I'm thinking of doing an MA in philosophy so I can be a more media-savvy Roger Scruton or Jordan Peterson...

As it's the only reading possible, yes. What's the alternative?

I mean, thoughts aren't semantically discrete. Thoughts mean something because they're arrived at through others that may mean nothing once the destination is reached, but were absolutely neccesary as part of going there. This all seems to turn on a time question - where our consciousness is in relation to the thoughts we're not currently using.

There's a lot of great bullshit you can spin out of this.

how do you know Gescinska OP?
she has a tv show in Belgium
watched a lecture by her as an intro to a play, it was breddy bad desu

She did an episode of Wanderlust with Scruton that I watched. Seems to have been taken down from YouTube, pity.

>My question is, do you think I will be able to pretend to be interested in philosophy long enough to get my qualifications?

Yes.
But there is no money in traditionalism. Follow the trail of the Open Society fund.

The rewards might be greater, but I'm not prepared to damage my mind or society to that extent. I mean, I've ruled out crime as a way to get rich, and wet-wiping Soros's cock is not much further up in terms of human behavior.

it makes no sense in my eyes.There is no money in Philosophy. You said you are interested in power, fame, money. Becoming a known Philosopher is rarer than becoming a hollywood actor. Why don't you choose a more rational route? You can study Philosophy just like any subject. No great interest or intelelct needed. But consider what you'll do with your taxi driving degree once you have it. Maybe get a normal job first and experience life a bit, because I doubt you now how things work.

The money is in the media, and becoming a known philosopher is a matter of knowing how to attract attention to yourself in the media. Right now, I already know how that's done, but I don't want to be a famous-for-nothing type celeb. The reason becoming a known philosopher is rarer is because few of those who become philosophers want to be famous - it's a small subset of people. I *do* want to be famous. I also have the aptitude to fake my way through a philsophical education.

>experience life a bit

You think I understand life less well than the dumb motherfuckers who do a philosophy degree because they value philosophy? You're mistaken, my friend. Life is about money and pussy.

MA's in philosophy are extremely expensive. So you'll waste a ton of money chasing your dream. If you go the PhD route, you'll be exposed immediately, if you get in at all (you won't)

so my recommendation is to go full speed ahead and keep us updated every step of the way

Veeky Forums seems to be bitter against /pol/ tourists talking non-stop about whatever "based" academic turned into youtube e-celeb /pol/ is talking about this month

Lol. Retard. You wont achieve anything and you know it.

>If you go the PhD route, you'll be exposed immediately, if you get in at all (you won't)

What a bizarre statement. I live in a country where I can get a state loan for the MA. It's not a dream, I mean to earn.

I'll get onto a PhD programme with no trouble, by applying at an institution where the values I propose to defend are valued. There are a few niches of conservative values in academia, and that's where I'll go. You think there's any rigour involved in this thing? I say again, it's just lies. Tell the right lies and you get paid.

All I want to achieve is getting good money.

do you think I will be able to pretend to be interested in philosophy long enough to get my qualifications?

Now how the fuck could we answer a question like that you posturing dick anus?

>I'll get onto a PhD programme with no trouble, by applying at an institution where the values I propose to defend are valued. There are a few niches of conservative values in academia, and that's where I'll go. You think there's any rigour involved in this thing? I say again, it's just lies. Tell the right lies and you get paid.

i'm in a fucking philosophy phd right now and having a right laugh at your post. you do realize that you'll have to submit a writing sample, right? and your big claim to fame is that you've read the tractatus and want to defend conservativism. fuck outta my face.

It's weird you say that and yet have an essentially Marxist view of the history of philosophy.

But hey, Jordan Peterson doesn't know much of anything and he's doing great, so I guess maybe just start making YouTube videos or something. Clearing actually having the first clue about anything is holding Roger Scruton back. Also Peterson's "qualifications" are in jungian psychology, not philosophy.

If you wanted to just have some sort of credential to advocate anti-egalitarian politics, get your degrees in economics. Or better yet, in anthropology, because then you will actually have a bulk of relevant knowledge to draw on for fetishizing the distant past.

Also, is Zizek's accent a gimmick? He does speak French, German, Spanish, Slovene, and Serbo-Croatian, so I figured that his bad English comes with that. Also if you want to be like Zizek you need to be able to produce a couple multi-hundred page books a year, teach courses, drop the occasional op-ed, and the occasional paper on top of that..

You know what, guys?
Jordan Peterson might be an annoying presence on Veeky Forums, but at least he's not Roger "big Tobacco and Beauty" Scruton. His greatest crime is that by following his lead even listening to Schubert's music become a pseudo-moralistic posturing and status symbol signaling. This guy just has to take everything that is beautiful and then he has to politicize in the most boring, arrogant and naive ways you can possibly imagine.
Also, he's clearly a closeted homosexual.

I know it sounds like a rant, but it's nit: it's just me realizing how much worse the pseudo-intellectual addiction of Veeky Forums could have been. Again, JP might be shit, but at least when he annoys me, he doesn't make me relate said annoyance to my favourite composers.

Mate, you won't bullshit yourself trough theology, let alone philosophy.

>Also Peterson's "qualifications" are in jungian psychology, not philosophy.
It's Jungian psychoanalysy, not psychology, and Peterson has studied psychoanalysis only as an autodidact (nothing wrong with that, since he has studied him for 30 years now).
Jung is generally the only psychoanalyst that Peterson has studied extensively, and he does not really relate to the field (he always talk about psychoanalysts as if they were part of another group, i.e. "Psychoanalysts man, THEY are deep!")

youtube.com/watch?v=PfsTk5i7mPw

So you want people who like philosophy to give advise to a retard like you who doesn't like it. Did you really think out your question correctly?

>My question is, do you think I will be able to pretend to be interested in philosophy long enough to get my qualifications?
Is an MA the best route?
You can form a passable knowledge of philosophy without actually studying the core writings of the most famous philosophers, hell, most undergrads never read the source material.
If you're looking to just pretend an MA may be a waste.
I also find it interesting that you're so critical of Nietzsche even though from your OPP you seem to be living his philosophy.

Let's not get too testy at OP, Veeky Forums. If you ask me, he's one of the more interesting characters to pop up here. Tell us about your life and your worldviews, OP.

>it makes no sense in my eyes.There is no money in Philosophy.
I always said, if ya want a real job, a philosophy degree is useless.
But if ya wanna find out why a real job is useless, get a philosophy degree
Honestly, if money is your thing, you seem to be taking a strange route to get there
t. former philosophy major that droped out, went to trade school, started a construction business, makes fat stacks and still studies philosophy on his free time

Scuton has more of a 'voice' though - he's talking to people who may someday in someway matter. peterson is just in a youtube ghetto talking to unemployed white guys who think they'd be captains of industry if it wasn't for all the tranny CEO's

Well it does require you to actually read difficult texts and make sense of them. You can be right or wrong in a discription of what a notable philosopher things, and if you don't arrange reasonable textual evidence for what you think you will get fucked.

Also starting at the beginning of the 20th century Anglo philosophy started a real affair with mathematics, and people started writing all their papers with symbolic logic. Figuring out all the ins and out of contemporary modal logic isn't a task for the light-hearted.

If you want a weak taste, take this copy of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, easily one of the 5 most important texts in philosophy ever written, start with the preface and see what you can make of it. If you find it easy enough, maybe you are cut out for this whole philosophy thing
strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-first-critique-cambridge.pdf

>There is no money in Philosophy
Tell that to Japan Tobacco International.

Not him, but if you are British you can immediatly spot his audience immediatly. It's an audience of middle class bourgeoise people, certainly not adolescents (this is JP's case), but it's not a public of intellectuals either.
I don't despise him as that other user, but yeah, his superiority complex is truly disgusting, especially when he associates it to traditional paintings, architecture and classical music. I've always felt that what is beautiful should be defended with grace. Being smug and arrogant about it is not only ineffective, but also, ironically, ugly.

>unemployed white guys
He wouldn't get as much in donations as he does if it was all neetbux.

He takes in average about 11$ from every Patreon, he's not really dealing with CEOs there (although I know he takes lots of corporate gigs).

>claim to fame

You don't understand, I'll be doing the MA first. You're assuming you're doing something I can't, and you're mistaken. You can't even hit the shift key.

>It's weird you say that and yet have an essentially Marxist view of the history of philosophy.

You could sum me up as a Marxist who wants to be on the winning side.

Economics is difficult, why would I do that? Anthropology is clearly not going to be any use, nobody gives a shit what they think and they're all leftists anyway, holding shit-eating as equal to culture.

It's easy to write multi-hundred page books if everything you write is lies pulled from your ass.

Why are you all taking the bait?

Scruton's not a pseudo-intellectual. He's acknowledged that all he ever really wanted was to escape his social class and enjoy the finer things in life - *that's* thinking.

You must be joking, I was going to use a theological angle as part of what I'm doing.

You need the qualifications to get the media gigs. The point is to use the media and society's love of expertise to make bank.

All I want to know is "would not caring matter?", and it seems the answer is no.

>taking a strange route to get there

I have no skills, training or mathematical aptitude.

Is this why he sold his reputation to Big Tobacco?

>You need the qualifications to get the media gigs. The point is to use the media and society's love of expertise to make bank.

Do you really think that youtube talking heads and talk show dwellers do actually know anything about philosophy? Even Scruton and Peterson are complete pseuds who could not hack out a undergrand assignment.

Seriously, the bar is set EXTREMELY low, somlow that reading wikipedia pages and then learning how to smugly argue them will be enough to fool almost everyone. It should be noticed that Peterson and Scruton have never fooled the accademic community, and that this resulted in virtually no backlash: the internet does not care.

Confidence is the name of the game.

But that's easy.

I'll skip the analyticals as soon as I've done my two weeks on them. It's not difficult.

It's not a matter of "easy enough", is it? You're assuming that only a stupid person would have my attitude to philosophy, which is a supposition you have no basis for other than your own insecurity about the value of the subject. Of course I can follow what Kant is saying. It's not a question of "easy enough", it's a question of whether I'm capable of doing it without mental exhaustion, and the answer is, yes I am. That's why I came up with the idea of doing this in the first place.

That's the point.

Yeah, how disgusting that he appeals to productive intelligent people without axes to grind who live in nice houses and have nice things.

He didn't give a shit about that after being run out of academia for telling the truth in his spare time, and I don't blame him.

>Even Scruton and Peterson are complete pseuds who could not hack out a undergrand assignment.

Incorrect, Scruton is a philosopher. He qualified, he got the doctorate, he practiced for years, he IS a philosopher.

>the internet does not care

No, the internet does not care what the academic community thinks. Nobody gives a shit about career academics, they're failures. The trick is to use it as a springboard to create real success for yourself, not to spend your life comforting yourself with your little kingdom of semi-interested immature people.

This is how you justify someone who should technically be a public intellectual shilling for tobacco companies? Disgusting.
And of course it's accademia's fault. Ffs, you guys are shameless

>Yeah, how disgusting that he appeals to productive intelligent people without axes to grind who live in nice houses and have nice things.

I haven't said that it's his audience that makes him disgusting, you pathetic cretin.

Scruton is only an aspirational figure to me because he worked out how to prosper despite having his career junked by the leftists in British academia. If Scruton had remained what he was before that happened, he wouldn't be an example of something to aim for.

Oh yeah, it was his smugness. I don't think he's smug enough. I would come on like Jerry Lewis if I was trying to do his job, which is one flaw he has - he's not as confident before the camera as he should ideally be to maximise his earnings. I mean, he's done one TV documentary ever, whereas someone like David Starkey churns them out semi-annually. There's no reason there shouldn't be a philosophical answer to Starkey.

>Incorrect, Scruton is a philosopher. He qualified, he got the doctorate, he practiced for years, he IS a philosopher.

He is a best-seller writer with no relevance in academia whatsoever. He is as much of a philosopher as me and you.

>No, the internet does not care what the academic community thinks. Nobody gives a shit about career academics, they're failures. The trick is to use it as a springboard to create real success for yourself, not to spend your life comforting yourself with your little kingdom of semi-interested immature people.
If you can ooze confidence you won't have any problem fooling frogs on the internet. The rethoric is already there, the aggressivity is in check. What's your stage presence like? Could you dominate an interviewer, or amaze a group of 100 people?

I like your psycho spin. I was mainly shittalking him as a classical music enthusiast, but yeah, you are right. If it's about money, that is right path: that said, to people like it would be like selling my own soul. I guess this type of career is not for everybody.

No, check out his history before condescending to him for being more of a success than you are. He was an academic philosopher. The left trashed his career, and freed him to do better than they ever did.

I'm not interested in merely fooling frogs, I would never lower myself to be what Peterson is, begging "Kekistani boys" for pocket change through Patreon. A middle-aged man with a Patreon should end himself. I want to be a brand, like Scruton, who gets invited onto news programmes, regularly does broadsheet journalism, does spots on the radio, does well-remunerated visiting lecturer gigs.

You are a human, remember that. Sooner or later, you'll get high on your supply; if your value as percieved by others lies in your knowledge of the subject, and you yourself consider that subject trivial or worse artificial, the dissonance will drive you mad - irony may remedy it for a bit, but like drinking to cure a hangover that's a temporary and inadviceable solution. Imagine how alone, cold, misunderstood and abandoned you'll feel as you preach to the choir of the people you despise, arrogant pricks publicly declaring that they are better than you which you can't even refute without destroying your identity... With good luck you'll become the mask but, as it sounds from your tone, that you may consider an even worse fate.

But life is just about money and pussy XDDDDD

I can see why it wouldn't be, people who study these things often build up an investment in what people think of them, and Scruton is no doubt regarded with contempt by many philosophers, but fuck 'em.

I don't care what they value, I value them for money. Why would anyone in my audience declare that they're better than me? Do you know how earning a living works? Those people aren't your friends, they're sources of money.

But that's all it is about. Nobody has ever killed themselves because they didn't understand Dasein; plenty of people have killed themselves for lack of money or pussy.

Actually, this needs to be addressed - you think people feel good about being rich because it means that people think they're valuable? No, it's almost certainly the money.

Plenty of people with an abundance of money, pussy, and/or other similar pleasures have killed themselves too. What's your point? Would you call me a liar if I said that plenty of people have killed themselves because they didn't understand Buddhism?

You are a bad actor, anyway, your attempts to lie to yourself are so transparent they can be noticed by a capuchin with a down syndrome. You want to be like Peterson/Zizek, not have their job benefits, simple calculation reveals that your chances to end up on the top are miniscule - with dedication and perseverence, you'd reach somewhere around Scott Alexander. Comfortable living, but nothing excessive, main attraction being a cult of personality (which can amount to pussy but there are easier ways). And cult of personality requires a true belief, or at least an ability to decieve others into thinking you believe, and you fail at that.

No, I'd say that you're wasting time. I'm not talking about holy war or martyrdom.

>cult of personality requires a true belief
This is nonsense. Why do you think I couldn't deceive others? I haven't been attempting deceive anyone here, just posting honestly. You're flailing around for no reason. I won't be noticed.

A U D I E N C E P U S S Y

"I wonder if my purpose in life is to put my penis in as many vaginas as possible." -David Memester Wallace (paraphrased)

And it turned out fantastic for him!

I'm not talking about holy war or martyrdom either. And actually, I'm not trying to convince you to give up your life of money and pussy chasing. But I really don't think you can provide a convincing argument that this lifestyle of yours is sufficient for everyone, or even most people.

Why would I want to argue that it would be sufficient for everyone or most people? Why would I be interested in doing that? I don't want a load of other people trying the same thing.

He had chemical problems in his brain, it's not a valid reference.

You'll fill your life with a useless thing and expect the life itself not to fill useless as a result? Or do you think life is inherently useless, so there's no real difference between becoming a financial analyst and a pop-philosopher, but somehow money and pussy are not useless? If so, why is nobody flocking to philosophy - are they dumber than you? If you are so smart, why not do something that doesn't require you to get published and requires being lucky, as anything relating to fame, and still brings your pussy and money? How do you explain to your doctor that you already have snorted a month's worth of adderall, even though he increased your dosage in August? Do you consider your schoolmates ingrate imbeciles because they don't listen when you explain to them how their goals and aspirations are worthless? Why your mom allows you to post here?*

*Obviously, because your dad left the family when you were four, and you've never enjoyed much supervision and care in the last eleven years.

I'm satisfied with this answer. I misunderstood you when you kept saying that life was only about money and pussy. I thought you meant that all lives were about those two items, not just YOUR life specifically. And if your life really can be satisfactory with that mindset, then go ahead, have a blast.

Btw, I wasn't talking about people who kill themselves in the name of Buddhism. I was talking about people who kill themselves because they never learn to control their desires, the way that Buddhism advocates.

Do you really think that getting so angry at him will switch him to your side?

I don't want him on my side, I want him to remain convinced that people are dumb and innocent and devote themselves to useless causes so that he inevitably blows his brains out. Although my bet is that his attempt will fail and he'll end up alive, bitter, but very afraid of death and hideously disfigured - that'll help with pussy and cash.

You're exemplifying how intellectually impaired people who take philosophy seriously are, I'm afraid. I won't feel useless because I'll have money to do things I want to do, money which I made from an easy job. Life is for living.

No, being a famous philosopher is incredibly easy. You get the qualifications, then you get media attention by making yourself available as a rentaquote for a price. Then you build the brand.

I've never used Adderall. Why would I explain to people that their goals and ambitions are worthless?

I'm an adult, hence MA, not BA.

Are your parents filthy rich or something? How is this even a real goal someone has?

who is this semen demon

>have a blast

Thanks! All lives probably are about those things, that doesn't mean I want to tell anyone else that fact. The more people chase phantoms, the clearer the field is for me, and besides, life is whatever you want it to be. If you want something else, go for it.

Nobody has ever killed themsleves because they never learned to control their desires. People kill themselves because they have chemical problems in their brains.

Why would I kill myself because other people waste their lives? I don't care.

No, I'm just an ordinarily intelligent person from an average background.

Alicja Gescinska.

>Nobody has ever killed themselves because they never learned to control their desires. People kill themselves because they have chemical problems in their brains.

Oh, boy. You're really something, you know that?

How do you mean?

>do you think I will be able to pretend to be interested in philosophy long enough to get my qualifications?
You don't get a degree because you showed interest. You get a degree because you did the work, and your simpleton's brainfarts will probably suffice, provided you argue your point.

Unless you get an sjw prof, nobody will give a fuck what position you take, so long as you argue for it well.

>How is philosophy "technical"?

You couldn't even hack Descartes. If you choose this track, you may bullshit through a lot of it (only as an undergrad). You really don't need a passion to get a degree in anything. I just want to know why you want so badly to be an annoying charlatan.

>There's a lot of great bullshit you can spin out of this.

Word of advice: nobody in the discipline writes like a methed up continental anymore.

This is the most encouraging answer I've read yet, thanks user.

Descartes isn't "technical". None of philosophy is technical.

I want it because it's a job I could do without much difficulty that would bring in good money if I do it well.

What made you think I was thinking of overwriting? It's all bullshit.

I mean you're a real rascal, you. Although I suppose that all problems could be considered "chemical" in a certain light....

philosophy is for failed artists or scientists. no one would choose to be a philosopher over a genius composer or a genius scientist, because it is always a last resort profession, for failures and frauds
>Nietzsche - wanted to be a composer and failed
>Wittgenstein - wanted to be an engineer, failed, wanted to be a mathematician, failed, wanted to be a musician, failed
>Heidegger - wished he was a poet/artist, failed
>Schopenhaur - wished he was a musician so that wouldn't have to live his boring philosopher life, failed
>Russell - wanted to be a great mathematician, wasn't as smart as other mathematicians and so opted for philosophy
>every single modern anglo philosopher - wished they were mathematicians, but failed, so they try pathetically to use mathematical symbols and logic in their philosophy so that they can at least get the aesthetic of it

Philosophers are also all sad manlets trying to compensate for low self esteem
>Heidegger was like 5 feet
>Wittgenstein - 5'6"
>Nietzsche 5'8"
>Camus - 5'7"
>Kant - 5'0" LMAO
>Sartre - 5'0" LMFAO
>Derrida - 5'5"
>Zizek - 5'8"
etc. etc. etc..

Philosophers wish they could make an impact on the world, they wish they could create beautiful works of art, they wish they could be good looking Chads, but they always fail, so they try to argue their way out of it, reason their way our of it: "I may not be able to get that cute girl, but, uh, it's because I'm the Ubermensch, hehehe, right guys!?" Every philosophical theory has been overturned, and philosophy has NEVER come up with a definitive answer. It is a failed field, and no one takes it seriously. Philosophers are all sad, pathetic, delusional people.

>inb4 philosopher manlets try to refute this with "hurr durr spooks!" "muh muh philosophy was before science so therefore uh, uh, it's superior" or "surprise you've been doing philosophy ur whole l-life, haha gotcha!" or literal philosophical reasoning, proving my point exactly

LMFAO

>>Schopenhaur - wished he was a musician so that wouldn't have to live his boring philosopher life, failed
Schopenhauer was a merchant who desperately wanted to be a philosopher.

Thank you. Well, all mental problems literally are. There's nothing else for them to be constituted by.

This seems like pasta, unfortunately.

So what philosophy courses are you attending this semester?

Don't answer the pasta, this is a good thread.

I am a huge narcissist and an asshole. Bla bla bla bla.

Do you think I can be a huge asshole without any repercussions?

Pic related.

>be a huge asshole

No, I'm just talking about providing a service that people will pay for. Nothing narcissistic or unpleasant involved.

Yes indeed. Let's continue.

Another doozy of an answer. Why would you say suicide rates are on such a fantastic rise in affluent areas, OP?

>Nothing unpleasant involved
People generally find frauds to be unpleasant. I'm sure you rubbed a lot of people the wrong way when you talked about pretending to be friends with people. But I wouldn't call you a narcissist so much as just unconventionally self-oriented, and I'm not bothered by your willingness to lie so much as intrigued, because you said here () that you aren't too thrilled about damaging society through crime or Soros shenanigans. What's your moral outlook in general?

>Why would you say suicide rates are on such a fantastic rise in affluent areas, OP?

They're not. All mental problems are literally chemical imbalances. This kind of mystical pseudoscientific credulousness is why philosophy can no longer be taken seriously.

I wouldn't seem fraudulent to those people.

My moral outlook is general is Christian.

I'll have to do more research on the suicide rates (as well as how not to be tricked by phony stats) before I believe you fully. I was talking about how the anons here feel about you in regards to the fradulence. As for the Christian quip, I'll assume it's a sarcastic joke.

Anyways, great thread. Good night everyone.