelpful.
Innuendo is the use of hints that suggest a claim, but make no actual clear claim. You make no clear claim but imply that your answer is in many places; which is innuendo.
If you know what philosophy is, then why do you not tell me rather than claiming the answer is somewhere else?
Further, in response to my clear and simple definition of philosophy, you remain silent even though you are invited to refute or acknowledge you cannot refute my claim.

R.C.: No. I answered the question already. I pointed you to where. That's not innuendo. That's telling you where the answer is you are looking for. — This way I don't have to constantly repeat myself. I've already answered the question. Go read the answer. If the first one isn't enough, read the next. And so on. — Do your homework. Read the answer. Or else admit you don't actually care what the answer is. Those are your options. — Richard C. Carrier, Ph.D.

Sir, You, by your own admission, did not answer my question, but pointed to where you suggest I could find the answer. You clearly admire your own claims but your esteem is without justification.
By failing to answer direct questions you cast suspicion on your honesty and your ability.
Until and unless you refute my claim, you stand condemned as someone uninterested in either truth or logic or understanding. That is, you are not a philosopher but a charlatan.

R.C.: I have answered your question six times before you asked it. It is clear you are not actually interested in learning the answer.

Sir, My question was "how do you know you are a philosopher?", so telling me your answer is available somewhere else on the internet is not answering my simple question, it is evading answering my simple question. You have also ignored my further request to refute or admit you cannot refute my simple definition of philosophy as the study of understanding, a definition that invalidates your claim that you are a philosopher......Please take refuge in silence and spare me from more of your embarrassing bluster and innuendo. ,

R.C.: How do you know I don't agree with you if you haven't even read what I've said a philosopher is?

Sir, Your question is innuendo, it states nothing clearly but hints at something. Either refute or acknowledge you cannot refute my claim. , — No reply since 11/11/15