help me. i am an undergrad in philosophy in a position to pursue a phd at a good program. i read nietzsche and i think i made the full quadrilateral understanding between kant marx nietzsche and foucault and now i'm a left-fascist and i'm worried nobody in academic philosophy will take me seriously with a metaphysics built around an erratic reading of memephilosophers (plato, kierkegaard, hegel are also examples) that opposes common positions in both memephilosophy and real philosophy (analytics)...can anyone advise me on how to proceed? I am very good at math and could get on the proof grind, but find it less satisfying. I would like to develop my subjectivity more but do not want to get cucked out of a job by people who sling ought statements around too blindly. what can i do?
Help me. i am an undergrad in philosophy in a position to pursue a phd at a good program...
>"real philosophy"
Do you mean the way that academic departments try to argue for their own existence?
gosh, i guess it just is higher levels of ruse all the way down...thank you for helping me develop this better understanding
Majoring in philosophy is a mistake
...
Once you realize the kinds of arguments that tenured philosophy professors make are structured by the fact that they're tenured, you'll stop caring about what professional philosophers think and start looking for historical records of those who found wisdom, rather than simply loving it. For me, it happened when a tenured professor of philosophy wouldn't let me write a paper about Stirner in a political philosophy class because Stirner 'scared' him (his word). These people are fucking pussies. Not all philosophers are like this, and in fact no TRUE philosopher is; but this is the job of the philosophy professor, to stand between you and a book, and between that book and its context, and from that context and the chain of contexts that constitute the history of a discipline.
>left-fascist
>worried no one in academia will take you seriously
you would be wrong about that
Maybe you should've picked a less edgy philosopher to write about. The job of the philosophy professor is to stop you from doing embarrassing bullshit.
I don't think "kill men" "fuck whites" is bad, I think it's all very cool. the fact that it represents the angry will of groups plunged into degradation taking its revenge is actually quite nice imo
You're justifying this behavior by saying that it's 'edgy.' Yeah, Stirner is edgy, but if nobody ever takes him seriously then how can anyone ever hope to finally put down Stirnerfags? Hitler sure was 'edgy.' Mao was 'edgy.' Stalin was 'edgy,' and so were plenty of other people who had an impact on the world. Why should that be a reason to disregard something. More importantly, since we're talking about philosophy and the pursuit of truth rather than the importance of not looking edgy, if Stirner was right, then surely it's best to know that he was right, so that we can be Stirnerfags ourselves and not be in the wrong.
Why should the edgy be ignored? Why should being scared of a set of arguments excuse a self-proclaimed philosopher from taking the time to prove them invalid or unsound?
> revenge is actually quite nice imo
Deep AND edgy! I like it!
damn nietzsche is just fight club isn't he
back to the drawing board, i have something on feminist ethics that might make a nice article
He wasn't scared of Stirner's ideas he was scared that you'd write something embarrassing
If you're in a class your teacher expects you to learn by writing about something that people actually care about
get into a continental department and break your mind of out positivist ideology
>He wasn't scared of Stirner's ideas he was scared that you'd write something embarrassing
Baseless conjecture, this is absolutely impossible for you to know unless you're the professor.
Inductive method. Most people who complain about professors stifling their individuality are really just being protected from embarrassing themselves. My hypothesis that such was your professor's intention is corroborated by your mention that you wanted to write about Stirner, who is edgy and who is only taken seriously by three people in the world, all of whom post on Veeky Forums. A university course is not the place to express yourself.
That's not the "inductive" method. It's a grasp at straws, an insulting guess. Don't try to formalize it into something it's not.
I understand what you're saying, and you could even be right, but there's not enough there to make that claim and expected me to accept it.
Furthermore, all fields progress from a non uniform, uneven distribution of exploration. Tinkering in what would seem 'useless' fields and endeavors can end up yielding huge benefits, like the lazer. The user who you're referring too, and the one I'm LARPING as could've found something incredible in Stirner's work, and we shouldn't be so constrained in exploration and contribution. The odds of something profound, or even something that encourages any development, being discovered in another run of the mill paper within a set of pre-approved authors and interpretations of these authors are much lower, I would think.
Rank-and-file analytic philosopher here, so I don't know much about your area of interest. But if you want a PhD program (a) in an Anglophone country, that (b) could /potentially/ get you a job in academia, you should look at the faculty pages for programs in the top ~20 of the Philosophical Gourmet Report (and also those that are highly-ranked in the gourmet report's sub-specialty rankings. I think they have, e.g., a ranking for your kind of stuff.) As you scroll through the faculty pages, look for professors with research interests in your ball park. Take a look at their publications and try to get a quick sense for whether you think they'd be sympathetic with the kind of work you'd want to do. Don't be afraid to e-mail them or phone up the admissions around application time---many won't respond, but some definitely will. Most decent departments take prospectives seriously.
There are definitely departments with strengths in Nietzsche and Kant scholarship. (Princeton is the best for the former, and Stanford or Pittsburgh is probably the best for the latter; but of course different departments have very different overall attitudes to these things.) Not many people read Foucault anymore in Anglophone philosophy departments. Marx is definitely taken dead-seriously by some, but I don't really know where.
Good luck.
Complain about the rigidity of your field when you're submitting papers for publication in real journals, not when you're submitting an assignment for an undergraduate class. It's a bit silly to claim that his situation is evidence that philosophy professors want to stifle critical thinking when there's a much more reasonable explanation for the professor's warning against Stirner.
It feels horrible to see these texts to get consumed by a public who don't take these critiques of modernity seriously but act like they've got an enlightened understanding of the notion of discipline after a social sciences class and frankly it makes me worry that I'll bear a mark of sophomorism. Ever since I started reading thinky stuff it's been about deconstruction, the limits of the assertation of truth, and identity as a self-reproducing category; this all feels like the culmination and if I can get enough $$$ to eat and buy my books I can live. I think I'd like teaching ;)
To be clear, I didn't know what level he was at, and assumed because of the nature of his complaints he must have been PhD or so, graduate at least. I agree that complaining about that is silly as an undergraduate.
And again, I was not original user, I came in when I mentioned baseless conjecture, and don't represent any opinions before that (in this case, that his professor consciously wanted to stifle him).
isnt nietzsche against revenge
try comparative literature
if you're reading nietzsche 100% you're necessarily not agreeing with nietzsche 100% baby dude will to power lmao
thank you. i never realized the theory division applies as much as it does to modern philosophy departments
There is indeed, overall, massive division. But in many places there is a more collaborative spirit. You just need to know where to look. Many Anglophone departments engage, in one way or another, with continental philosophy. (If you want to spend 11 years reading Hegel, you should go to Pittsburgh.) And my sense is that, given the current political climate in academia generally, more philosophers are studying and engaging with Marx.
>given the current political climate in academia generally, more philosophers are studying and engaging with Marx.
how fresh and exciting
o_O
what's the point of majoring in philosophy?
enlighten me OP
People like fries.
If your arguments are solid and convincing, they will gain traction.
If your arguments are some silly misreading of yours that you want to believe for the sake of feeling unique or special, like the only person who "got" it, then they will gain no traction.
Not OP, but philosophy majors are among the highest LSAT scorers. Anyone who intends to be a lawyer ought to at least consider majoring in philosophy.
Since we have legit philosphers here, how does one really starts?
go enroll in a philosophy degree somewhere
>he doesn't want to be an author, he must want to be a philosopher, or a professor!
wrong again, lol
Not possible for now.
your thought will mature with time
Bullshit
I know it's a meme but start with the Greeks
I wanna be a philosopher who specializes in kantbooism but my rhetorical and social skills are in the words of kant stinky nigger sub 79 iq.
All for nought? German here
bump