More on the Definition of Philosophy

I wrote here last week about William James' discussion of what "philosophy" means in the early pages of his last book.  I paraphrased his views somewhat, saying that "James believes that philosophy is only thinking about the world in an exceptionally rigorous way.” 

A friend wrote and questioned the validity of this paraphrase. In one of my direct quotes from James, after all, I have him referring  to exceptional men’s “imagination,” not their “rigor.” My friend finds this significant because if we define philosophy by the “rigor” of one's thought, we suggest that any intelligent person, by dint of application, can make a contribution to philosophy. 

On the other hand (says further my inquisitive and analytical friend) to say that philosophers are distinguished by “imagination” implies that some faculty of which some people have far more than others is required. 

So which is it: are philosophers a specialized caste, naturally as well as institutionally?, or is anyone a philosopher who puts his mind to it?

I am certain that James would say, and rightly say, that philosophy partakes of both of those conditions. The elitist and the populist account are both true.
 
Consider music. In one broad and perfectly legitimate sense anyone is a musician who is intrigued by sounds and the patterns that they can form. If you find that the simple arrangement of notes, of higher and lower frequencies, into a "scale" is a matter of interest: you are a musician. And music is only attending to that and analogous arrangements of notes in an exceptionally rigorous way.

Yet not everyone is likely ever to be a famous pianist of the stature of Paul Wittgenstein, just as not everyone is every likely to be a philosopher of the stature of his brother Ludwig. There is a something extra with which some are gifted and of which others, however rigorous their efforts, are deprived. There is no real point fussing over the names of that "something other."

James at one point speaks of the philosophic imagination as the ability to "see the familiar as if it were strange." Maybe the musical gift, quite analogously, is the ability to hear the familiar as if it is strange. And maybe the contrary gift, the ability to hear the strange as if it is already familiar, marks the calling of a music critic.