What are some red flags that someone would make a shitty philosopher or at least shouldn't enter formal philosophical education? I'm a neet, my days consist of contemplation and memes. Dipped my toes in most of the memes (besides the greeks lel), have lots of question, need formal basis.
Thing is I get the feeling that I wouldn't be able to keep up because I would overanalyze and waste time on all the wrong stuff plus I would have to act like I'm interested in debating anyone when really I'm not. My debating skills are 0/10, all I can do is ask questions that tend to shut people up.
Sorry for this cancer of a post but you are the only smart people I know so.. Any philo majors that mind rating my chances of success/survival or just share their personal experiences and thoughts?
Thanks friends
>I'm a neet
There's your red flag.
if you ask questions that tend to shut people up you are either talking with dumbs or you're a retard. Don't dive into the greeks if you think you'll overanalise them. They suck and only say shit. Just give it a slight brush like a compilation a summary and go read more recent philosophy like I think bertrand russel talks some good smack (i'm not really into philosophy)
>>7861889
>and insanely hot girls
Really?
>>7861889
Can I assume that you are from the US? I'm from central EU maybe it's not all fedora here. Maybe I should talk to the study counsel. Maybe I should talk to people in general. Why did I make this thread
>>7861881
What if I was working minimal wage, what would your advice be?
>>7861887
The smarter ones only shut up after calling me names but gotcha
>>7861871
You give the impression of someone without the rigor of thought necessary for understanding philosophy on a meaningful level.
Stick with your memes and idle daydreams.
You will never be a great philosopher unless you know multiple languages and have been reading the classics since you were in grade school.
How old are you? Did you know that Kripke invented his own system of logic at 18? Did you know Schopenhauer wrote the World as Will and Representation at 25?
There is no hope for you unless you are insanely smart and dedicated which you probably are not given that you're a NEET.
Not trying to be mean, just honest.
Anyone who needs to attend a university in order to study philosophy has no business studying philosophy
>>7861940
You give off the impression that you have zero social intelligence but I will swallow the criticism for now.
>>7861949
According to your criteria I am definitely not a lost cause, this gives me hope. Thanks senpai.
Tho what I was more worried about was my lack of "debating spirit". You didn't really touch on that part.
>>7861959
I don't see any indications of my social intelligence, or lack thereof, in what I wrote.
To expand on my (admittedly brusque) statement, your overuse of "board culture" language makes you seem too eager to fit in with what you perceive the rest of /lit/ as being.
Additionally, why do you think you need a formal basis to answer your questions? What is your ultimate purpose in learning philosophy?
To be honest, if you have already convinced yourself that you would "fall behind and waste time on all the wrong stuff", then you almost certainly will.
Just out of curiosity, would you describe yourself as "smart but lazy"?
>>7862001
I got what pigeon-hole you were trying to put me in the first time, thanks.
>>7862025
You set yourself up for it, to be honest.
If you truly believe that it's an inaccurate portrayal, then perhaps devote some thought to your presentation. How you are perceived is everything.
In any case, I harbor no venom toward you, and wish you success in whatever endeavor you decide on.
>>7861871
If someone doesn't voluntarily read the Greeks on his own initiative that's usually a huge red flag.
You probably shouldn't be a philosopher if you're just a big ol' dumb dumb. Just the slowest log in the flume ride, you know what I'm saying? Like you walk by and people go, "There goes Mr. Stupid Pants! I wouldn't trust him to wash my car on a rainy day!"
I mean someone who's so slow that if you asked him a question on Sunday you wouldn't get your answer till Monday of the following year. Someone so dense neutrinos decide to go around instead. Someone so dim black holes think he's going a bit far.
I'm talking about being a grade-A nincompoop. A guy who couldn't count to 10 if he started from 9. Someone who fell off the tree of life and hit every stupid-branch on the way down, then climbed back up and fell out again. Someone who lost a spelling bee when his word was "a."
You also shouldn't be a philosopher if you don't like reading, because there's a lot of that involved.
You sound like a useless person who spends more time daydreaming then getting things done. You'd make a great philosopher.
>>7861999
Debate isn't used as much as you might think. You do need to know how to construct and break down arguments, often for the purpose of writing papers.
>>7862795
this.
Do you like writing papers, OP? Have you read many (any) philosophical papers? Spoken debating is often pretty fruitless compared to well thought-out, long form arguments, like those you'll read in essays.
Your life has red flags for whether you'll do anything well, not red flags about whether you'll do a particular thing well.
If you cannot debate, discuss and argue, you are not a philosopher.
>>7861949
And Kant didnt write the Critique of Pure Reason until age 49.
Tell me about your NEET life. I'm a NEET philosopher as well, I like to phisosophize about other NEETosophers.
You're just the turd that takes the longest to float down the old toilet hole
It depends on what kind of philosophy you're interested in and in which circles. One need not have a formal philosophical education to be a good philosopher but those are incredibly rare.
Being a philosopher is for everyone, even how dumb you are. The red flag is that it looks like you want to learn philosophy to impress - which is wrong. You become a philosopher to hunt for knowledge - knowledge should be loved. And if you can't discuss, it's just that you don't know enough, you haven't read enough.
Not starting with the greek is also a red flag. If you are interested in debates escpecially - take socrate for example, he was a pro in this. Just take a look in the movie: Socrate, from 1971 i believe.
as long as you enjoy it you can get a degree in any humanity easily.
If you have to ask you don't have what it takes
>>7861949
This post is cancer. If you're a NEET you have nothing to lose. Start a steady reading regimen and begin learning at least french and German. If your philosopher life fails you at least have skills that will help avert future neetdom.
You have a lot of shit to cover so set aside 5+ hours a day for reading (you're a NEET, if this is going to be your career you'll be doing it for 8 hours a day, so get used to it) and write short summaries of what you're reading to make your uptake faster (the greats who grew up with the classics will have read them more times than you, but you can read them more efficiently than they did).
You may want to read some Sartre and Nietzsche early on for inspiration, because if you fail it will be your fault and your fault alone.
>>7861881
Underrated post
>>7862776
this deserved trips
>>7861871
>What are some red flags that someone would make a shitty philosopher
Ego. If someone can't bite the bullet and question their own position they will spend a lot of time having the wrong beliefs and developing bad habits.
For example having sympathy for your opponent will unnerve them. Someone with ego wouldn't dare give their opponent the benefit of the doubt. The opponent expected an ass and wanted to publicly shame them and instead they have someone who looks at them like a teacher or a friend.
Eventually someone who takes seriously the problem of their own ego will doubt their own doubts. Do they attack their ego because they want to look like a sage or saint? Do they actually attack their own ego where it hurts the most or do they brush off the most troubling problems thinking they couldn't possibly be wrong on those beliefs?
To actually attack one's own ego takes courage, and when someone realizes that in the midst of the act they will understand that they have developed virtue without even noticing it.
Read Plato, internalize the Socratic method, get a logic book.
State fewer conclusions, ask better questions.
>>7861949
Kripke found his semantics and proved completness of modal logic before 17
>>7861949
If you want to intl analytic phil don't even try unless you're a prodigy.
If you are NEET that probably is not the case.
The fact that you would ask this question here, assuming you asked this question only here, is more evidence to youe stupidty.
Making it with continental philosophy with Nick Land tier shit should be easier though it is less g loaded.
Debating skills would be needed however.
Yoy only have hope as a public intellectual for which you need charisma.
Academics will not take you seriously because the opportunity cost of reading the shit you spew is reading things by prodigies from Ivies or other colleges who are better trained (up to the grad level/beyond) and likely smarter.
Some posters here are using their undergrad classes as a reference point to gauge what it means to be a philosopher, they are retards, ignore them.
Only the cream of the crop get through gradschool and the job market.
>>7862995
>Not starting with the greek is also a red flag
He is an idiot, ignore him. Guarantee he has no education in phulosophy even at the undergrad level.
>>7861887
person who shuts up detected
>>7861887
>I think bertrand russel talks some good smack (i'm not really into philosophy)
Oh, it shows, famicon, it shows.
>>7861871
Why?
>"i love irony"
found the philosopher
>>7861887
it shows
What a big heap of shit from everyone in this topic. Ignoring analytic philosophy, which probably requires the same intelligence and hard work that mathematicians and physicists need to put in, most academic philosophers spew unreadable, unread, unfalsifiable, crap. What you need these days is confidence, work ethic and great self-marketing.
>inb4 muh falsifiability a shit
Well obviously if you think that falsifiability is not needed then you've given yourself a near infinite space to "philosophise" in, with no constraints other other than basic logic.
Even Zizek admits that it's the job of a philosopher to ask questions, not give concrete answers. Not that it stops him from spouting all sorts of conclusions based on recent events and calling it "theory".
It's funny, /lit/ pretends that philosophy (or even literature) is about open mindedness, new views, tearing down false gods etc. But they'll tell you to fuck off if you ask them basic questions. /lit/ is all about worshipping tbe academia-publishing-media industrial complex while having wet dreams about getting scraps from the table.
>>7864863
>All praise materialism
>All praise "logic"
>>7864863 this guy knows whats up
if you really want to learn about contemporary philosophy pick up a self help book or something from the new age section.
but honestly a bad philosopher is one who has poor critical thinking skills, and can't take criticism well
>most of your ideas wont be appreciated till much later and most of them will be received initially with a lot of hate and derision.
and cannot make room for more than any other worldview than his own.
>>7864863
>unfalsifiable
>conflating philosophy with science
ELLLLLLLLLLLLLL OHHHHHH ELLLLLLLLLLLLLL
welcome to early 20th century philosophy of science (hint:largely obsolete, too.
>>7863152
I appreciate this post.
I tend only to be associative with adults who were in gifted programs when they were kids. It's just a certain kind of silent understanding we have with each other that we dont have with people who werent. I think a good brain is good for philosophy, but I don't know.
All men are philosophers regardless of their conviction in philosophizing. You are the principal factor in your own education; learn for your mind exists and is in your capable being. Philosophy is a wonderful avenue to loftier thought and molds a man into a great critical analyzer. In us there is an innate responsibility that often goes unfulfilled because too few hear it's call of duty, you owe it to yourself to be your best as according to your dreams and aspirations.
>>7863052
Lol
>>7863453
Profoundly insightful! I thank you for this, anon.
>>7864978
I know that the idea of unfalsifiability being required is unfalsifiable in itself. I know about the Münchhausen trilemma. And as one of my chosen axioms I choose unfalsifiability to be important.
>>7865058
The first sentence of this is true but the rest could be reversed with no loss in worth to the post.
