Anthony de Mello, Morrie Schwartz, Kahlil Gibrain. Why are they not considered as philosophers.?

Question

I've studied philosophy intensely from Plato to Heidegger, from Lao Tzo to Karl Marx but i consider these 3 to be among the 20th centuries greatest philosophers yet they aren't recognized as such. Why not?

Answer 1

Because while you personally may regard these people as great philosophers, most academic philosophers do not. They regard them as "pseudo philosophers", either because they don't construct theories that can be subjected to certain types of verification or because they don't focus on solving what are considered (by academic philosophy) to be "important" problems.

I'm not taking a position on whether this is a good thing--I'm merely stating that in the court of public opinion (rather, in the elite circles of academics / science / philosophy), these individuals are generally not considered to be serious philosophers. Pretty much any person who discusses "spirituality" in a way that takes as a given that spirituality itself is a valid world view, and anybody who gives "life advice" on public television--these types of people are regarded as "cheesy". There is also a strong bias against "outsider philosophy" that does not engage in a dialog with academic philosophy over the specific matters considered as being "contemporary/relevant" and "important".

This may or may not be right. Unfortunately, in the end, history is no more than a record of the opinions of certain privileged groups of people.

Answer 2

I think, the main reason is, that philosophers are usually judged from a longer distance. Maybe in the second half of this century the three should also be recognised as philosophers, but a professor teaching modern philosophy can well lecture about Gibran (him I know and like of the three) and the others now already.

Answer 3

because their ideas on ageism and their inabiility to think open-mindedly, and perhaps the fact that their ideas are unheard of and outright inprofitable.