Ask 100 different people what
Psychology,
Medicine,
Law, or
Theology are, and you'll get lots of different answers. I would not, therefore, trust my mental and/or physical
well-being,
legal matters, or
soul to any
average joe, or even a
committee of average joes. The lack of concern for the
strict definition of a
discipline is what makes a
layman. Philosophy can be
common sense-ical, but even this is not the same as "whatever sounds good" or "what most people think". It doesn't have to be elaborate, but any real discipline includes
rigor. I love Heinlein's work, but I wouldn't call him a philosopher for three reasons:
- His "philosophy" is expressed through his characters, and the assertions of the heroes of his novels often conflict. Does this make Heinlein's philosophy schizophrenic or corrupt? No, it's just a literary device to establish character.
- A common theme in his work is polygamy. Heinlein was very married, to the best of my knowledge; he didn't practice this stuff, it just made for titillating reading, and therefore, good sales.
- He wasn't a professional academic, and philosophy is an academic discipline. He didn't have the broad exposure to the many problems and theories of the discipline, his (characters') "theories" were not subject to peer review, no one expected him to rigorously defend his (their) thought in light of conflicts with other systems of thought.