Is it possible to be an autodictact when it comes to philosophy?

>only those with collegiate pedigree can say whether autodidact philosophy is possible :^)

You should review Aristotle, user. Good ruse, made me reply.

A person who has experience in academic philosophy most likely was an autodidact themselves before attending university. A person who attended college also has experience dealing intimately with academic philosophers AND, though less intimately, with autodidacts.

They have the most authority to answer the question since only they have been on both sides of the fence.

This statement is clearly false for the following reasons: according to legend, the Academy (of Plato) bore a slogan at its gate along these lines: "let no man ignorant of geometry enter here." And yet in the Meno, argued by Socrates and recorded by Plato, it is demonstrated that even slaves and "ignorant people" are really not ignorant of geometry after all, but must simply be led through a re-discovery process to re-learn what they already actually knew at bottom in the first place, just in a more abstruse sense. The point being, even if only by anecdote, to blow the whole enterprise to smithereens, which also commonly happens.

Second, philosophy, in its broad and (necessarily!) not-always-scientific method of questioning, is thus obviously amenable to whatever readership may wish to see about it. Philosophy is naturally "squishy" and naive attempts by its senior practicioners to discourage plebs can be laughed off. The very nature of your inquiry opens your whole field to cranks - Derrida, pataphysics, etc. Diogenes stands as a great and early popular-pleb-narrative meme-story to shit on "greatness".

Third, the biggest crank of all was Aristotle.

Contrary to today's unimaginative scientistic scientists, Philosophy is of course not totally bereft of value, but must be critically approached, and often as a historical exercise.

>thus obviously amenable to whatever readership may wish to see about it. Philosophy is naturally "squishy"...

F-

See me after class.

This is the product of an autodidact, OP. What do you think?

>As a side note, only philosophy majors, philosophy graduate students, and philosophy professors should be answering this question.

>most likely was an autodidact themselves before attending university

>only philosophy majors
>most likely autodidacts

If you're going to speak authoritatively then when called out backpedal onto "most likelys" and speaking out of your ass just stfu and leave your ego out of it next time. Thanks.

>the fatty-fatty-fat-fat emperors have been spotted by one of their very own has having no clothes, and so must preen as if they have clothes, rather than attempting a substantive rebuttal like the above bit where I right called them both out as fatty-fatty-fat-fats-

It depends on what you want out of it.

How about this. I know personally many philosophy majors who were autodidacts before becoming philosophy majors. I am one. I myself read philosophy independently while I was working for about six years after high school, before finally making the decision to attend college and become a philosophy major. I'm a senior now, and I'll tell you this. You can do philosophy by yourself, but not nearly as well as you can do it at a university.

It all depends on how serious you are about it. For the autodidact, it's a hobby. For the student or professor, it's much more.

These are consistent statements, and not the absolutes you were vomiting before.

>Using Plato to argue that "hurdurr anyone can be a philosopher"

Faggot, Plato was the most elitist philosopher who ever lived. In Republic you had to do math for 10 fucking years before you were even offered the chance to learn philosophy. His theory of recollection doesn't even make the point you want it to, and even if it did, Plato abandoned that theory for the Forms anyways.

>Professional philosophers are naive about a field they study professionally.

This doesn't even make fucking sense.

>Philosophy is squishy

Elaborate on this, please.

>love Plato, Kierkegaard, neoplatonists, analytic Thomists
>go to university
>the discussion is shit
>the work doesn't require much depth of thought or aesthetic sense
>be STEM major instead for job security, do philosophy on the side

>be my wife
>doctoral candidate in philosophy
>similar interests to mine; despise derrida, etc.
>forced to take "advanced epistemology"

Epistemology, Part II
>We milk the cow of the world, and as we do
>We whisper in her ear, "You are not true."

to answer your question, no, one can not be a true autodidact when it comes to philosophy. dialogue is the most (only?) successful form of philosophic inquiry. descartes' "meditations" is probably the best philosophy one can hope to derive in vacuo.

I'm curious, which university did you go to when you studied philosophy?

let's say it's one of the top liberal-arts universities in a region of the US. plausible deniability, and all.

Philosophy is an act of discourse and there's really no way to genuinely test your mettle in rigorous philosophical discourse on Veeky Forums, let alone anywhere else neets reside. You may have read many works and know a lot about the history of philosophy but as soon as you're grilled on it and forced to apply it it's an entirely different enterprise.

This. You can talk about being an autodidact when learning a language, where you either know it fluently or not. But philosophy is by its nature contested and without a clear end. Those who say you can't philosophize without education are just too caught in the academical system to be able to see beyond it.

Reads like a high school essay.

autodidact is the polite way of saying too dumb for college

philosophy courses are a scam

or too poor

This, nothing beats going to college to study philosophy so your prof teaches you only ethics of late capitalism and its similarity with nazism and how Trump should be killed so you open your borders and remove the police

case in point

financial aid is need based

>Tfw happily enrolled in a top philosophy PhD program with access to a vibrant intellectual community, brilliant professors, and nearly infinite research resources -- and I get paid to be a part of it

I actually went to college to study philosophy but I don't think I would do it if I had to pay desu

>Plato "demonstrating" anything

confirmed philosophically illiterate

DAS IT MANE

Yes but you can't become one by reading a few hours a day and spending the rest of your time shitposting on Veeky Forums, which is what the population of Veeky Forums does (at best, most people here don't even read books).

>philosophy
It can't be falsified so why not.

I think you can be autodidact in SOME philosophy that intersects your discipline. So an anthropologist can pick up Marx, and literary critic can pick up Derrida, etc. that's because these philosophers have already formed the field, and even when you're reading them for the first time, you're already familiar with the concepts because they're part of your training and practice.

the two major caveats are then that you'll never really be a philosopher per se, even if you are talented at dealing with theoretical problems in the field from a philosophical perspective, and that you're not a strict autodidact in that you have formal training, albeit not in philosophy.

but pure autodidacticism is sheer masturbation, because without an academy you'll never have access to the professional resources (not only professors, but free access to everything written on the topic) that make engaging the problems possible

you need to read lots of secondary sources since you wont have teacher.

like those oxford guides/introductions

>You will never be a philosopher if you didn't get taught by a liberal professor from a highly expensive university.

Dear lord, what am I reading?

wow, that's a lot of warrantless extrapolation. almost what i would expect from someone without education

kek