/lit/ - Literature

The people who get their major works out before the age of 23 didn't give two fucks about getting their work out or not before they were 23. Chances are that like 99% of people you accelerate/mature more slowly than the big names before you. I'm not saying you won't be the next Kant/Kripke/Heidegger/Plato but you sure as hell won't be one before the age of 23 if you have to post a panicked thread on 4chan about your goals which you want to achieve before the age of 23.

>>5053187
I read that Hume wanted to be the Newton of philosophy though.

> I've read 15 books

Bro... people like Kant and Hume had read like 2500 serious books by the time they were 19.

>>5053200
I wasn't going to name all of the one ones I read.

>>5053197
Exception that makes the rule I guess. He didn't release Treatise until he was 27.

>>5053204

So you've read over one thousand serious works of literature or non fiction? I sincerely doubt it.

>Am I being a bitch?

Yes. You're 19, you haven't lived enough to have anything interesting to say. The world doesn't need any more limp wristed milquetoast shitlord "philosophers"

there's a 20 year-old kid who calls himself Christophocles who posts around here sometimes. He wrote a bretty gud book about ethics... It's really unlike anything I've seen before. a little too whimsical to be taken seriously by contemporary philosophers, but the ideas are fuckin gold.

http://www.humanactionnetwork.com/ethix-.html

>thinking reading a lot of philosophy will let him write an important philosophical treatise ever.
>hasn't started writing a philosophical work yet.
>probably hasn't even studied much of any math or science
>born in 1995 and still thinks he's a special snowflake

heh, children

>>5053231
Ok
>>5053225
Well no, not yet. It takes time. I've been told to take my time with philosophy. Something along the lines of 10 minutes per page, since it is very dense.
>>5053249
1994, also Hume hated taking classes that were not philosophy.

>>5053173
>more concerned about his ego than his actual philosophical work

Your entire post is about how you want to portray yourself as a philosopher, and not about how your work can be improved. If your goal is to become a "great philosopher", rather than produce great philosophical work, you are just a glory-hound shitting up the field.

>>5053173
Stop reading shitty popular philosophy guides and pick up the Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, and then Coplestone's ten volume history, or the Routeledge history, or another serious academic history.
Start writing essays, and finishing essays. One or two a month, editing them repeatedly, on whatever topics you can think of.

>>5053258
It's both though. I have a fat ego but I do want to improve the field.

>>5053256
I-ff I correlate with what the greats did it will cause me to be great!!

>>5053173
Well, Kant didn't write until much, much later in his life and look how he turned out.
Just take it easy and enjoy your youth a little bit. You'll have plenty of time to think, read and write when you lose your enthusiasm for drinking, smoking, traveling, having sex and generally trying to outdo everyone in your smarts.

>>5053274

>>5053268
If you aren't absolutely concerned with the health of the field, then you are ineffectively contributing to it. i.e. You are not doing the best you could be doing.

>>5053256
>Hume hated taking classes that were not philosophy.


hahah, taking classes? I'm not talking about taking classes, son. If you to take a class to learn something, you are way behind.

Hume studied and wrote about the history and development of science extensively.

>>5053173

>>5053284
I just want to be recognized, plus I really enjoy philosophy. I think it's a good combination to be honest.

> If you to take a class to learn something,
no, no that's what I said.
>Hume studied and wrote about the history and development of science extensively.
I love history too.

>>5053297
I'd say ego-masturbation is healthy as far as it will get a competent person into a position. When it overshadows their work, then it becomes a problem.

>>5053173

>The thing I'm worried about is that I might not have time to even start writing a major philosophical work by the time I am 23.

It's one of the least philosophical worry ever. Either you're interested in a set of problems and want to dive in and work on them, or you aren't. Wanting to have a major work by age 26 so that you become a part of the prestigious club of the philosophers who have written a major work by age 26 is a self-image concern that you should get rid of as a nuisance. As important as pride and ambition are in success (even, and mostly, in academicd success), you shouldn't let that kind of trivia bother you. Direct the focus of your pride on something more directly related to your philosophical interests.

>Or maybe I don't stand a chance because I have much more philosophers to review than did any of the greats?

That, and also most of the greats hadn't written shit by the age of 30 (Hume, Schopenhauer and I think Nietzsche are among the rare exceptions).

>But are there any tips you guys can give me to reach my goal of starting a philosophical work by the time I am age 23?

There's not point in starting a work when you've starting to work now. I'd say read, observe your surroundings, get interested in what makes our times what they are (a bit of economics and technoscience couldn't hurt, since those things are dominating these days) and think about what kind of problem you're most interested in. In a way you're already working on your major work, just not methodically and consciously enough.

Over time, you'll decide wether you actually have a point, or haven't but still want to study philosophy, or have, but are not driven or intelligent enough to make it, or haven't and don't want do to philosophy anymore.

>Am I being a bitch?

Yes, but that's nothing serious.

I'll conclude with this paraphrase of Bergson;

"A philosopher has only ever said one thing. He saw one single point, but so specific, so tiny, so hard to grasp and express, that he could only spiral around it and strive constantly to reach it, while only managing to get closer, in circles. That's why he has spoken so much."

>>5053173
The later you start, the better.

The most profound thing is to refrain altogether.

>>5053313
*when you've nothing to work on

>>5053313
I like this, I like this a lot. Thanks. And there has been one particular issue I have been thinking about for the longest time.

>also, I haven't started just now, I have been reading a lot of history before but just now started to get into philosophy.

>>5053200
>people like Kant and Hume had read like 2500 serious books

No need to overblow those things. What matters is not how many but what, and how, and how you meditate upon it, and how you write about it.

>>5053313
An analogy with Zeno's paradox also would have worked.

>>5053328
>also, I haven't started just now

Yeah, that was a big typo, see
>>5053328

sorry for the confusion.

>And there has been one particular issue I have been thinking about for the longest time.

which one ?

Goddamn. This board is filled with 19-year-olds who think they're going to be a great philosopher / writer / poet somewhere in the future.

OP, you should take up a tripcode.

>>5053336
Good point. You can wonder if a philosopher ever felt like he had definitely solved the problem he wanted to solve. Wittgenstein did, but he changed his mind later.

>>5053341
>implying he would share his "great thesis" on here

If he does, he and it are probably stupid.

>>5053348
The thesis ought to be comprised of more than just the idea.

>>5053341
Well, I think that all of the important philosophical issues can be united like identity, free will, ethics, aesthetics, mind and body, under one metaphysical system and I don't want to give too much away. It's still in my unconscious and I have not been able to put it into words, but I'm getting more and more conscious of it as I'm growing in philosophical maturity.

>>5053359
>identity, free will, ethics, aesthetics, mind and body, under one metaphysical system
Eliminative materialism is already here to stay unless you're going for some neo-Platonist angle which I seriously hope you won't.
Don't let me discourage you though. Follow your dreams because literally #yolo

>>5053359
>metaphysical system
trash

Now read Nietzsche

>>5053367
One of the things I have been thinking about is that there might be a qualia to qualia, but Idk. It might be retarded, it might not. I'm exploring it a bit.

>>5053369
Pic.
>>5053373
Infinite regress is also old news. See Harman's OOO. Or Metzinger on why there's most likely no qualia.

>>5053373
>Qualia of Qualia

Read The View from Nowhere

>>5053379
I was so mad when I read some of Bergson and Schopenhauer though. I swear to God this was where my idea was somewhat going, but now I think I have to develop it a lit away from it. It's sort of Spinoza-esque. I can send you a paper that I started writing if you are interested.

>>5053388
Please do.
giferepo@coldemail.info
Valid for two hours.

>>5053173
Honestly, i think you just shouldn't try so hard. Don't try to mechanically mimic what all the "greats" did. Don't try so hard to have something published at a certain age. Just relax and enjoy yourself. And don't expect to be the next Hume or whatever. Dreaming for that is great, but just don't be disappointed if it doesn't happen.

>>5053388
I'll take a look.

>>5053236
The first lines sound like self-help, except actually intelligent and interesting.

It also feels like reading my own ideas written by someone else.

>>5053394
>giferepo@coldemail.info
Ok, keep in mind that it is a paper on aesthetics, but I'm going to tie in to every other philosophical issue later on. This is a rough draft

Here's what you do: become Diogenes.

>>5053417
If you sent it as a file it didn't come through. Could you try again?

What OP is studying shouldn't be called philosophy, it should be called the "history of philosophy". In the sense that you have those that study to become artists, and those that study the "history of art".
OP, philosophy is an activity that you have to learn to do (not that I know how). It's not a matter of reading the so-called "greats" and then synthesizing their works (although there is a philosopher who did that - Hegel; he built his entire thought around synthesizing opposing cultures and philosophies). In other words, you would be better off reading The Republic and learning how Contemplate The Forms than in reading through 20 philosophers from different time periods. The former would make you a philosopher, the latter a historian.

>>5053348
If you read the OP closely, you'll find that there is no great thesis yet. If anything, opening up about the issue that interests him s mole likely to lead to discussions of it. It's probable that some propfessional philosopher is already working on something close to that specific problem anyway.

>>5053359
That sounds like the kind of systems we stopped building after Nietzsche. But it all depends on what you write. We don't stress often enough how much philosophy is about language creation. Your philosophy is just as strong as your writing.

>>5053173
fuck the spelling.
there are a few things off here. First of, that really not the way to go around it "I need to start writing a thesis by 23" your interest in philosophy should be driven by curiosity not ego. you will write something when you have something to say, whether thats at 23 or 38 or never is not a matter of planing your reading list.

Second, reading lists will not in any way guarantee that you will have something to write about, nor are they nessesery for writing. Kant famously hasnt read Hume's trieties before writing first critique. and I have known plenty of people who read shit tons and really should be writing.

Third off, reading something and studying it is rather different, read some contemporary critiques of the authors you mentioned to get a taste for how things are done in todays history of philosophy.

Finally in todays philosophy, these names are not as influential as you might think. One could get a PhD, publish and teach all without reading anything written before 20th century, Im not saying its good or wright, Im just saying today philosophy is a different field, your great thesis is likely to be about a concrete argument in a concrete subfield of a concrete field rather then a paradigmatic new school of thought. think "An Argument for Strong Supervenience" rather then "Beyond Good and evil".

So to sum up, wrong goal, invalid assumptions, flawed methodology, unlikely expectations. have fun, you are on the same trail as are tens of thousands soon to be ex philosophers.

>>5053448
that's true, which is why I was considering majoring in Linguistics as well.

>>5053451
Ok fine.

>>5053388
Oly shit, that sounds like a terrible paper, an it sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>5053435
>It's not a matter of reading the so-called "greats" and then synthesizing their works

>Le_provocative_zizek_face.TIFF

>>5053476
Ok why and why?

>>5053173
Jokes on you, all worthwhile ideas already exist.

>>5053485
They've been saying this since Rome.

follow ur dreams brah it'll pay off in the long run trust

>>5053477
How is that provocative? It wasn't until the modern age that people looked at philosophy as managing the thoughts of previous philosophers. In ancient Greece a man would have a thought, start his own school, and that was it - he was a philosopher. He didn't need to synthesize the philosophy of all past philosophers, he just had to THINK. And being a philosopher meant belonging to a certain school of thought and practicing thinking that way; not knowing everybody elses thoughts, having none of your own. Philosophy is a practice. A certain philosophy is a certain way of life. Reading up all the past philosophers is the philosophy of university professsors / scholars; it's the philosophy of intellectual hoarding.

>>5053485
Even though it's most likely that every single human being has thought since the invention of the wheel, sadly this.

OP don't bother. You would be a terrible philosopher. It's OK, most philosophers are terrible philosophers, and even many of the so-called great philosophers have done more harm than good.
I can tell you would be a terrible philosopher because you care more about being a great philosopher than being wise.

>>5053527
very true

>>5053527
Well, fuck you too.

>>5053485
The problem is that in a million people barely one is putting the worthwhile ideas to practice. And that's what being a philosopher is, thinking those worthwhile ideas, putting them to practice. Not having an idea and selling it to everybody as your work for literary fame; that's not being a philosopher, that's being an intellectual salesman.

>>5053490
Name some interesting philosophical innovations of the last decade.

OP, if you're being genuine, you should kill yourself because you're absolutely pathetic.

>>5053527
I second this.

philosoraptor ego:

>thinks he has to add his own "philosophical treatise" to world classics
>instead of realizing buddha was right and just detaching the fuck into nirvana

>>5053546
>thinking action and not the discovery of praxis is the duty of philosopher.

>>5053563
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-model_theory_of_subjectivity

The idea itself might be older but Metzinger didn't formulate it robustly enough until the turn of the century.

>>5053173
>read once
>'finished'

>>5053579
I know that you have to study and study everything. Don't worry, I will read most of these works many times over.

>look becky, he's a 19 year old philosopher!

>>5053540
Vanity is universal, everybody has it. I think one of the commonest boasts among philosophers, at least the old ones, is that they were free, or at least compared to the common man, of vanity; but that isn't always the case, especially in the modern era as philosophers tend to be just as vain as anybody else, but intellectually vain which is worse.
This is the thing I've noticed about human vanity - vanity is essentially ridiculous no matter what form it takes. For example, a vacuous girl that is vain about her looks is looked down upon as insipid, whereas a dilettante who has a read a-bit-of-this and a-bit-of-that and who can talk like a know-it-all manages to impress the unitiated, but really his vanity is just as ridiculous as the girl's, because vanity is vanity; everybody thinks their form of vanity is the prettiest, whether you imagine yourself to be the prettiest girl in town or the most profound thinker in the country or the bravest man alive, it's all vanity and the three are equally vain, even though they would look down upon one another for not sharing the same vanities.

>>5053563
Is there a major philosophical innovation every decade? Or is Wittgenstein, Kripke, Quine, Anscombe, Austin, et al in the last 60 years not good enough for you? Do we just halt philosophy if we miss a decade? Are we making popcorn, and when it stops popping for thirty seconds, take it out or it'll burn?

>>5053590

>>5053527
Haha, yeah man! You tell him, anon!
>wise

>>5053584
not trying to put you down or anything
but maybe you should reflect philosophically why you put this thread up and why you care about what we have to say about it

>>5053598
I just wanted some advice man.

>>5053593
This reads like Ligotti. Respect.

>>5053590
>implying those grills know what philosophy is
>implying they wouldn't be clamoring for his dick once they found out

>>5053601
ok man cool.
also want to say that I admire your ambition, for what it is worth

You know, we're mocking OP for wanting to be a philosopher as his identity but it's really not at all different from all the philosophers he admires. Nietzsche was a Schopenhauer fanboy and had to reject him to come into his own as he matured.

Even in the domain of religion, the great religious names of history all grew up idolizing other holy men. They wanted to be "that guy" before maturing into their own views and having anything worthwhile to share.

OP probably will complete some asperger's philosophy book, no one will read it, and it won't have any impact on the world, because all philosophy is bullshit unless it's Buddhism.

>>5053567>>5053527
on the second thought, OP we are grossly over reacting, one can be an asshole little bitch at 19 and still turn out to be a great human being, fuck it, just instead of compiling reading lists, test yourself, andmopst importantly look around you, the "meaning of life" will not be found in achievements(said every loser ever but still true). thats a crappy reason to live, more so if you are a philosopher. and for fucks sake don't feel like your identity or interests are being constrained by who you are now or what you said so far. just let it go.

>>5053605
Do grills clamor for your dick when they find out your name is edge god?

>>5053611
>all philosophy is bullshit unless it's Buddhism

>>5053527
cont.
but like I've said, many great philosophers were terrible philosophers who cared more about being famous than being wise; they were just shrewd enough to convince the masses that they were profound, and have gone down in history as such - but that is vanity.

This is how I view your attitude OP. You are looking through the history of philosophy as if it were a museum, and you are envious of the fame of these monuments of men and would like to have a monument of your own to be worshipped by posterity.
Many great artists suffered the same vanity of wanting to be noticed by posterity, MANY of them. But I think the true philosopher doesn't care about being recognized as a philosopher, because logically: why would a wise man care what unwise men thought of him? Why would a wise man care if a billion people all clap for him as the wisest man of his era, knowing that they clap without really understanding what they are doing and because it has become a vain custom to clap for heroes past? The same thing with the artist; I think the true artist only cares about beauty, and is totally oblivious to his own fame, because it's beauty that he worships, not himself. Similarly the philosopher worship wisdom, not himself.

>>5053614
lel

no no i keep this name under wraps, pretty god works pretty well though

>>5053626
I'm not looking for praise from the masses. I want some recognition from other academic philosophers. Just like any mathematician or scientist wants to be recognized in his respective field.

>>5053634
I bet.

>>5053626
Anon, you're dumb, stop. Let's not partake of that awful schaudenfreude.

>>5053173
hey op do you have skype i would like to talk to another philosopher and build out a little skype network someday maybe.

shut the fuck up

keep reading

practice writing

>>5053643
Yes sir.

>>5053637
>wanting praise from a committee of plebs dedicated to obfuscating the path to nirvana by pretending buddhism isn't the only truth

>>5053611
>Nietzsche was a Schopenhauer fanboy and had to reject him to come into his own as he matured.

>Even in the domain of religion, the great religious names of history all grew up idolizing other holy men. They wanted to be "that guy" before maturing into their own views and having anything worthwhile to share.

Absolutely, but remember that they didn't become great until they were humbled. Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy was an amateurish Hegel ripoff that only proved he was a bright student. He didn't become a decent writer until he had suffered a lot and had to think his way out of suffering. And I can guarantee that every holy men that is worth the name had to painfully grow past their vain desires to be holy. Every holy man you read always talks sincerely about how he is the greatest of sinners.

>>5053641
I like working alone sorry.
>>5053649
The path to truth is through myself. I am the Unique One.

>>5053648
don't give up hope but give up narcissism

>>5053652
>Every holy man you read always talks sincerely about how he is the greatest of sinners.

It's true, I have fapped over 9000 times.

>>5053634
thanks for the wake up call, i am far too old to be describing myself with silly and vapid names like that

>>5053656
>believes in himself still
>thinks he is beyond buddhism

chortlechortlechortle

>>5053656
are you serious

>>5053657
It's hard, it's always in the back of my mind. I will try though

>>5053639
I'm not trying to put OP down at all. I just am typing hastily so I don't have the time to compose myself to be sympathetic, so I'm being blunt/direct.

I'm not saying that OP can't be a great philosopher. I'm saying that the first step to his becoming a philosopher will be realizing how vain it is to want recognition/fame.

OP, you should care so much about wisdom that you would prefer to live totally unnoticed by the world and totally forgotten by mankind if only you could be wise. That is a much better start than not caring about wisdom as long as you can convince the majority of mankind that you are wise and clap for you for being so.

>>5053667
Ok fine, I guess some of the greats kept a correspondence with other greats too. Tell me your skype and I will add you

>>5053652
>He didn't become a decent writer until he had suffered a lot and had to think his way out of suffering.
Nietzsche contracted syphilis the first time he had sex. Its clear OP needs to contract aids through anal penetration to make it in modern times. Already being a faggot, he's well on his way.

>>5053669
avoid pretentiousness more than anything and read marx instead of schopenhauer

>>5053672
also, remember what I said earlier about all vanity being essentially the same? It makes no difference is posterity claps at you for being a great philosopher or claps at you for being the greatest reality tv star - because vanity is vanity.

>>5053675
no m8

you seem like a fucking pleb

do you even actually philosophise

>>5053672
Nobody cares, shitbrick.

>>5053687
lol

>>5053687
Ok, you're being a dick now. Yes I do. I eat and drink philosophy. I officially don't want to be part of your petty club

Everyone who's saying "give up narcissism" is retarded. The philosophers are a circus act, and I'm not saying that out of any disdain for the field, but matter-of-factly -- it's simply a symptom of the absurdity that is this existence. There is no "wise," but at best, self-righteousness.

>>5053695
i knew you were a pleb once you said 'i work alone'

you think you're better than socrates?

eat shit

>>5053709
> There is no "wise," but at best, self-righteousness.

do you know what wise means

>>5053681
>hurr durr vanity is pure evilllllll

arrogance and vanity on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive

if you want to do this right op, you're gonna have to vain it up eventually. in fact, it's inevitable. if you're handsome that is

>>5053594
>Are we making popcorn, and when it stops popping for thirty seconds, take it out or it'll burn?

I enjoyed this sentence

>>5053497
Philosophy has been about answering to other philosophers at least since Plato included. The schools of philosophy you're talking about were all explicitly following a philosophical tradition, and all school founders taught in reaction to older philosophers.

There's nothing wrong in reading previous philosophers. Particularly when you intend to write philosophy, because you have to know what has already been said.
> Philosophy is a practice

It's an inquiry, which means youcan want to review past hypothesis and evidences.

>>5053714
I'm not a tripfag who named myself after Nietzsche (babby's first philosopher), and in the gayest possible fashion.

Your name sounds like your spitting out a niggers cum

>>5053714
>do you know what wise means
I'm talking about it as some motivating force in man. Cleverness might very well be driven to be clever by narcissism.

>>5053727
lol #rekt

>>5053667
he's referencing Stirner, I think.

which is really stupid cus stirner was just some intellectual professor, hadnt meditated a day in his shitty life

>2014
>people still think they know more than the fucking buddha
these lols never stop

>>5053727
>babby's first philosopher

yes ok

i will give you 10 bux paypal if you can in short verse explain the meaning of eternal recurrence, from a Nietzschean perspective

>>5053739
I'm not doing shit for you, gtfo of my thread.

>>5053546
What if you think that practicing a worthwhile idea imply spreading it and making a convincing case for it ?

this thread is a great example of why philosophers generally prefer to go solo, I haven't known any of you for more than a few lines but i cant help but think that you are all morons, exept the guy who wrote
>Are we making popcorn, and when it stops popping for thirty seconds, take it out or it'll burn?

that is a cool phrase.

>>5053730
interesting questions you raise

would the wise not pursue wisdom? is that not a trait of wisdom? I don't think narcissism can do anything beyond engender the cleverness already present within one. and so it would be the cleverness acting, not the narcissism. narcissism is always detrimental, it is one half of a neruoses.

>>5053739
It was to bless man with immortality, and impose upon man morality, from a man who hated god for his ills.

>>5053747
There is no drive to intelligence for itself, that's nonsensical.

>>5053748
then what of the ubermenschen perspective. is it not directly at odds with to bless and impose? or do you mean these are two new aspects of the thing to transcend?

>>5053751
anger drives to anger. that is why it is difficult to relax, it engenders itself.

misery drives to misery.

laughter engenders laughter.

why would intelligence not drive to intelligence? are pursuing such endeavor not 'modes of being'?

>>5053752
The ubermensch were to instill heaven on earth -- again, from a man hating god.

>self-conscious 19 year old "philosopher" here

>>5053757
There are indeed modes of being, but all are to conquer, not simply be, and then they all start with mortality.

>>5053751
>>5053757

I assume he is talking about Humean theory of motivation "only pro attitudes motivate" anger, mystery, laughter are all pro attitudes, intelligence is an attribute.
In Kant's lingo:get your categories straight noob.

The ubermensch, too, tie in perfectly with eternal recurrence -- or, rather, eternal recurrence provides lame motivation towards achieving the ubermensch.

>>5053669
>>5053657
This,this and this OP

Pretentiousism is a germ , its strokes the ego into a blind obsession of itself creating a thick illusion . University grads and BA students have it a lot, you cen tell

>>5053739
To be and be again, as time, unrelenting,
Forwards-but no regret,you who will ever be
Swimming along, and flowing, for every single drop
Every turn of the tide and every little move
In that timestream that never stops
Will come back to itself unchanged
Eternally becoming what it once was

To love and will the stream, exactly as it is
As if it were to be infinitely again
In an eternal recurrence

>>5053777
Oh, the irony!

>>5053766
intelligence is an attribute, an attribute that delineates presence of mystery -- the function which in turn motivates you, which in turn delivers intelligence. intelligence acting for its own sake.

it is not a massive ontological reach to come to that conclusion

i was not aware hume had closed all thinking on this matter. are we not both saying the same thing

Solidly fucking dumb thread, guys. Good job.

>>5053778
4/10 but i smiled anyway

>>5053790
We can blame the tripfags for that. And OP, of course.

>>5053797
I just wanted some advice, excuse me if I came off as GIF related. Jesus Christ.

OP, reach for the stars bro. Just don't be a dumb cunt or I'll get mad.

>>5053819
thanks man. I will try not to be. I am worried that I am most of the time.

>>5053822
Hey, a lot of people like a dumb cunt, too. I know a little ginger kid who wants to be a philosopher so the boys will love him like all the greats, and he's fucking making it!
I will be mad as fuck though

>>5053435
this is A+ bait

>>5053746
no it isn't, it's clumsy as fuck

>>5053850
I'm serious m8. Modern philosopher courses are like a museum tour through history.
They need to do "vocational philosophy" courses where you spend 3 months on the street telling people how vain they are like Diogenes, and 3 months staring at young boys while contemplating The Forms.

Why be a philosopher? What have they contributed to anyone that hasn't been a philosopher? Can it be said honestly that so-and-so's philosophical work "changed their life"? What life is it to be changed by another person's? Its simply the confirmation of the will you already possess, and it feeds your ego to see it previously written of by a well-known person. Philosophers are charlatans, the most obscure of yes-men. The contributions they have made to other fields is admirable, but to the field of philosophy, there can be no meaningful contribution. The individual has a lust for thought until it consumes him, obscures him, deceives him. One shouldn't take their neuritic tendencies as a source of meaning. The human being is a conflicted entity and no logic, reasoning, or thought can ever occupy it for long, and with good reason: its simply a manifestation of your problem-solving capacities flexing themselves. No thinker has ever felt contentment or finality in their work. To imply this means there is always "progress" is to say there is an end in a circle. We have yet to progress from the most ancient of written comedies, tragedies, and ideas--we re-describe them and re-tool them but without ever going past them.

>>5053910
But why think when you can just be told?

>>5053572
This. There is enough noise as it is, OP.

>>5053593
Great post. Ever since I've started reading philosophy and thinking about things, I've kept a list of key ideas I've come across and at the top of the list it says "You still know nothing".

Guys I want to climb mount interest by age 16 for some vague reason but I've only ever climbed a sandcastle what should I do? I'm already 15 and my flight to nepal leaves in two weeks

tl;dr you die of hypothermia

>>5053637
>Just like any mathematician or scientist wants to be recognized in his respective field.

I think you're thinking about things wrong. To make a breakthrough in maths or any field, you need to focus and work like crazy. You need to really dedicate your life to the problem. If you attend University, 99% of students will be partying/taking doing homework the day before it's due etc. These people will probably not make that breakthrough. If you're the person to make the breakthrough, you need to identify a problem that captivates you, that won't let you go until you have solved it and then dedicate your life to solving it.

Maybe that's a bit over the top but I don't think you will put in the hard work to make a breakthrough just to make a breakthrough.

>>5054011
This is true and also incredibly prevalent among aspiring authors. The vast majority wants to 'be a writer' rather than wanting to write.

>>5053913
I agree. Subscribe to Transhumanism today!

>>5054011
It should be mentioned that you can't really choose to dedicate your life to something OP. Trying to become obsessed with something rather than letting it happen naturally is a pretty easy way to make sure you get tired of it in a week.

>>5054047
Is that still a thing? We need sexbots already.

>>5054011
What I have been doing right now is analogous to what a math student would be doing: learning the principles of math and going from there. This is what I have been doing, and all I have been doing. I don't have any real friends, I live at my mom's house and I've mostly been reading and philosophizing.

I don't want to make a breakthrough just for the sake of a breakthrough. I'm more worried that I'm not yet prepared to make a breakthrough and might never be. I already have something that captivates me, and I have been reading more and more philosophy for this reason.

>>5054085
serious question do you actually think anybody gives a fuck about what you have to say?

the joke is that this question was rhetorical

>>5054085
in all likelihood you won't ever be, no matter how hard you hope otherwise

>>5054085
You're on the right path with the first paragraph although you should still keep friends and time for other activities. Another key part of becoming a philosopher in my opinion is actually experiencing the world as apposed to just reading theory about it (think of siddhartha).

It's good that you have something that captivates you but the chase of it should be satisfying enough for you that whether you make a breakthrough or not shouldn't matter. I think you should think about this for a while, that is, why you're on this journey and what is important to you. And those things which are important to you, whether they are actually important to you. I understand your concern though.

>>5054085
There's nothing wrong with not making a breakthrough.

>>5054047
>Capitalism = not a thing!

>>5054117
>serious question
>the joke is that this question was rhetorical
What a retarded joke pleb.

>>5053200
It's unlikely that they would have had access to that many "serious" books at such an age.

>>5053343
>>5053343
that's why I stopped coming here

But every few weeks I duck in. And then I remember why this board is a load of pretentious shit

>>5053359
Okay, this post really seems indicative of the wrong sort of attitude, and I think a lot of it may stem from your lack of reading in modern/contemporary phil.

>all of the important philosophical issues can be united like identity, free will, ethics, aesthetics, mind and body, under one metaphysical system

As others have said, this sort of thinking has practically died out. Moreover, the hubris implicit here is astounding.

>I don't want to give too much away

Again, the hubris boggles the mind.

> I'm getting more and more conscious of it as I'm growing in philosophical maturity

Honestly, this feels more like "I'm a special snowflake" than "I am passionate about philosophical inquiry." It's all about your blossoming and your insights and others recognizing that you had these insights. I would caution you away from this sort of attitude, in life (and if you can't figure out why this sort of thing is bad in life in general, then you may need someone to talk to you in person about that), but also as an approach to today's version of philosophy.

Contemporary phil is very different from the things you've been reading and probably from how you've been envisioning it. The people you've read, while important, are not as directly impactful on modern thought as you might suspect. You listed "all of the important philosophical issues." Obviously you didn't intend to list ALL of them, but the list seems indicative of your type of thought on the matter. The concerns being grappled with today by philosophers might surprise you. You listed entire fields as if they were of the same type as individual problems or notions. You seem to envision these grand books of all-encompassing, systematized thought that will bring recognition to your name, but that's not really how philosophy is done in the twenty-first century.

Could a convincing argument be mounted for contemporary philosophy as wrong-headed? Of course. But you seem to be ignorant of it, rather than having turned against it out of deliberate disagreement with it. If you try to take up philosophy with this attitude and don't correct this ignorance, you will almost certainly accomplish nothing and will quite likely waste your time in pursuit of philosophical fame for a couple of years before abandoning the field in realization of the much more mundane nature of contemporary philosophy.

>>5053173
>19 year old
>'philosopher'

ITT: teenagers who think because they are teenagers that they are intelligent like world renowned philosophers

top kek

>>5053637
> Just like any mathematician or scientist wants to be recognized in his respective field
Do you need a list of counterexamples?

>>5053173
I don't know what to say OP but I believe in you.

There's countless of us on this board that are in their early 20's with a big backlog of philosophers read, op. But none of us are delusional enough to believe that we will be the next historical figure. What do you think you can do that hasn't been done?

>>5053173
just look at this pretentious fuck
i bet he didn't even start with the greeks

Don't listen to these butt clowns. Read some philosophy you greatly disagree with and focus on destroying it. In time, what's left behind will give you a clearer picture of what you think.

This is what philosophers do. Tear each other new buttholes and discover things along the way.

>>5056115
isn't it all wankery in the end. More so with this stuff?

Read something modern, everyone has responded to these works already.

>>5056106 here
pretty much this >>5056132

>>5056110
But not even the Greeks started with the Greeks.

>>5056141
>tfw you are more patrician than pre-socratics

>>5053200
lol get fucked

no one has read 2500 books before the age of 19

and if it was possible, they would have 0 life experience

>>5056157
>taking figures literally

>>5056162
why shouldnt i take it seriously?

>>5056157
>no one has read 2500 books before the age of 19
ahem

>>5056163
ask yrslf, why exactly 2500
is this some kind of standard or smth?

I can understand wanting to be a young creative writer/poet/actor/musician etc,

But a young philosopher? that just screams privileged white youth who should get a job

you need the life experience + the time to be able to read loads of books to write anything remotely worth reading

even the greatest philosophers - if they released something from a young age - it was always an incomplete mess they would come to regret or try to revise

dont try and write anything until you are at least 35

>>5056179
>privileged
Go back to tumblr.
>you need the life experience
Oh, like Kant? When you learn what philsophy is you will see how stupid your statement is.
>even the greatest philosophers - if they released something from a young age - it was always an incomplete mess they would come to regret or try to revise
Growth is a bad thing?

>>5053173
OP go out and get your heart broken a few times, drink till you're sick, read a lil more, PAY SOME FUCKING BILLS. then yeah, write a book

>>5056184
>Go back to tumblr.
>only tumblr uses the word privileged
what is this logic
>Oh, like Kant? When you learn what philsophy is you will see how stupid your statement is.
this makes no sense
>Growth is a bad thing?
no, but youthful vanity is

>I read a whole college textbook on an introduction to philosophy, Will Durant's Story of Philosophy
You didn't read Story of Philosophy itself? It's so good it will blow your dick off.

>>5056188
>>only tumblr uses the word privileged
The only place I've heard of using 'privileged' and 'white' as if they are negative attributes.
>this makes no sense
Do you know who Immanuel Kant was? Or are you confused that I stated you don't know what philosophy is? If you mean the latter, then it is because you are equating life experience to philosophcal study, when on of these is useless in philosophy.
>no, but youthful vanity is
Why, exactly?

OP you have already failed because it's clear you like the 'idea' of being a philosopher - you delusional nitwit

Whenever I see someone ask someone thing like - especially on 4chan, I just know they will amount to fuck all.

>>5056195
>The only place I've heard of using 'privileged' and 'white' as if they are negative attributes.
thats not my fault
>Do you know who Immanuel Kant was? Or are you confused that I stated you don't know what philosophy is? If you mean the latter, then it is because you are equating life experience to philosophcal study, when on of these is useless in philosophy.
this again makes no sense
>Why, exactly?
take a look at young philosophical works

>>5056223
>thats not my fault
It's you fault for using it. Why do you think those are bad things?
>this again makes no sense
You're an idiot.
>take a look at young philosophical works
Even if this were true, I can't see how that doesn't commit the genetic fallacy in stating that because it comes from a young person it is wrong.

>>5056241
>It's you fault for using it. Why do you think those are bad things?
because it implies 0 life experience
>You're an idiot.
because i cant understand your drivel?
>Even if this were true, I can't see how that doesn't commit the genetic fallacy in stating that because it comes from a young person it is wrong.
any philosophical work from a young person is inherently wrong, philosophy implies experience, and unless OP or anyone else has lived a Rimbaud-tier life that i would not read it

>>5056250
>because it implies 0 life experience
This is stupid. Is the 'life experience' of a poor African more valuable than a wealthy person? That is redundant when it comes to philosophy, which is about knowledge.
>because i cant understand your drivel?
Yes
>any philosophical work from a young person is inherently wrong
No.
>philosophy implies experience
No, it implies knowledge.

>>5056260
>This is stupid. Is the 'life experience' of a poor African more valuable than a wealthy person? That is redundant when it comes to philosophy, which is about knowledge.
what is more desirable to philosophy? a young wealthy person or an aged wealthy person? and the average 'privileged' young person - even the unprivileged have nothing to offer simply because their minds are not mature, they have not lived
i would take an old person with average intellect over an intelligent young person simply due to experience
>Yes
maybe take an english class
>No, it implies knowledge.
and where does knowledge come from?

>>5053173
>Am I being a bitch?
Yes.

>>5056276
>a young wealthy person or an aged wealthy person?
Age is irrelevant.
>they have not lived
i would take an old person with average intellect over an intelligent young person simply due to experience
So an older person, who has never studied anything is more valuable than someone who has studied and knows what they are talking about?
>and where does knowledge come from?
Studying and learning.

>>5056289
>Age is irrelevant.
only the young and delusional actually think this. age is the most important thing to an artist
>>5056289
>So an older person, who has never studied anything is more valuable than someone who has studied and knows what they are talking about?
yes, because there is more to life than reading books
>Studying and learning.
correct! but remember - not just in the academic sense!

im glad im teaching you something

>>5056297
>only the young and delusional actually think this. age is the most important thing to an artist
>artist
We're talking about philosophy, remember.
>yes, because there is more to life than reading books
Not to philosophy.
>not just in the academic sense!
philosophy is an academic discipline.

>>5056303
>We're talking about philosophy, remember.
yes, but are writers not artists?
>Not to philosophy.
good lord, you dont actually believe that do you?
>philosophy is an academic discipline.
so what?

your posts reek of a young person, much like OP - who has delusions of grandeur - you think you will be a whiz kid philosopher

im laughing as i type this

>>5056157
Anons here have -5 life experience without even reading a single book. So that's not an issue

>>5056314
>yes, but are writers not artists?
Writing is a means of expressing a point in philosophy. Calling it art, in this sense, would be like calling the road a destination. Philosophy is about answering questions, be it in logic, ethics or any other field.
>good lord, you dont actually believe that do you?
Are you confusing philosophy with Chinese quotations about life on a postcard?
>so what?
It depends on academics. Maybe 'wise' old people could cut it before Thales, but not now.
>you think you will be a whiz kid philosopher
I'm not trying to be a philosopher.

>>5053173
The most important thing about writing a philosophical treatise is understanding not necessarily what these people concluded, but /how/ they concluded it. The methodology they use, how to evidence points, and understanding the evolution of ideas. Then, you observe as much as you can about the world you currently operate in IN AN INFORMED WAY, understand the underlying mechanics, and then create a theory.

Then you should spend the next two years constantly testing that theory against competing theories.

It's perfectly feasible to write a philosophical treatise by 23 if you start at around 18.

>>5053173
>>Immanuel Kant though was like the Beethoven to Hume's Mozart. If that makes any sense.
>mentioning and comparing masters of the perhaps truest and most respected craft of all with charlatans contributing absolutely nothing to society
Really though, why don't you study music or painting instead? You "self-conscious", megalomaniac fuck.

>>5053173
Ignore all the advice given above.

Apply yourself to understanding Wittgenstein, especially his later works.

Continue until you understand the very idea of writing a 'major philosophical work' is a joke.

Kant was not totally wrong. Hume was totally wrong.

Start by going to college and major in philosophy

Get back a few graded essays and realize you have a long, long way to go

>>5056839

This

The philosophers you listed were one-in-a-billion geniuses. You're not a Saul Kripke. Nor am I for that matter. With that said, they still immersed themselves in the tradition, learned the rules of the game, and reflected constantly on the problems with which they were grappling. You need to do that same if you wish to make an original contribution in ANY intellectual discipline.

>College for philosophy
Kill yourself fucking shitstain.

>>5053637
>Just like any mathematician or scientist

Its a shame mathematical ability can't be faked

Become an Anthroposophist
problem saved

start here
http://steinerbooks.org/research/archive/intuitive_thinking/intuitive_thinking.pdf

Truth and Knowledge By Rudolf Steiner
(The Fundamentals of a Theory of Cognition with Special Reference to Fichte's Scientific Teaching )
http://sigbus.pvtridvs.net/pool/miscbooks/Rudolf_Steiner_-_Truth_and_Knowledge_v1.5.pdf

>>5057108
Don't listen to anyone whose primary knowledge of philosophy comes from recent postings on 4chan

There's some good posts in this thread giving op the realism they deserves. I've only read some Derrida and secondary sources on him and done some elementary logic courses but even I feel more to grips about what philosophy is than OP. and I'm only 18 XD

Analytic philosophy is probably your only salvation at this point OP. Read Greg Restall's introduction to logic or maybe Govier's book on argument beforehand, as well as a bunch of articles on Plato.edu to get a good survey on what people currently write in philosophy.

>>5055867
Fucking this

Not a lot of advice, but it was nonetheless good advice (I wanted just those nuggets). Some encouragement, mostly disparagement though. Just what I expected of /lit/.

>>5053173
Try posting a paper you've written on philosophy, then there might actually be some helpful advice.
Or a bunch of shitposting, I don't know /lit/ too well.

>>5057771
I did give a guy a paper I started writing on aesthetics. He said it was shit and didn't tell me why.

I'm going to mostly read first then when I'm older I'll write more. But most of these people are right. I'm not up to date with contemporary philosophy. I only got past the Greeks and I'm almost done with the moderns. I still have 19th century philosophers left, and then, I can finally start 20th century philosophy. I just like doing shit in order.

Do you actually have anything to say, or do you just want to impress people at parties by telling them you wrote a book?

>>5058335
Absolutely not. I want to make a contribution to the field.

>>5053359

Babbys first delusion of grandeur

>>5059238
>mfw OP will get real lifed one of these days

>>5059238
fuk u, fuk u, i du wat i want

The truth is OP, no one in this era will be have ever granduer as any philosopher during the modern era and before. The reasons why many were so well renowned was also because of how young science was. Philosophy was science without the microscopes and computers.

What I took from many philosophers (namely Hegel and Nietzsche) is that really, philosophy would die. Heidegger spoke on this in his memorial address a little bit, but they really aren't too far off with the power of modern science to answer outer-body personal questions. If you really want to have a level of renown as like Hume or Espinosa, then manage to push the field of philosophy out of the Postmodern era— which is essentially sophisticated poo poo.

>>5059399
>Postmodern era
what exactly encompasses the post modern era?

>>5059399
>If you really want to have a level of renown as like Hume or Espinosa

>Hume or Espinosa

>Espinosa

It sounds like OP is more interested in fame than actually learning anything about philosophy. The only way to contribute to a field is to notice a gap in existing knowledge, and then attempt to plug it with your own solution. The only way to identify these gaps is to have excellent knowledge of your field, and to have read everything you can on a topic. People don't just pluck brilliant concepts out of thin air; you have to be addressing something or some problem. From what you've said you're just rehashing other philosophers, without identifying WHY there is a need for what you do.

>>5053173

Just wanted to let you know that your thread put me in a shitty mood last evening. I can't even explain it. Something about being frustrated with people harboring idiotic aspirations for glory and fame and perfection that are statistically nearly impossible. Something about my own attempts to quell these sentiments in myself for many years now, trying to unlearn the outrageous aspirations of a teenage mind to save myself from needless gloom over dreams left lingering and unachieved. Something about my suspicion that 90% of young people actually think they're some kind of celebrity-to-be, and are only interested in their own narrative, day-dreaming about autobiographical depictions of the present and imagining every other person they meet to be nothing more than a minor character in their own story of achieving greatness.

>>5053173
>like the beathoven to hume's mozart
>stop thinking you're smart

saying things in a complicated way means you're stupid but think you're mind is on a level above everyone else's. You probably go around silently looking down at people, when everyone else looks at you thinking you're a dense, self-appreciating cunt. I'm not even going to dignify you with reading the rest of your crap. You probably have never even read Hume. I've spend hours studying (cramming) hume for classes and would never come close to allowing myself to say "I've read hume." You're the reason i hate academic culture, even worse, hate myself, bc I catch myself doing this.

see:
>>5053258

>>5060227
also, beethoven to hume's mozart?! that makes no sense. Kant critiqued hume. Mozart critiqued beethoven.

>>5060249
nevermind, you're just talking about the ages they started their works?! and you use that erroneous simile? Beethoven started publishing his works at 25, you fuck. God I really hope you're trolling, because you have truly pissed me off

>>5053334
so read 2500 serious books slowly, like they did, or shut up

>>5060249
>Mozart critiqued Beethoven
nah