I'm a Professional Philosopher

if being practical is essentially honing your ability to rise/succeed in the world you live in then indulging in thought that challenges the accepted truths is inherently impractical

In this context it very much isn't.

Why would you imply that OP is saying it's a bad idea? That katana looks really cool :^)

how so?
philospher, philo-sophism, a lover of wisdom
shouldn't one who loves something be devoted to it?
I can't call someone devoted to anything when they are ultimately devoted to themselves
every thinker on youtube reminds you to subscribe, every politcal theorist needs you to buy their book.
I understand why, we live in the real world, but there's no need to defile the term philosopher so that they can feel better about themselves

without spilling a four page essay on you, i'll put it this way.
I consider there to be separate realms of being, sexuality is one of them
those who we might consider devoted to the sexual realm give their lives to it, and often die because of it due to disease or abuse.
the same goes for the realm of creativity, I think we can all recognize the true devotion of artists who lose their minds creating their work in comparison to those who work for grammys and fame
similarly I expect those who love the realm of thought to be so devoted to it that it breaks them
I don't know of many people who do that these days, but honestly I'd love ot be proven wrong

maybe its impractical for a manlet like you

Being devoted to a single thing your entire life sounds incredibly dull. Why waste your life on Earth focused on one thing when there is so much to experience?

The sword or philosophy...?

well, as I see it, and please disagree if you find flaws with this

a realm of being is not one thing and it can only be "explored" through experience, trial and error, and sharing with others

also, what is "one thing?" is art one thing? is a single painting one thing? is a song one thing? is a melody? etc.

>how so?
Because in this context it's a trade term. A professional philosopher is someone being paid being a philosopher.

underrated post

my whole point is that to deal in ideas like they are a good/service does injustice to the realm of thought/wisdom, so I wouldn't call anyone who does so (or at least, whose primary goal is to do so and odes not merely do so by sheer dint of being a good philospher) a philosopher
maybe colloquialism isn't the best word, perhaps oxymoron was better, which I assumed was ultimately OP's point

>is unable to tell which one

This, my friends, is a perfect example of one who cannot wield a sword or wield rhetoric.

They are indeed linked. All the great philosophers of our times have been trained in sword warfare. EN GARDE

however if you ARE someone on said career path and are looking for advice, I don't mean to be insulting
just that maybe 'philosopher' is going a bit far. 'author' 'theorist' 'lecturer' etc. all fine, I was just being pedantic about the term philosophy

>also, what is "one thing?" is art one thing? is a single painting one thing? is a song one thing? is a melody? etc.
Good point. Indeed, the entirety of existence could be "one thing." Though I'd similarly have to ask you what you consider to be a "realm."
My point isn't very rigorous. I just mean to say that personally, life is more interesting when I have several different interests. I would probably get antsy if all I thought about all day was, say, music, or philosophy, or math, or whatever. It surely makes me a dilettante, and that slightly bothers me, but so be it.

I know a philosophy major. He married a rick woman with a computer science degree and now he never has to work.

Ihaven't fully fleshed out the "real of beings thing" but similar to it being a thing that one explores through acting out, it is something that often evades verbal articulation
I know that sounds like a cop-out, but I think there is at least one "logos" realm, where precise verbiage stem from. this is the realm in which we "build" our societal structures and instiutions; the things we bring out from the realm of logos are not only logical but manifest themselves tangibly and with defined order
in another realm the rules change fundamentally; the "artifacts" one brings from the realm of sexuality can be fetishes and uncomunicable experiences
from the creative realm obviously we get works of art we cannot articulate with words but recognize the beauty of

I am not going to rewrite it into Veeky Forums but i wrote a big journal entry one time (yes i know how faggy that sounds) about how homosexuals are born traversers of the sexual realm and often times fall victim to the artifacts they bring back

I don't know, this is all just my own bullshit though

>rick woman
What?

he's using philosophy tactics from his training at Free Domain University. he's trained, you see.
>rick woman == richard woman == dick woman == trap
he's bragging about marrying a compsci trap while also bragging about being unemployable.

>It's a hobby.
Anyone who thinks that it can be done as a hobby is delusional. Academia is so important in learning philosophy that it's impossible to do without. Hell, I can point it out on myself. I only thought I knew things about philosophy before I started studying it formally.

She will eventually get tired of supporting him.

>muh sekret club
Yeah no.

anyone who thinks you need an approved council of "academics" to impart correct knowledge is a barainlet
seriously though, most of those academics are just reading books that you could be reading

>anyone who thinks you need an approved council of "academics" to impart correct knowledge is a barainlet
>seriously though, most of those academics are just reading books that you could be reading
And that's where you'll be wrong. There are things that can't be self-taught, and philosophy is one of them. Same as with the argument against writing in Phaedrus - you cannot ask the book questions. It's not going to teach you the subtleties where the Greek usage of terms differs from our own (for example, the way Greeks connected finite to finished, and therefore to perfect). It's not going to teach you how the concept was used by others or on what it was built. It won't teach you context. Basically, you'll miss out on the preconceptions that are essential in understanding philosophical texts. Moreover, there is a problem of finding the correct books without counsel. There is the problem of different ways to approach a text that you, again, won't get by being self-studied. I could go on, but I think this is enough to show why studying philosophy without being able to interact with a group of people already studied in it is nearly impossible.
It's not particularly secret. It's just that you're bound to failure without being to interact with that pool of knowledge.

>what is secondary literature

How much secondary literature do you intend to read about each individual work?

>you cannot ask the book questions
but if you go to academia you're not guaranteed to be asking PHILOSOPHERS those questions, you're asking someone who has read the books you can read and gets paid to talk about them
also as per those other things, you do realize where those academics learned all those things right? books

lots?
how many classes do you intend to take?

>I'm a professional at sitting on my ass and writing unintelligible bullshit

>but if you go to academia you're not guaranteed to be asking PHILOSOPHERS those questions, you're asking someone who has read the books you can read and gets paid to talk about them
>also as per those other things, you do realize where those academics learned all those things right? books
You're asking people who are very well-informed about the works themselves, their historical backgrounds, other less significant works of the same philosophers, the way those influenced other philosophers and have mostly done some original research on those subjects. You won't get any of that by just reading books yourself.

Who is going to advise you on the correct books? Who are you going to be able to discuss them with when there are unclear points in primary and secondary literature? With whom are you going to talk about the implications of points that were not addressed in secondary literature? It's because of these things that I'm telling you're never going to reach the quality of knowledge you would get inside the academia.

Best thread ive seen in a while

>there are no books about philosophers life/relations or historical backgrounds

let's clearly define what "academia" is
what I am saying is not necesary to learning philosphy is a degree and a formal education
I consider what we're doing right now to be engaging in philosophical discussion
sure I sacrifice a bit because I can't guarantee any of you knw what you are talking about
but at the same time i really believe the credentials are a lie, most of what these professors know they got from books or its something one of their friends told them after they or someone else read it in a book

>i really believe the credentials are a lie, most of what these professors know they got from books or its something one of their friends told them after they or someone else read it in a book
You'd be wrong there. Professors in university are not secondary school professors. The standard is high.

>You'd be wrong there. Professors in university are not secondary school professors. The standard is high.
>t. philosophy professor
okay bud

Stop typing like that

>t. philosophy professor
I wish. I'm just a lowly student. But, look, if you're going to keep on claiming that philosophy classes are useless, there isn't much I can do to convince you otherwise except state that, out of experience, they aren't anywhere near it, and the pool of knowledge and connections that studying offers is irreplacable.

Like what?

Like

what?

>I have never taken a philosophy class
you've missed my point entirely my friend
any phiilosophical discussion is of great use, and a class is of greater
what I don't bow down to is the institution of academia (which I thought I had made clear, if not, my bad)
my argument take courses, talk to teachers, but if you're ultimately devoted to thought itself than credentials are secondary. what is of utmost concerne is how much a thought engages more thought, which is why I don't recomend anyone shell out a fuckload of money to "learn philosophy"
same basic argument stuck up artists make when they scoff at art school

Where are you going to find such classes aside from university? I've been on some public "classes" that get organised once in a while, those mostly end up as excessive simplification, occasional misrepresentation and pop philosophy. There is a very large difference between those short, occasional classes and repeated classes stretching for a semester or more. That difference is partly due to length, but also partly due to the competence of those included. The standards for such public classes are much, much lower than for universities.
>which is why I don't recomend anyone shell out a fuckload of money to "learn philosophy"
Thank God I don't live in US or UK. I think I'd kill myself if I did.

Who the fuck is gonna pay you to be a "philosopher"?

You'll never have anything unique or profound to say user. You're a cringelord holy shit.

>I would kill myself if I had to pay to learn how to intellectually masturbate properly

what is the difference between a philosopher and a sophist?
it's the difference between someone who essentially "loves" thought and someone who essentially "deals in" thought
If I were advising someone on how to deal in thought and ideas properly I'd advise them to learn their craft from professionals, meet with other aspiring professionals, read, come up with your own "product" and find a great wya to distribute it
I mean none of that derisively, but to someone who LOVES thought as a PHILOSOPHER does, all of that is secondary
"who cares what goes on in some fancy building full of stuff elites in suits" is just one way to see it, and for someone who loves thought above all else, just tthat one potential way of looking at it is more interesting than the best lecture in the world
someone who loves thought is not interested in hearing the best explanation of someones elses theorem, they want to enter the "realm of thought" and "be" a traverser of that realm, as I mentioned earlier

It will be one of the few professions impossible to be automated, at least for a while.

It's not a profession. I know that hurts your feelings but it's true.

continuing...
the reason philosophy education as such is inefficient to a philosopher is because the THOUGHT they are obsessed with is NOT ONLY FOUND AMONGT THOSE WHO LIKE TO THINK
thought is everywhere and it drives everything
in honing the mind one must engage in the pursuits of the body, the soul. one must go to the depths and the peaks of human existence
you CANNOT get these things in a class
classes are good to drive you towards these things, but ultimately they do not reside there

Ok.
Here you underestimate just how incredibly important the understanding of philosophic tradition is. Kant was motivated by Hume. Marx drew from Hegel and Feuerbach, while simultaneously providing a critique of both. Husserl's phenomenology grew out of a critique of empiricism while taking form Kant, Descartes and medieval philosophy. This kind of attitude would perhaps have been acceptable for Plato and Socrates, but in this moment it is simply not viable given the sheer breadth of the intellectual tradition that preceeds us, and of which one needs to be very well-informed in if he wants to do philosophy. It's both because analysing the current discourse allows one to escape its preconceptions which necessarily colour their thought and because it allows you to see if some of the things that come to mind have already been addressed and in what way.

>Kant was motivated by Hume. Marx drew from Hegel and Feuerbach, while simultaneously providing a critique of both
nigga you've been lecturing me on how you HAVE to go to teacher to get this stuff and then you pull fun facts RIGHT OUT OF A FUCKING WILL DURANT BOOK
fucking hell

I'm terribly sorry that I said something well-known in order to not make the discussion impossible due to obscurity. Next time I'll go with something else.

>you HAVE to go to school to get le seeecret knowledge
>I-i was only using facts everyone knows b-because I don't want to uh... ruin the convo
stop
for a philosophy student you have the most ossified mindset I have ever encountered
I don't recognize your "credentials" as a sign of knowledge in themselves and you disagree.

Whatever you say, user.

>no argument
epic